Schechter, Tal

ABSTRACT Approximately 30% of patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) develop steroid-refractory disease and have very poor outcomes. Ruxolitinib has become the standard of care for steroid-refractory acute GVHD, but it is unclear which patients derive benefit. The MAGIC Composite Score (MCS), an algorithm that combines clinical symptoms and biomarkers, has been validated to predict outcomes at the start of primary GVHD treatment. Here, we evaluated its performance at the initiation of second-line treatment in 278 patients. MCS stratified patients into three risk groups (MCS1-3), with the majority (88%) classified as intermediate or high risk. Increasing MCS score was associated with progressively higher 1-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) rates (16%, 41%, and 73%; p<0.001), lower 1-year survival (77%, 56%, and 24%; p<0.001), and lower complete response (CR) rates at day 28 (47%, 38%, and 20%, respectively; p<0.01). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for 1-year NRM was significantly higher with MCS compared to clinical symptoms alone (0.70 vs. 0.63; p=0.023). Among patients treated with ruxolitinib, higher MCS similarly predicted higher NRM and lower survival and CR rates. Patients classified as MCS2/3 had poor outcomes despite ruxolitinib, underscoring the need for novel therapies in this patient population. In conclusion the MCS is an accurate predictor of outcomes for patients who require second-line treatment and may be of use as an eligibility criterion for future clinical trials in this high-risk population. Key Points MAGIC Composite Scores that integrate clinical symptoms and biomarker scores predict outcomes of second-line therapy for acute GVHD more accurately than clinical symptoms alone. MCS identifies patients with high NRM despite treatment with ruxolitinib.

Abstract Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grading systems that use only clinical symptoms at treatment initiation such as the Minnesota risk identify standard and high-risk categories but lack a low-risk category suitable to minimize immunosuppressive strategies. We developed a new grading system that includes a low-risk stratum based on clinical symptoms alone and determined whether the incorporation of biomarkers would improve the model’s prognostic accuracy. We randomly divided 1863 patients in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) who were treated for GVHD into training and validation cohorts. Patients in the training cohort were divided into 14 groups based on similarity of clinical symptoms and similar nonrelapse mortality (NRM); we used a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm to create three Manhattan risk groups that produced a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 6-month NRM than the Minnesota risk classification (0.69 vs 0.64, P = .009) in the validation cohort. We integrated serum GVHD biomarker scores with Manhattan risk using patients with available serum samples and again used a CART algorithm to establish 3 MAGIC composite scores that significantly improved prediction of NRM compared to Manhattan risk (AUC, 0.76 vs 0.70, P = .010). Each increase in MAGIC composite score also corresponded to a significant decrease in day 28 treatment response (80% vs 63% vs 30%, P &lt; .001). We conclude that the MAGIC composite score more accurately predicts response to therapy and long-term outcomes than systems based on clinical symptoms alone and may help guide clinical decisions and trial design.

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a major cause of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Algorithms containing either the gastrointestinal (GI) GVHD biomarker amphiregulin (AREG) or a combination of 2 GI GVHD biomarkers (suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 [ST2] + regenerating family member 3 alpha [REG3α]) when measured at GVHD diagnosis are validated predictors of NRM risk but have never been assessed in the same patients using identical statistical methods. We measured the serum concentrations of ST2, REG3α, and AREG by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at the time of GVHD diagnosis in 715 patients divided by the date of transplantation into training (2004-2015) and validation (2015-2017) cohorts. The training cohort (n = 341) was used to develop algorithms for predicting the probability of 12-month NRM that contained all possible combinations of 1 to 3 biomarkers and a threshold corresponding to the concordance probability was used to stratify patients for the risk of NRM. Algorithms were compared with each other based on several metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, proportion of patients correctly classified, sensitivity, and specificity using only the validation cohort (n = 374). All algorithms were strong discriminators of 12-month NRM, whether or not patients were systemically treated (n = 321). An algorithm containing only ST2 + REG3α had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (0.757), correctly classified the most patients (75%), and more accurately risk-stratified those who developed Minnesota standard-risk GVHD and for patients who received posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based prophylaxis. An algorithm containing only AREG more accurately risk-stratified patients with Minnesota high-risk GVHD. Combining ST2, REG3α, and AREG into a single algorithm did not improve performance.

Abstract Defining prognostic variables in T-lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LL) remains a challenge. AALL1231 was a Children’s Oncology Group phase 3 clinical trial for newly diagnosed patients with T acute lymphoblastic leukemia or T-LL, randomizing children and young adults to a modified augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster backbone to receive standard therapy (arm A) or with addition of bortezomib (arm B). Optional bone marrow samples to assess minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of induction (EOI) were collected in T-LL analyzed to assess the correlation of MRD at the EOI to event-free survival (EFS). Eighty-six (41%) of the 209 patients with T-LL accrued to this trial submitted samples for MRD assessment. Patients with MRD &lt;0.1% (n = 75) at EOI had a superior 4-year EFS vs those with MRD ≥0.1% (n = 11) (89.0% ± 4.4% vs 63.6% ± 17.2%; P = .025). Overall survival did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. Cox regression for EFS using arm A as a reference demonstrated that MRD EOI ≥0.1% was associated with a greater risk of inferior outcome (hazard ratio, 3.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-12.40; P = .032), which was independent of treatment arm assignment. Consideration to incorporate MRD at EOI into future trials will help establish its value in defining risk groups. CT# NCT02112916.

Abstract Late acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is defined as de novo acute GVHD presenting beyond 100 days after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) without manifestations of chronic GVHD. Data are limited regarding its characteristics, clinical course, and risk factors because of underrecognition and changes in classification. We evaluated 3542 consecutive adult recipients of first HCTs at 24 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between January 2014 and August 2021 to better describe the clinical evolution and outcomes of late acute GVHD. The cumulative incidence of classic acute GVHD that required systemic treatment was 35.2%, and an additional 5.7% of patients required treatment for late acute GVHD. At the onset of symptoms, late acute GVHD was more severe than classic acute GVHD based on both clinical and MAGIC algorithm probability biomarker parameters and showed a lower overall response rate on day 28. Both clinical and biomarker grading at the time of treatment stratified the risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in patients with classic and late acute GVHD, respectively, but long-term NRM and overall survival did not differ between patients with classic and late acute GVHD. Advanced age, female-to-male sex mismatch, and the use of reduced intensity conditioning were associated with the development of late acute GVHD, whereas the use of posttransplant cyclophosphamide–based GVHD prevention was protective mainly because of shifts in GVHD timing. Because overall outcomes were comparable, our findings, although not definitive, suggest that similar treatment strategies, including eligibility for clinical trials, based solely on clinical presentation at onset are appropriate.

Abstract We used a rigorous PRoBE (prospective-specimen collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation) study design to compare the ability of biomarkers of systemic inflammation and biomarkers of gastrointestinal (GI) tissue damage to predict response to corticosteroid treatment, the incidence of clinically severe disease, 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and overall survival in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We prospectively collected serum samples of newly diagnosed GVHD patients (n = 730) from 19 centers, divided them into training (n = 352) and validation (n = 378) cohorts, and measured TNFR1, TIM3, IL6, ST2, and REG3α via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Performances of the 4 strongest algorithms from the training cohort (TNFR1 + TIM3, TNFR1 + ST2, TNFR1 + REG3α, and ST2 + REG3α) were evaluated in the validation cohort. The algorithm that included only biomarkers of systemic inflammation (TNFR1 + TIM3) had a significantly smaller area under the curve (AUC; 0.57) than the AUCs of algorithms that contained ≥1 GI damage biomarker (TNFR1 + ST2, 0.70; TNFR1 + REG3α, 0.73; ST2 + REG3α, 0.79; all P &lt; .001). All 4 algorithms were able to predict short-term outcomes such as response to systemic corticosteroids and severe GVHD, but the inclusion of a GI damage biomarker was needed to predict long-term outcomes such as 6-month NRM and survival. The algorithm that included 2 GI damage biomarkers was the most accurate of the 4 algorithms for all endpoints.

PURPOSE To improve the outcomes of patients with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) and lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LL), the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was examined in the Children's Oncology Group phase III clinical trial AALL1231, which also attempted to reduce the use of prophylactic cranial radiation (CRT) in newly diagnosed T-ALL. PATIENTS AND METHODS Children and young adults with T-ALL/T-LL were randomly assigned to a modified augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster chemotherapy regimen with/without bortezomib during induction and delayed intensification. Multiple modifications were made to the augmented Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster backbone used in the predecessor trial, AALL0434, including using dexamethasone instead of prednisone and adding two extra doses of pegaspargase in an attempt to eliminate CRT in most patients. RESULTS AALL1231 accrued 824 eligible and evaluable patients from 2014 to 2017. The 4-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) for arm A (no bortezomib) versus arm B (bortezomib) were 80.1% ± 2.3% versus 83.8% ± 2.1% (EFS, P = .131) and 85.7% ± 2.0% versus 88.3% ± 1.8% (OS, P = .085). Patients with T-LL had improved EFS and OS with bortezomib: 4-year EFS (76.5% ± 5.1% v 86.4% ± 4.0%; P = .041); and 4-year OS (78.3% ± 4.9% v 89.5% ± 3.6%; P = .009). No excess toxicity was seen with bortezomib. In AALL0434, 90.8% of patients with T-ALL received CRT. In AALL1231, 9.5% of patients were scheduled to receive CRT. Evaluation of comparable AALL0434 patients who received CRT and AALL1231 patients who did not receive CRT demonstrated no statistical differences in EFS ( P = .412) and OS ( P = .600). CONCLUSION Patients with T-LL had significantly improved EFS and OS with bortezomib on the AALL1231 backbone. Systemic therapy intensification allowed elimination of CRT in more than 90% of patients with T-ALL without excess relapse.

PURPOSE SJMB03 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00085202 ) was a phase III risk-adapted trial that aimed to determine the frequency and clinical significance of biological variants and genetic alterations in medulloblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients 3-21 years old were stratified into average-risk and high-risk treatment groups based on metastatic status and extent of resection. Medulloblastomas were molecularly classified into subgroups (Wingless [WNT], Sonic Hedgehog [SHH], group 3, and group 4) and subtypes based on DNA methylation profiles and overlaid with gene mutations from next-generation sequencing. Coprimary study end points were (1) to assess the relationship between ERBB2 protein expression in tumors and progression-free survival (PFS), and (2) to estimate the frequency of mutations associated with WNT and SHH tumors. Clinical and molecular risk factors were evaluated, and the most robust were used to model new risk-classification categories. RESULTS Three hundred thirty eligible patients with medulloblastoma were enrolled. Five-year PFS was 83.2% (95% CI, 78.4 to 88.2) for average-risk patients (n = 227) and 58.7% (95% CI, 49.8 to 69.1) for high-risk patients (n = 103). No association was found between ERBB2 status and PFS in the overall cohort ( P = .74) or when patients were stratified by clinical risk ( P = .71). Mutations in CTNNB1 (96%), DDX3X (37%), and SMARCA4 (24%) were most common in WNT tumors and PTCH1 (38%), TP53 (21%), and DDX3X (19%) in SHH tumors. Methylome profiling classified 53 WNT (17.4%), 48 SHH (15.7%), 65 group 3 (21.3%), and 139 group 4 (45.6%) tumors. A comprehensive clinicomolecular risk factor analysis identified three low-risk groups (WNT, low-risk SHH, and low-risk combined groups 3 and 4) with excellent (5-year PFS > 90%) and two very high-risk groups (high-risk SHH and high-risk combined groups 3 and 4) with poor survival (5-year PFS < 60%). CONCLUSION These results establish a new risk stratification for future medulloblastoma trials.

Key Points The MAGIC algorithm probability, computed from 2 serum biomarkers, predicts mortality in all GVHD grades after 4 weeks of treatment. Dynamic changes in the MAGIC algorithm probability occur within all biomarker risk groups and can guide therapy.

Abstract Clinical GVHD staging varies between centers and is not agreed upon by independent reviewers (Weisdorf, BBMT 2003). These inconsistencies help explain why promising GVHD treatments from single center studies have not reproduced in multicenter trials. To address this issue, our international GVHD research consortium has developed guidance that has been refined through consensus following case discussions, resulting in uniform and reproducible GVHD clinical symptom reporting. We record all raw target organ symptom data and apply staging based upon this data (Table 1). Only areas of erythema, bullae and desquamation are quantified because other skin changes are not typical of active GVHD rash. Upper GI symptoms must meet thresholds to diagnose GVHD: anorexia with associated weight loss, nausea and/or 2+ vomiting episodes/day lasting 3+ days. For lower GI GVHD we collect stool volumes excluding formed/mostly-formed stools. Unquantified episodes are counted at 200 ml per episode (3 ml/kg for children <50kg) based upon a chart review of 300 patients with post-BMT diarrhea from any cause. Non-GVHD rectal bleeding that results in flecks or streaks of blood in the stool are ignored for staging. We use the highest daily stool output in the 3 days prior to the diagnosis of lower GI GVHD to determine onset stage and, when available, a 3-day average stool volume for subsequent staging to smooth daily variability. We classify biopsy report interpretation into four standardized categories: Positive (unequivocal presence of GVHD), Equivocal (findings suggestive of GVHD, but the pathologist cannot confirm the diagnosis), Non-diagnostic (no abnormalities or subtle findings insufficient to determine etiology), and Non-GVHD etiology (definitive evidence of another diagnosis without concomitant features suggestive of GVHD). We then combine the biopsy interpretation with clinical decision making to assign an overall confidence level to the diagnosis of GVHD in each target organ (Table 2): Confirmed (positive biopsy, regardless of clinician treatment decision), Probable (GVHD diagnosis is sufficiently favored that treatment is given without a positive biopsy), Possible (symptoms present without a positive biopsy; not treated as GVHD), Negative (no symptoms or symptoms are present but a GVHD diagnosis is not entertained and a non-GVHD etiology is identified). Uniform clinical data collection is essential for future GVHD trials and requires application of clear guidance. While still subject to refinement, these guidelines, in use for 2 years by an international research consortium, are designed to be clear, easy to apply, and for clinical trial use. Table 1. GVHD Target Organ Staging Stage Skin (active erythema only) Liver (bilirubin) Upper GI Lower GI (stool output/day) 0 No active (erythematous) GVHD rash < 2 mg/dl No or intermittent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: < 500 ml/day or <3 episodes/day Child: < 10 ml/kg/day or <4 episodes/day 1 Rash < 25% BSA 2-3 mg/dl Persistent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: 500-999 ml/day or 3-4 episodes/day Child: 10 -19.9 ml/kg/day or 4-6 episodes/day 2 Rash 25 - 50% BSA 3.1-6 mg/dl - Adult: 1000-1500 ml/day or 5-7 episodes/day Child: 20 - 30 ml/kg/day or 7-10 episodes/day 3 Rash > 50% BSA 6.1-15 mg/dl - Adult: >1500 ml/day or >7 episodes/day Child: > 30 ml/kg/day or >10 episodes/day 4 Generalized rash (>50% BSA) and bullous formation or desquamation > 5% BSA >15 mg/dl - Severe abdominal pain with or without ileus, or grossly bloody stool (volume independent) Table 2. Confidence Levels Pathologic evidence Clinician assessment Treatment for acute GVHD Comments Confirmed Unequivocal evidence of GVHD GVHD is the etiology for symptoms Not required GVHD is clearly present even if other etiologies co-exist simultaneously Probable Not required (includes equivocal and non-diagnostic biopsies) GVHD most likely etiology for symptoms Yes GVHD is most likely present but other etiologies may also explain the symptoms and there insufficient evidence to make a confirmed diagnosis Possible GVHD in differential diagnosis (but no treatment is being provided) No GVHD may be present, but other etiologies are favored Negative Unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD (e.g., drug rash) GVHD is not considered as an explanation for the symptoms No and the symptoms resolve without GVHD treatment A "negative" biopsy (e.g., normal skin) is not unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD Disclosures Devine: Genzyme: Research Funding. Chen:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy.