Mattison, Ryan J.

Abstract Cytokine receptor–like factor 2 rearrangement (CRLF2r), an aberration causing a Philadelphia chromosome–like gene expression profile and a poor prognostic marker in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), endows relative chemotherapeutic resistance. Extramedullary disease (EMD), including both central nervous system (CNS) and non-CNS involvement, can also be associated with worse outcomes. The relationship between CRLF2r and EMD is unknown. Based on an initial observation of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CRLF2r B-ALL and EMD, a single-center retrospective review was conducted to evaluate the incidence of EMD in patients with CRLF2r B-ALL. Across 177 children, adolescents, and young adults with R/R B-ALL, 21 (11.9%) harbored CRLF2r, of whom 19 (90.5%) had EMD at some point during their treatment course. In contrast, only 78 of the 156 patients (50%) without CRLF2r ever had EMD (P = .0003). In the CRLF2r cohort, 8 (38.1%) presented with EMD at diagnosis: 7 with CNS and 1 with non-CNS EMD. At relapse, 17 (80.9%) had EMD: 4 (19%) had CNS EMD, 9 (42.9%) had non-CNS EMD, and 4 (19%) had both. Isolated EMD was observed in 2 patients (11.8%) at first relapse and in 3 (17.6%) with multiple relapses. Given these findings, further study to evaluate this potential association between EMD and CRLF2r in R/R B-ALL is indicated.

Abstract Introduction:A comprehensive integration of significantly mutated genes and pathways with molecular subgroups is lacking in adult B-ALL. Furthermore, the genomic drivers underlying each subgroup remain to be identified.We aimed to perform genomic analysis on a large cohort of patients with adult B-ALL, and to correlate genomic markers with achievement of MRD negativity enabling blinatumomab randomization, and with subsequent response to blinatumomab. Methods:For genomic analysis, we studied 569 adults with newly diagnosed B-ALL registered for initial screening on the ECOG-ACRIN-led E1910 trial (NCT02003222), which evaluated the addition of blinatumomab to standard consolidation chemotherapy. The median age was 52 yrs (range 30 to 71 yrs), with 52% males. Analysis was performed on tumor and matched-normal samples using whole transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq; tumor only; n=569), whole exome sequencing (n=490), whole genome sequencing (n=131), and single nucleotide polymorphism array (n=445). B-ALL cases were classified into 22 molecular groups. Outcome analysis was limited to patients enrolled and treated on E1910 (n=319). Results: Driver genes (n=268) were identified by the mutation-significance detection tool dNdScv or by the presence of pathogenic variants in known cancer genes, with NUP188 identified as a novel driver gene. Recurrently mutated pathways included: B-cell development (46%), cell cycle (44%), epigenetic regulation (30%), other transcriptional regulation (27%), Ras signaling (25%), RNA machinery (17%) and JAK-STAT signaling (8%). A high frequency of high-risk subtypes was observed including BCR::ABL1 (20%), BCR::ABL1-like (18%), low hypodiploid (14%) and KMT2A (12%). Using tSNE analysis, we identified a new cluster of cases (n=20, 3.5%) lacking a known subgroup driver, with overexpression of CEBPA (n=13) or CEBPB (n=7), distinct from CEBPE/ZEB2, termed “CEBP-altered” ALL (CEBPalt). Five of 13 cases with high CEBPA expression harbored an IGH::CEBPA rearrangement and one harbored a RXRA::CEBPA enhancer hijacking alteration. Of the 7 cases with high CEBPB expression, 5 harbored IGH::CEBPB, and two of these had concomitant clonal BCR::ABL1 fusions. To identify additional mechanisms of CEBP deregulation, in situ Hi-C coupled to H3K27 acetylation immunoprecipitation (HiChIP) was performed on 5 cases. Four cases showed evidence of de novo CEBPA enhancer activity. In two cases, we identified novel insertions (12 and 34nt) ~2kb downstream of CEBPA. A novel translocation and enhancer hijacking event between LINC00426 and the 5' UTR of CEBPB was identified in the remaining case. Overall, we confirmed genomic alterations of CEBPA or CEBPB in 16 of 20 cases with available material. Thus, we have identified a new molecular subgroup of adult B-ALL characterized by genomic alterations that drive enhancer hijacking and oncogenic deregulation of CEBPA/CEBPB. Several subgroups were enriched in patients that failed induction chemotherapy (n=62) or were MRD-positive (n=63) compared to those that achieved MRD-negative status (n=194): BCR::ABL1-like (30 vs 14%, p<0.001), KMT2A (18 vs 9%, p=0.03) and BCL2/MYC (5 vs 1%, p=0.06). Conversely, the following subgroups were enriched in patients that achieved MRD-negativity: PAX5alt (6 vs 18%, p=0.002), TCF3::PBX1 (0 vs 5%, p=0.01) and ZNF384 (2 vs 6%, p=0.08) Within each molecular subgroup we compared the survival of patients who achieved MRD-negative status after induction and were randomized to receive blinatumomab plus chemotherapy (n=93) or chemotherapy only (n=91). Although numbers were low, blinatumomab improved relapse-free survival for patients with hyperdiploid, PAX5alt, BCR::ABL1-like and KMT2A ALL compared to chemotherapy alone. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP)-related gene mutations were identified in 121 of 417 cases analyzed (29% total: somatic 74%, remission 31%, both 5%). TP53 mutations were most frequent (n=65 patients), with the majority identified in patients with low hypodiploid (n=52). Interestingly, patients with CRLF2 rearrangements collectively harbored the highest number of other CHIP gene mutations (n=13), including DNMT3A (n=4), TET2 (n=3) and ASXL1 (n=3). Conclusions:We provide a comprehensive landscape of genomic alterations in adult B-ALL and identify a new group characterized by deregulation of CEBPA/CEBPB (CEBPalt). We also provide insights into the efficacy of blinatumomab in different molecular subgroups of adult B-ALL.

Abstract Background: The addition of the CD19/CD3 bispecific T-cell engager, blinatumomab, to standard consolidation chemotherapy in adults with ALL who achieved a measurable residual disease negative (MRDneg) remission (CR), demonstrated an improvement in 3-year overall survival (OS, 85% vs 68%, HR 0.41, P=0.002) and 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS, 80% vs 64%, HR 0.53) compared to conventional chemotherapy in the ECOG-ACRIN E1910 study (Litzow et al, NEJM 2024). Given the complex therapy in this study, treatment delays and modifications are expected. We herein explored the impact of such delays on patient outcomes. Methods: In the phase 3 ECOG-ACRIN E1910 trial (NCT02003222), adults aged 30-70 years with newly diagnosedALL who had achieved MRDneg CR following induction and intensification were randomized to consolidation chemotherapy with blinatumomab (blina arm) or chemotherapy alone (chemo arm). We examined the association between the timing of the initiation of maintenance therapy and OS and RFS. The expected duration of consolidation was 252 days vs 126 days for patients on the blina and chemo arms, respectively. For this analysis, participants were classified into two groups (no/short delay or long delay) depending on whether they started on time/before or after the median time between the beginning of consolidation and start of maintenance therapy for their treatment group (medians: 335 days, range, 181-457 days vs 176 days, range, 139-265 days for blina and chemo arms, respectively). Multivariate analyses of OS and RFS were performed to examine the effect of no/short delay vs. long delay in starting maintenance. Patients were stratified according to their assigned consolidation treatment arm, and the models were further adjusted for age, sex, white blood cell count, platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, bone marrow blasts, performance status and genetic-genomic risk at diagnosis. Results: Of the 488 patients enrolled, 224 MRDneg patients were randomized to consolidation chemotherapy with or without blinatumomab and 135 of the 224 went on to maintenance therapy on study (N= 66 on blina arm and 69 on chemo arm, respectively). The median follow-up from the time of maintenance registration was 43.4 months. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients in either arm who experienced no/short delay or long delay. In the blina group, 60 of 66 patients (90.9%) received all 8 cycles of consolidation therapy of which 31 (45.6%) had long delays. Sixty-eight of 69 patients on the chemo arm (98.5%) received all cycles of consolidation therapy, of which 34 (50%) had a long delay. Strikingly, patients who had a long delay before initiation of maintenance had a significant improvement in OS in multivariate analysis compared to patients who had no/short delay (HR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11-0.91; P =0.03). However, within each treatment group, OS benefit did not reach statistical significance (blina arm: HR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.001-1.64; P =0.09; chemo arm: HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.08-1.38; P =0.13). Similar results were observed for RFS in multivariate analysis (HR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.16-1.01; P =0.05), though this impact on improved RFS was noted in the chemo arm but not in blinatumomab treated patients (blina arm: HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.10-3.24; P =0.52; chemo arm: HR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04-0.83; P=0.03). Additionally, patients who had no/short delay before starting maintenance experienced a longer median duration of maintenance treatment (blina arm, 548 days; chemo arm, 708 days) compared to patients who had a long delay (blina arm 488 days; chemo arm 598 days) before initiation of maintenance (P=0.0008). Conclusion: In the phase 3 randomized ECOG-ACRIN E1910 clinical trial, long delays between initiation of consolidation therapy and start of maintenance therapy were associated with improved OS compared to no/short delays. However, within each treatment group (blina or chemo), no significant difference of OS was observed. We postulate that these longer delays allowed more patients to receive all of the recommended protocol-assigned therapy thereby resulting in improved survival. Furthermore, patients who had no/short delays had a significantly longer duration of maintenance therapy. These data indicate that treatment delays during consolidation do not worsen survival. Further studies are being done to better understand why patients with long delays had better overall survival.

Introduction E1910 randomized pts with ALL aged 30-70 years who were measurable residual disease negative (MRD-) by multi-color flow cytometry (FC) after intensification to conventional chemotherapy (chemo) with or without blinatumomab (blina). The addition of blina resulted in improved overall survival (OS) (Litzow, NEJM 2024) and led to a new standard of care. Older ALL pts have inferior outcomes when compared to younger pts in part due to increased treatment toxicity. In E1910, exposure to dexamethasone and pegasparagase was reduced for older pts (age >55 years). We present results of subgroup analyses describing outcomes of older pts enrolled in E1910. Methods Details of the E1910 protocol remission induction (step 1), high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase intensification (step 2), blina randomization (step 3), and maintenance (step 4) or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) were previously presented (Litzow, NEJM 2024). MRD status was determined after step 2 centrally with 6-color FC with MRD- defined as <0.01% in the bone marrow (BM). Following approval of blina in the US for MRD positive (MRD+) disease in 2018, MRD+ pts were assigned to the blina arm and no longer randomized. The primary objective was to compare the OS and relapse free survival (RFS) among older pts aged >55 years (pre-specified stratification factor) who received chemo + blina to that of pts who received chemo alone (step 3 treatment). Estimates of OS and RFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS and RFS between treatment arms was conducted using the two-sided stratified log-rank test and Cox model with CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intended to receive HCT or not as stratification factors. Stratified Multivariate Cox models of OS and RFS were used to further evaluate the effect of step 3 treatment, adjusted by gender, white blood cell count (WBC), platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, BM blasts, performance status and combined molecular risk category. Results Among the 488 enrolled pts, 211 were ≥55 years old with median age of 61 (range 55-70). Among older pts, 49.3% were female and 83.4% were white, 17 (8.1%) pts had WBC >30.000/uL at the time of diagnosis. 156 (73.9%) pts had CD10+ early B-ALL and 46 (21.8%) had CD10- B-ALL immunophenotype. The most common genetic subgroups were low hypodiploid (n=58, 27.5%), BCR::ABL1-like (n=34, 16.1%) and KMT2A rearranged (n=26, 12.3%). 8.1% of pts had low, 9.0% intermediate, 63.5% high combined molecular risk disease and in 19.4% of pts risk could not be assigned. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different in chemo + blina and chemo only pts. The median follow-up for this analysis from step 1 registration was 54.6 months. Complete response with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery after induction was observed in 174 (82.5%) pts (167 CR, 7 CRi). 93 (44%) pts were MRD-. 32 (15.1%) pts received HCT on study and 24 (11.4%) pts received it off study. Among MRD- pts (n=93), 46 were randomized to and 45 received blina: 6 (13.3%) pts had 1, 14 (31.1%) had 2, 2 (4.4%) had 3 and 23 (51.1%) had 4 cycles. 3-year OS were 71% and 67% for the blina and the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50; multivariate model: HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.25-1.27). 3-year RFS were 69% and 59% for the blina and the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.39-1.45; multivariate model: HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.32-1.42). Among MRD+ pts (n=25), 14 were randomized to and 11 received blina: 7 (63.6%) pts had 2, and 4 (36.4%) had 4 cycles. 3-year OS were 66% and 44% for the blina vs the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.12-3.64). 3-year RFS were 64% and 31% for the blina vs the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.15-2.74). Frequency of treatment-related toxicities among older pts during different study phases and treatment assignments will be presented. Conclusion Despite evidence of improved outcomes in the whole study cohort, the addition of blina to consolidation chemo for older pts with ALL was not associated with statistically significant improvement of OS or RFS in this exploratory analysis not powered to detect the difference in subgroups. This is possibly due to sample size but may be due to biologic differences in the older adult population. Further studies are needed to definitively determine tolerance and benefit of blina addition to consolidation for older pts with ALL.

Introduction: Based on a donor versus no-donor analysis, UKALLXII/E2993 showed a survival benefit for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in first complete remission (CR1) compared to consolidation/maintenance chemotherapy alone. The follow-up phase 3 E1910 trial (NCT02003222) randomized BCR::ABL1-negative B-lineage ALL patients (pts) aged 30-70 years in measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative CR1 after intensification to conventional chemotherapy (CC) +/- blinatumomab (blin) and demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) with blin (Litzow, NEJM 2024). The current exploratory subgroup analysis evaluates outcomes of MRD-negative pts randomized on E1910 who underwent alloHCT on trial. Methods: Among pts enrolled on E1910, pts in MRD-negative CR1 by 6-color flow cytometry after intensification who were randomized to CC +/- blin and subsequently underwent alloHCT were identified. We compared baseline characteristics, MRD status post induction, relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS using the Kaplan-Meier method and the two-sided log-rank test and Cox model. A multivariable analysis was performed with alloHCT included as a time-varying covariate as well as a landmark analysis comparing the outcome of pts with unfavorable risk on the CC + blin arm who underwent alloHCT versus those who did not. Results: Of 224 MRD-negative randomized pts, 44 underwent alloHCT on trial: 22 in each arm. The median time from randomization to transplant was 3.2 months (mos). The median follow-up from initial registration was 57.8 mos. Baseline demographics including age (median 55 years), gender (53% male), race (89% white) and ethnicity (89% non-Hispanic/Latino) were equally distributed. Compared to CC + blin, the median peripheral blood white cell (WBC) count and blast percentage at diagnosis were higher in the CC arm at 6,640 vs 3,740/uL and 55 vs 9%, respectively, while median marrow blast percentage and overall unfavorable risk as defined in E1910 (55% vs 64%) were similar. Of the 44 MRD-negative pts who proceeded to alloHCT on study, 77% in the CC arm and 64% in the CC+ blin arm were MRD-negative after induction. Myeloablative conditioning was given to the majority of pts (68% CC arm and 73% CC+blin arm) and the most common graft versus host disease prophylaxis was tacrolimus-based on both arms. Among the 44 pts who underwent alloHCT, the observed hazard ratio (HR) comparing relative risk of death between pts randomized to CC+blin or CC only was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.12-2.11) with a 3-year OS rate of 82% versus 71% and the HR comparing relative risk of relapse/death was 0.52 (CI: 0.15-1.79) with a 3-year RFS rate of 82% versus 67%. For patients with unfavorable risk, 3-year OS and 3-year RFS in each treatment arm were both 71% versus 65%. Among 50 pts with unfavorable risk in MRD-negative CR after intensification who were randomized to CC + blin, a landmark analysis performed at 5 mos post randomization showed 3-year OS and RFS rates of 71% versus 90% and 71% versus 86% between the 14 pts who underwent alloHCT and those who did not, respectively. Receipt of alloHCT was a time-varying covariate in a multivariable analysis with gender, WBC count, platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, bone marrow blasts, performance status, and combined molecular risk category. Age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and intention to receive alloHCT were used as stratification factors. In the entire cohort of MRD-negative pts who were randomized, there was a significant association between improved OS and the receipt of CC+blin vs CC alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26 - 0.82; p=0.009), better performance status of 0-1 vs ≥2 and favorable vs unfavorable risk ALL. In contrast, the receipt of alloHCT had no significant effect on OS (HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.49 - 2.01). Conclusions: Within the constraints of small numbers, this exploratory subgroup analysis demonstrates that in pts with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1-negative B-ALL treated on E1910 who achieved MRD-negativity after intensification, alloHCT outcomes did not appear to be different with or without blin in consolidation. In a multivariate analysis of all MRD-negative pts, receipt of blin but not alloHCT was associated with improved OS. Further investigation is warranted to characterize the relative benefit of blinatumomab in pts receiving alloHCT in frontline consolidation.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) provide recommendations for management of ALL, with a 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. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for ALL focuses on treatment recommendations for adults with newly diagnosed Ph-negative ALL based on current evidence.

Introduction: ECOG ACRIN E1910 is a randomized phase III trial that showed that adults with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who become MRD negative (<0.01%) after induction chemo who receive blinatumomab with conventional chemotherapy (chemo) have improved survival compared with those who received chemo only (Litzow et al, Blood (2022) 140: Supplement 2, LBA-1). However, not all pts were able to receive all four planned cycles of blinatumomab in consolidation. In this report we assessed outcomes of pts in the blinatumomab arm of the trial who received all 4 cycles of blinatumomab compared to those who received 1-2 cycles. Methods: Patient between the ages of 30 and 70 with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL were enrolled and initially received 2.5 months of combination induction chemo utilizing a BFM-like regimen adapted from the E2993/UKALLXII clinical trial, with pegaspargase (after induction only for patients >=55 years of age) and addition of rituximab for CD20 positive patients. After remission induction (step 1) pts in morphologic complete remission (CR/CRi) received an intensification course of high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase for CNS prophylaxis (step 2). At the conclusion of step 2, remission and MRD status were determined centrally by 6-color flow cytometry with MRD negativity defined as <0.01%. In the primary analysis subset, MRD negative patients were randomized to receive an additional 4cycles of consolidation chemo or 2 cycles of blinatumomab at 28 mcg/day (flat dose) for 28 days each cycle followed by 3 cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (3rd cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a 4th cycle of blinatumomab (step 3). Following completion of consolidation chemo +/- blinatumomab, pts were given 2.5 years of POMP maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4). Estimates of OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS between treatment arms were conducted using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model with age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intend to receive HSCT or not as stratification factors. As the number of cycles needed to optimize outcome has not been studied, an unplanned landmark analysis was used to compare OS of pts in the blinatumomab arm who received all 4 cycles o those who received 1-2 cycles. Time 0 was chosen as 9 months post step 3 randomization (the time that patients were supposed to complete 4 cycles of blina). Four pts who received blinatumomab but died within 9 months post step 3 randomization were therefore excluded from this analysis. Results: The study was activated on December 17, 2013 and closed to enrollment on October 15, 2019. 772 pts were screened for the trial and 488 were enrolled on step 1 induction therapy. The median age of the pts was 51 years (range 30-70). 224 MRD negative pts were randomized, 112 pts to each arm. In the blinatumomab arm 12 pts received 1 cycle (11%), 32 pts received 2 cycles (29%), 4 pts received 3 cycles (4%) and 63 pts received 4 cycles (57%). The OS of pts who received 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab was compared to control (Figure 1) The difference was not significant (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.34, p=0.22). Fig 2 compares the survival of those who received 1-2 cycles to those who received 4 cycles ( (HR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.16, p=0.076). Conclusion: The addition of blinatumomab to consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a significantly better overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in pts with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL who were MRD negative after intensification. This represents a new standard of care for pts aged 30-70 years with BCR::ABL1 negative ALL. The optimal dose and number of cycles is however unknown. In this unplanned subgroup analysis we demonstrate that a survival benefit can only be confirmed in patients who receive the intended 4 cycles of blinatumomab during consolidation. Further studies will be needed to determine if fewer cycles can provide a similar benefit.