Dombret, Hervé

Background: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is an established, prognostic indicator for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), including Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) ALL. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between MRD and long-term outcomes (event-free survival [EFS] and overall survival [OS]) in adult patients with Ph+ ALL receiving first-line therapy. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify eligible studies, including interventional and observational studies reporting survival outcomes by MRD status in adults ≥18 years of age with Ph+ ALL receiving first-line therapy. Key outcomes and data elements of interest were EFS, OS, and MRD or MRD-negative complete remission (CR) at end of induction (EOI). Aggregate study-level and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses were conducted. The IPD approach included a log-level MRD analysis to evaluate the concordance of deepening levels of molecular response with long-term EFS or OS in patients with CR and an analysis evaluating the utility of MRD-negative CR over CR alone. The analyses were conducted using frequentist and Bayesian approaches with fixed-effects and random-effects models. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests was used for survival analysis. Where applicable, Cox regression method with and without adjustment for prognostic factors were applied. Results: The SLR identified 19 publications (18 unique studies), 10 (9 unique studies) of which had sufficient MRD and EFS/OS data. Nine studies (n=704) were included in the aggregate study-level analysis; 3 of the 9 studies (Phase II AP24534-11-001 [Jabbour et al. 2015], Phase II GIMEMAINCB 84344-201 [Martinelli et al. 2017], and Phase III GRAAPH-2005 RCT [Chalandon et al. 2015]) had IPD available. MRD was assessed by polymerase chain reaction in all 9 studies. Findings from the aggregate study-level meta-analysis demonstrated a significant long-term survival benefit (EFS and OS) in favor of patients with MRD-negative CR. This significant benefit was generally consistent across analysis types (base-case or sensitivity analyses), analytic models (fixed- or random-effects), and approaches (frequentist or Bayesian). Evidence from the IPD analysis, based on patients with CR, was mostly consistent with the aggregate study-level meta-analysis, supporting MRD-negative CR at the EOI as being predictive of EFS or OS. Log-level MRD analysis showed that patients who are in CR with deeper molecular response ( BCR::ABL1/ABL1 ≤0.01%) at EOI have significantly better long-term EFS and OS compared with patients with other levels of MRD (ie, BCR::ABL1/ABL1 >0.01%). This significant long-term survival benefit was also demonstrated in patients with MRD-negative CR ( BCR::ABL1/ABL1 ≤0.01%) at EOI compared with patients who were MRD-positive ( BCR::ABL1/ABL1 >0.01%) ( Table 1) or based on achievement of CR alone (regardless of BCR::ABL1/ABL1 values). Results from the IPD analysis standardized for outcome definition, with and without adjustment for prognostic factors (age, gender, white blood cell count at baseline, and stem cell transplant), were consistent with the findings from the log-level MRD analysis. The analysis showed a significant association between MRD-negative/MRD-negative CR status (ie, BCR::ABL1/ABL1 ≤0.01% threshold) at EOI with improved long-term EFS and OS. The results were significant for EFS in both the adjusted and unadjusted models. The OS results were significant only in the unadjusted model. Conclusions: These analyses indicate that a deeper molecular response at EOI results in better long-term EFS and OS; MRD-negative CR has a greater prognostic value than CR and is strongly associated with long-term EFS and OS in patients with Ph+ ALL. Acknowledgement: The authors acknowledge APHP, who provided the individualized patients data for the GRAAPH study.

Abstract The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.

Key Points MRD response has value as a prognostic factor for blinatumomab treatment in R/R B-cell precursor ALL. MRD response was associated with better outcomes in terms of OS and RFS in blinatumomab-treated R/R ALL.

Abstract Background: Blinatumomab is an investigational bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE®) antibody construct designed to direct cytotoxic T cells to CD19-expressing B cells. In a study in minimal residual disease (MRD)-positive ALL, 80% of pts achieved MRD-negative status after receiving one treatment cycle of blinatumomab (Topp MS, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2493-8). For pts with newly diagnosed ALL, persistence of MRD after first-line treatment predicts disease recurrence. However, only limited data are available about the relationship between MRD and outcome in adult pts with r/r ALL. Therefore, the aim of this secondary analysis was to evaluate MRD responses and their relationships to other efficacy indices in adult pts with r/r ALL receiving blinatumomab in this phase 2 study. Methods: Eligibility criteria included adult pts ≥18 years, with Philadelphia chromosome negative B-cell r/r ALL who were primary refractory or refractory to first salvage, had their first relapse within 12 months of first remission or allogeneic hematologic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), or received second or later salvage. Blinatumomab was dosed via continuous IV infusion at 28 μg/d (cycle 1 only: 9 μg/d on days 1-7, 28 μg/d on days 8-28) for up to five cycles (one cycle: 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). The primary endpoint was complete remission (CR: ≤5% blasts with platelets >100,000/µL, absolute neutrophil count >1000/µL) or CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh*: platelets >50,000/µL, absolute neutrophil count >500/µL) within the first two treatment cycles. MRD in bone marrow was assessed at a central laboratory using allele-specific real-time quantitative PCR. Two MRD-based exploratory endpoints were analyzed: MRD response (no PCR amplification at a minimum sensitivity of 10-4 or <10-4 leukemic cells by PCR) and complete MRD response (no PCR amplification at a minimum sensitivity of 10-4) within the first two treatment cycles. Results: Of 189 treated pts (median [range] age = 39 [18–79] years), 81 (43%) pts had a CR (n = 63, 33%) or a CRh* (n = 18, 10%) during the first two treatment cycles. In the subgroup of pts with a CR/CRh* and evaluable MRD data (n = 73), 60 (82%) pts had an MRD response. Of those, 51 (70%) pts had a complete MRD response. The majority of those who achieved a CR/CRh* also achieved a complete MRD response regardless of the number of prior lines of salvage therapy (Table 1). Of all treated pts, 64 (34%) pts had prior HSCT. In pts who achieved CR/CRh*, the rate of MRD response was 81% in pts without and 85% in pts with prior HSCT. In pts who achieved CR/CRh*, the median (95% CI) duration of overall survival was 11.4 (8.5, not estimable) months for those with a MRD response and 6.7 (2.0, not estimable) months for those with no MRD response. The median (95% CI) duration of relapse-free survival was 6.9 (5.5, 10.1) months in patients with a MRD response and 2.3 (1.2, not estimable) months in patients with no MRD response. The HSCT realization rate did not differ significantly between pts with CR/CRh* and a MRD response and those with CR/CRh* and no MRD response (31% and 43%, respectively). Seventeen pts classified as nonresponders per protocol had ≤5% blasts and no evidence of disease, but recovery of peripheral counts did not meet criteria for CRh*. Ten of these 17 pts had evaluable MRD assessments; 50% (5/10) had MRD response and 20% (2/10) had complete MRD response. The clinical significance of this finding remains open. Grade ≥3 adverse events regardless of causality and occurring in >10% of all treated pts during treatment until 30 days after treatment were febrile neutropenia (25%), neutropenia (16%), and anemia (14%). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported in three (1.6%) patients. Three (1.6%) patients had grade 4 neurologic events, all resolved. Twenty-one (11%) patients had grade 3 neurologic events, 17 were resolved, with 4 events unresolved at death or unknown. Conclusion: In this largest study to date of adult pts with r/r ALL with PCR-based central assessment of MRD, pts who achieved CR/CRh* during single-agent treatment with blinatumomab had high MRD response rates. The exploratory analyses suggested that within pts with a CR/CRh*, those who did not achieve MRD responses tended to have shorter durations of overall and relapse-free survival. These results are consistent with prior reports highlighting the importance of achieving an MRD response in first-line therapy. Disclosures Goekbuget: Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: This presentation will discuss the off-label use of blinatumomab, as this agent is not approved for use by the FDA, EMA or any other regulatory authorities. Kantarjian:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding. Brüggemann:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stein:Amgen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bargou:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dombret:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding. Heffner:Amgen Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Biotest: Research Funding; Dana Farber CI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Idera: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Talon Therapeutics: Research Funding. Rigal-Huguet:Amgen, Inc.: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Litzow:Amgen Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Zugmaier:Amgen Reseach (Munich) GmbH: Employment; Amgen Inc.: Equity Ownership. Jia:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Maniar:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huber:Amgen Research (Munich) GmbH: Employment; Amgen Inc.: Equity Ownership. Nagorsen:Amgen Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Related to blinatumomab Patents & Royalties. Topp:Amgen Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.