Choe, Hannah

Abstract The absence of a standardized definition for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) flares and data on its clinical course are significant concerns. We retrospectively evaluated 968 patients across 23 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) transplant centers who achieved complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) within 4 weeks of treatment. The cumulative incidence of flares within 6 months was 22%, and flares were associated with a higher risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.19-7.36; P < .001). Flares were more severe (grades 3/4, 41% vs 16%; P < .001) and had more frequent lower gastrointestinal (LGI) involvement (55% vs 32%; P < .001) than the initial GVHD. At CR/VGPR, elevated MAGIC biomarkers predicted the future occurrence of a flare, along with its severity and LGI involvement. In multivariate analyses, higher Ann Arbor (AA) biomarker scores at CR/VGPR were significant risk factors for flares (AA2 vs AA1: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.32-2.48; P = .001]; AA3 vs AA1: aHR, 3.14 [95% CI, 1.98-4.98; P < .001]), as were early response to initial treatment (aHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.21-2.80; P = .004) and HLA-mismatched unrelated donor (aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.00-3.02; P = .049). MAGIC biomarkers also stratified the risk of NRM both at CR/VGPR and at the time of flare. We conclude that GVHD flares are common and carry a significant mortality risk. The occurrence of future flares can be predicted by serum biomarkers that may serve to guide adjustment and discontinuation of immunosuppression.

Background : Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) is the only potentially curative therapy for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML. Only a minority undergo alloHCT as they typically have dismal outcomes due to high relapse rates, especially those with TP53 mutations and active disease. Additionally, older pts cannot tolerate intensive treatment and hence are not eligible for alloHCT. 131I-apamistamab, an anti-CD45 radioimmunoconjugate, delivers high dose targeted radiation to hematopoietic cells, allowing for myeloablation and eradication of leukemic cells. 131I-apamistamab led induction and conditioning can thus provide these pts access to alloHCT potentially leading to better disease control and outcomes even in pts with the TP53 mutation. Methods: The SIERRA trial (NCT02665065) is a multi-center, randomized, controlled Phase 3 study comparing the rate of durable complete remission (dCR) lasting ≥6 months (mos) after complete remission with/without platelet recovery (CR/CRp) between two groups: 131I-apamistamab led induction and conditioning followed by alloHCT vs physician's choice of conventional care (CC). Pts were randomized (1:1) to CC or 131I-apamistamab with fludarabine and total body irradiation (2 Gy) followed by alloHCT. CR/CRp assessment was 28-56 days post alloHCT or 28-42 days post initiation of therapy in the CC group. Pts in the CC group not achieving leukemia-free state could crossover (CO) to 131I-apamistamab. We report the characteristics and outcomes of all pts with TP53 mutation who were enrolled in the SIERRA trial. Results: In total, 153 pts were randomized (CC, n=77; 131I-apamistamab, n=76). All pts who received the therapeutic dose of 131I-apamistamab (n=66) underwent HCT vs 14 (18.2%) in the CC group. Of evaluable pts, dCR rates at 6 months were 22% in the 131I-apamistamab group vs 0% in the CC group (95% CI;12.29, 34.73; p<0.0001). A total of 37 pts with TP53 mutation were enrolled (CC=20; 131I-apamistamab =17) with a prevalence of 24.2%. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of these pts. Median overall survival (OS) for pts in the 131I-apamistamab group, who were TP53 negative was 6.37 mos compared to 5.72 mos for the TP53 mutation positive pts (HR=0.66; 95% CI [0.37, 1.18]; p=0.16). In the CC group (including CO pts), the median OS for TP53 positive pts was 2.96 mos. When the CC group without CO were analyzed, the median OS was 6.51 mos and 1.66 mos for the TP53 mutation negative and positive groups respectively (HR=0.28; 95% CI [0.12, 0.67]; p=0.0022). For TP53 mutation positive pts who received 131I-apamistamab ( 131I-apamistamab plus CO pts), the median OS was 5.49 mos compared to a median 1.66 mos in pts who did not receive 131I-apamistamab (CC pts without CO) [(HR=0.23; 95% CI [0.10, 0.52]; p=0.0002) (Figure 1)]. Conclusion: Pts with TP53 mutated R/R AML have a dismal prognosis and are seldom offered alloHCT due to high post-transplant relapse rates. 131I-apamistamab led alloHCT significantly improves survival outcomes in pts with TP53 mutations, commensurate with rates observed in pts with wildtype TP53, thereby overcoming the negative impact of this mutation. These data clearly support the use of 131I-apamistamab led induction and conditioning and alloHCT in R/R AML, including in patients with a TP53 mutation.

Introduction: Risk stratification approaches using clinical criteria or biomarkers in acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) have traditionally been implemented at diagnosis or initiation systemic treatment with corticosteroids. For patients who require second-line treatment, the significance of biomarkers at salvage therapy and the relationship between biomarker risk and choice of therapy are unknown. Methods: We studied adult patients who received second-line treatment for acute GVHD between January 2016 and December 2021 in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD Consortium (MAGIC) database, which collects clinical data and longitudinal serum samples from allogeneic HCT recipients using a rigorous PRoBE study design. Exclusion criteria included relapse of underlying malignant disease prior to second-line therapy, missing response data, or missing serum sample. Serum samples collected from 7 days prior to 3 days after initiation of second-line therapy met criteria for biomarker analysis. The MAGIC algorithm probability (MAP) was calculated as a single value based on concentrations of ST2 and REG3α and was stratified at a threshold of 0.290 to define high MAP and low MAP groups. The primary objective evaluated the association between MAP and survival for patients receiving second-line therapy for acute GVHD. The key secondary objective was to investigate the MAP and choice of second-line systemic agent on Day 28 overall response rate (ORR) and survival. Results: In total, 316 adult patients received second-line treatment for acute GVHD; 149 patients (47%) were excluded for disease relapse (n=27), missing response data (n=48), or missing sample (n=74).Of the 167 evaluable patients, most had steroid-refractory acute GVHD (n=146, 87%), rather than steroid-dependent (n=8, 5%) or steroid-sensitive (n=14, 8%) disease. 62 patients received ruxolitinib while 102 received other systemic agents (best available therapy: BAT). Baseline clinical characteristics of the study population according to treatment choice were similar, except for donor type (Rux: MRD 15%, MUD 74%, haplo 11%; BAT: MRD 30%, MUD 67%, haplo 3%; P=0.014) and median days from corticosteroids to second-line treatment (Rux: 18, BAT: 12; P=0.02).In total, 81 patients had high MAPs and 86 patients had low MAPs, with similar distribution in each treatment cohort (P=0.53). For the entire cohort, the median follow-up for survivors was 22 months (range, 1.5-27).The MAP separated patients into 2 groups (high vs low) with significantly different mortality (NRM at 2 years, 76% vs 29%, P<.0001) and survival (OS at 2 years, 12% vs 63%, P<.0001). Patients who received ruxolitinib as second-line therapy had lower mortality (NRM at 2 years, 35% vs 60%, P<.002) and improved survival (OS at 2 years, 51% vs 32%, P<.008), compared to those who received other systemic agents. However, the outcomes of patients with high MAP were poor, regardless of second-line treatment choice ( Figure 1A). The MAP (low vs high), time from corticosteroids to second-line treatment (≥14 days vs < 14 days), GVHD grade at second-line (0-2 vs 3-4), and choice of second-line therapy (Rux vs BAT) were all significant (P<0.05) predictors of lower NRM and higher OS in multivariate analysis. The MAP also separated patients into 2 groups with significantly different D28 ORR (low: 49%, high: 30%, P<.0001). In agreement with prospective trials, ruxolitinib resulted in higher D28 response rates compared to other systemic therapies (ORR 54.9% vs 30.5%, P=0.005), which was observed in both low MAP (ORR, 64.5% vs 38.5%, P=0.017) and high MAP cohorts (ORR, 42.9% vs 22.6%, P=0.06) ( Figure 1B). The MAP (low vs high), GVHD grade at second line (0-2 vs 3-4), and choice of second-line therapy (Rux vs BAT) were significant predictors (P<0.05) of higher D28 ORR in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: The MAP measured at the initiation of second-line systemic treatment for acute GVHD predicts NRM and OS, as well as treatment response. The outcomes of patients with high MAP are poor, regardless of second-line treatment choice, and the higher CR rate in low MAP patients may drive higher survival rates. Incorporation of MAP into clinical trials in this setting warrants investigation. The results also support the current use of ruxolitinib as second-line treatment for acute GVHD, particularly in patients with low MAP.

Background: Most older patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML cannot tolerate intensive treatment and are not eligible for curative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT). 131I-apamistamab, an anti-CD45 radioimmunoconjugate, delivers high dose targeted radiation to hematopoietic cells, allowing for myeloablation and eradication of leukemic cells. 131I-apamistamab led induction and conditioning can provide these pts with access to alloHCT. Methods: SIERRA (NCT02665065) was a multi-center, randomized, controlled phase 3 study comparing the efficacy of 131I-apamistamab led induction and conditioning versus physician's choice of conventional care (CC) in pts ≥55 years of age with active, R/R AML. Pts were randomized (1:1, n=153) to CC or 131I-apamistamab with fludarabine and total body irradiation (2 Gy) followed by alloHCT. Primary endpoint was durable complete remission (dCR), defined as CR ≥6 mos with or without platelet recovery (CRp). Pts not achieving CR in CC could crossover (CO) to receive 131I-apamistamab. Treatment with 131I-apamistamab was prescribed as an individualized dose for each pt following a dosimetric infusion and biodistribution analysis, with the prescribed activity of 131I set to deliver a maximum estimated radiation dose to the liver as the dose limiting organ of 24 Gy (determined as the maximum tolerable dose (MTD)) in earlier studies), thereby providing the highest dose to the diseased bone marrow and circulating leukemic cells without exceeding individual organ radiation dose tolerances. Here, we performed an analysis to determine whether a radiation dose-response relationship could be established based on either 1) administered radiation dose to liver and the rate of achieving the primary endpoint of dCR (with 95% binomial confidence intervals) or 2) dCR rate and the ratio of bone marrow/liver absorbed radiation dose as an indicator of favorable biodistribution between target/risk organ. Results: All pts receiving the therapeutic dose of 131I-apamistamab (n=66) were able to receive an alloHCT, and the primary endpoint (dCR) was achieved in 13 pts receiving 131I-apamistamab vs 0 pts in CC (p<0.0001). The median absorbed liver dose was 21.6 Gy (IQR: 21.0 - 22.8 Gy), median absorbed dose to bone marrow was 16.0 Gy (IQR: 11.5 - 22.3 Gy), and median ratio between marrow/liver dose was 0.79 (IQR: 0.52 - 1.02). Table 1 shows the distribution and rate of dCR for pts who received above or below 22 Gy administered dose to liver (24 Gy to liver was the established MTD from earlier studies, in which doses were escalated in 2 Gy increment and thus, 22 Gy represented MTD-1), and for pts stratified by marrow/liver dose ratio (higher ratio representing more favorable biodistribution). Pts with ≤22 Gy liver dose had a dCR rate of 13.5% vs. 27.6% for pts with >22 Gy liver dose, and pts with <median dose to bone marrow had a dCR rate of 12.1% vs. 27.3% for pts with ≥median estimated marrow dose. Importantly, pts with increasingly favorable biodistribution had nominally higher dCR rates of 10.0%, 20.0% and 26.9% for a marrow/liver ratio <0.6, 0.6-0.9 and >0.9, respectively, as illustrated in Figure 1. Taken together this demonstrates a radiation dose-response for the primary endpoint in this study. Overall, safety was similar across doses to the liver. Conclusion: 131I-apamistamab led induction and conditioning followed by alloHCT resulted in statistically significant improvement in dCR at 6 mos vs conventional care. A dose-response was demonstrated for pts receiving 131I-apamistamab with those receiving a liver dose closer to the MTD of 24 Gy having about twice the dCR rate compared to pts 22 Gy (MTD-1) or less. We also found pts with higher marrow/liver ratio experienced considerably higher rates of dCR which highlights the importance of maximizing the dose to target tissues, within the limits of established risk organ dose tolerances.

[Background] The current standard first-line treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), systemic high-dose steroids, induces clinical responses in a majority of patients. Flares of GVHD after initial improvement often occur during tapering or discontinuation of immunosuppression. There is no consensus regarding the definition of GVHD flare and little has been published regarding its natural history. [Methods] We retrospectively evaluated clinical data and blood samples from 968 allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients from 23 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) transplant centers who achieved complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) within 4 weeks of acute GVHD treatment between 2014 and 2021. VGPR was defined as the complete resolution of acute GVHD manifestations except residual stage 1 skin disease. Flares were defined as a recurrence of acute GVHD after achievement of CR/VGPR if (1) patients had an increased symptom severity of at least 1 organ stage; (2) received intensified treatment (increase in steroid dose ≥ 0.25 mg/kg or initiation of additional systemic immunosuppression); and (3) had no prior history of primary disease relapse or donor lymphocyte infusion preceding the flare. Serum samples obtained at the time of CR/VGPR and at the time of flares were analyzed for ST2 and REG3α concentrations that generated MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs) resulting in previously validated Ann Arbor (AA) scores (1, 2, and 3). [Results] The median recipient age at HCT was 55 years (range: 0 to 79); 18.6% of patients had grades III-IV acute GVHD before CR/VGPR. The median maximum daily dose of corticosteroids before CR/VGPR was 1 mg/kg methylprednisolone equivalent (range, 0.1 to 3.2 mg/kg). Flares developed within 6 months following CR/VGPR in 210/968 (21.7%) patients with a median onset of 28 days (range: 2 to 448). Symptom severity at the onset of flare symptoms varied widely (grade I: 22%; grade II: 38%; grade III-IV: 41%) and the development of a flare was associated with a five-fold increase in NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 4.84 [95% CI, 3.19-7.36], P < 0.001) when considered as a time-dependent covariate in a multivariate regression model. The large majority of non-relapse deaths after flares (54/71, 76%) were due to acute GVHD or complications from its treatment. The AA scores at the time of first CR/VGPR successfully stratified patients for risk of six-month NRM (AA1: 5%, AA2: 11%, AA3: 34%, P < 0.001) (Figure A). Increasing AA score at CR/VGPR was also associated with significantly increased risk of GVHD flares (Figure B). Not only did the risk of flare increase with each rising AA score, but the number of patients with severe (grade III/IV) symptoms at flare onset also increased (AA1: 34%, AA2: 43%, AA3: 54%). We next generated a multivariate regression model of risk factors for the development of flares. High AA scores at the time of CR/VGPR (AA2: HR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.32-2.48], P = 0.001; AA3: HR, 3.14 [95% CI, 1.98-4.98], P < 0.001), HCT from HLA mismatched unrelated donor (HR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.00-3.02], P = 0.049), and interestingly, rapid achievement of CR/VGPR from the time of initial treatment (≤14 days) (HR, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.21-2.80], P = 0.004) were all identified as significant risk factors. Meanwhile, no other transplant, GVHD, or treatment characteristics associated with the development of flares including maximum GVHD severity, maximum steroid dose, and use of additional immunosuppressive agents other than steroids before CR/VGPR. AA scores measured at the onset of flare symptoms in 98 patients also predicted six-month NRM (AA1, 6%; AA2, 19%; AA3 42%, P = 0.01). [Conclusion] Despite advances in treatment, flares of GVHD symptoms following excellent (CR/VGPR) responses still occur in over one fifth of patients in current practice and are associated with a five-fold increase in six-month NRM. AA scores from serum biomarkers predict outcomes despite the absence of symptoms, suggesting that MAGIC biomarkers detect subclinical damage to GI crypts that can drive later recrudescence of clinical GVHD. Measurement of the MAP at the time of response to GVHD treatment may thus help to risk-stratify tapering strategies of immunosuppressive therapy.

The overall response rate (ORR) 28 days (D28) after treatment has been adopted as the primary endpoint for clinical trials of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD). ORR combines complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) because CR and PR have very similar non relapse mortality (NRM). D28 ORR has some disadvantages: first, physicians usually decide to modify immunosuppression much earlier than D28, and second, NRM does not always correlate well with ORR at D28, particularly for patients who present with intermediate risk or low risk disease. MAGIC serum biomarkers at day 14 (D14) of GVHD treatment have been shown to correlate better with NRM than clinical symptom response (Srinagesh et al, Blood Advances, 2019). We therefore hypothesized that a combination of clinical symptom severity and biomarkers at D14 of treatment would predict NRM at least as well and possibly better than clinical response at D28. We studied 1144 patients from 23 MAGIC sites who were systemically treated with at least 0.25 mg/kg/day of systemic steroids (prednisone equivalents) and had clinical data and serum samples available in the MAGIC database and biorepository. We divided the patients into a training set (n=764) and a validation set (n=380). We used 12-month NRM from the time of acute GVHD onset as the primary outcome of interest. We first trained a recursive partitioning algorithm in the training set to create a response model (MAGIC D14 clinical response) according to overall GVHD grade at both onset and D14 that predicted 12-month NRM and then applied it to the validation set. Patients that either progressed to grade III/IV GVHD, continued having grade III/IV GVHD, or only improved to grade II at D14 from grade III/IV at D0 had high NRM and were classified as non-responders. Patients with grade I/II GVHD at day 0 who had grade 0-II GVHD at day 14 and patients who improved to grade 0/I at day 14 from grade III/IV at day 0 had low NRM and were classified as responders. Although counterintuitive, responders included patients whose GVHD remained at grade II because the 12 month NRM of this group was only 20%. The new clinical model predicted NRM as well as the D28 standard response model in the validation set. When we integrated the D14 MAP biomarker score (low: ≤ 0.290 vs high: >0.290) with the new D14 clinical response (D14 MAGIC integrated response), we observed three response groups of integrated response with strikingly different 12 month NRM (8%, 35%, 76%, p<0.001), in contrast to the D28 standard response (Figure 1A, 1B). D14 complete response required MAGIC clinical response with low MAP; D14 partial response required either MAGIC clinical response with high MAP or MAGIC clinical non-response with low MAP; and D14 non-response required MAGIC clinical non-response with high MAP. The D14 response groups also displayed significant differences in 12 month OS (82%, 58%, 14% respectively, p<0.001) We then compared the D14 integrated response with the D28 standard response for 12 month NRM prediction. This D14 integrated response model was superior for time-dependent AUC (0.78 vs 0.71, P=0.03), sensitivity (0.71 vs 0.54), positive predictive value (0.52 vs 0.48) and negative predictive value (0.92 vs 0.89), with minimal loss in specificity (0.85 vs 0.87) in the prediction of 12-month NRM compared to the D28 standard response model. Using decision curve analysis, the D14 integrated response displayed higher net benefit (correct identification of patients that will experience NRM by 12 months) over the whole range of threshold probabilities/preferences for changing immunosuppression when 12-month NRM was used as the outcome. We conclude first, that the definition of response that uses onset and D14 grades is as accurate as D28 ORR model; and second, that a model using clinical grades and biomarkers on D14 more accurately predicts long term NRM than the standard D28 definition and may be useful as a clinical trial endpoint.

Background : Most older patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML cannot tolerate intensive treatment and are not eligible for curative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT). 131I-apamistamab, an anti-CD45 radioimmunoconjugate, delivers high dose targeted radiation to hematopoietic cells, allowing for myeloablation and eradication of leukemic cells while sparing toxicity to healthy organs. 131I-apamistamab led induction and conditioning can thus provide these pts with access to alloHCT. Methods: The SIERRA trial (NCT02665065) is a multi-center, randomized, controlled Phase 3 study comparing the rate of durable complete remission (dCR) lasting >6 months (mos) after complete remission with/without platelet recovery (CR/CRp) between two groups: 131I-apamistamab led induction and conditioning followed by alloHCT vs physician's choice of conventional care (CC). Pts were randomized (1:1) to CC or 131I-apamistamab with fludarabine and total body irradiation (2 Gy) followed by alloHCT. CR/CRp assessment was 28-56 days post alloHCT or 28-42 days post initiation of therapy on the CC group. Pts in the CC group not achieving leukemia-free state could crossover (CO) to 131I-apamistamab. Here we report the results of a post hoc analysis to determine if the presence of various risk factors (i.e., Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) <90, HCT Comorbidity Index >3, age >65, adverse-risk cytogenetics, venetoclax failure prior to randomization) influenced achievement of dCR in pts treated with 131I-apamistamab. Results: In total, 153 pts were randomized (CC, n=76; 131I-apamistamab, n=77). All pts who received the therapeutic dose of 131I-apamistamab (n=66) underwent alloHCT vs 14 (18.2%) in the CC group. Of evaluable pts, dCR rates at 6 mos were 22% in the 131I-apamistamab group vs 0% in the CC group (95% CI;12.29, 34.73; p<0.0001). A total of 19 pts (13, 131I-apamistamab group; 6, CO) achieved dCR. Table 1 shows the pt, disease, and transplant characteristics of dCR vs. non-dCR pts. Eight of the 19 pts (42.1%) had primary induction failure and the median time to randomization from diagnosis was 5.4 mos. Approximately 50% of pts (9/19) had adverse-risk cytogenetics. Over 35% (7/19) of the pts had failed prior venetoclax and the median number of prior treatments was 3 (range 1-5). A total of 10/19 (52%) pts had KPS of <90% and a comorbidity index of >3. There was no difference in the rate of dCR when stratifying by number of risk factors for a given pt (0 to 5) with 27% for pts with 0-1 risk factors, 14% for pts with 2-3 risk factors, and 11% for pts with 4-5 risk factors (p=0.251). Conclusion: Pts with R/R AML who have multiple risk factors such as adverse risk cytogenetics, age >65, venetoclax failure, high comorbidity index or poor KPS are typically not considered for alloHCT due to high transplant-related mortality and post-transplant relapse rates. 131I-apamistamab was effective in achieving durable responses in R/R AML pts irrespective of the presence of multiple risk factors and successfully enabled alloHCT in such pts due to its targeted mechanism of action.

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is the main cause of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Ann Arbor (AA) scores derived from serum biomarkers at onset of GVHD quantify GI crypt damage; AA2/3 scores correlate with resistance to treatment and higher NRM. We conducted a multicenter, phase 2 study using natalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks T-cell trafficking to the GI tract through the α4 subunit of α4β7 integrin, combined with corticosteroids as primary treatment for patients with new onset AA2/3 GVHD. Seventy-five patients who were evaluable were enrolled and treated; 81% received natalizumab within 2 days of starting corticosteroids. Therapy was well tolerated with no treatment emergent adverse events in >10% of patients. Outcomes for patients treated with natalizumab plus corticosteroids were compared with 150 well-matched controls from the MAGIC database whose primary treatment was corticosteroids alone. There were no significant differences in overall or complete response between patients treated with natalizumab plus corticosteroids and those treated with corticosteroids alone (60% vs 58%; P = .67% and 48% vs 48%; P = 1.0, respectively) including relevant subgroups. There were also no significant differences in NRM or overall survival at 12 months in patients treated with natalizumab plus corticosteroids compared with controls treated with corticosteroids alone (38% vs 39%; P = .80% and 46% vs 54%; P = .48, respectively). In this multicenter biomarker–based phase 2 study, natalizumab combined with corticosteroids failed to improve outcome of patients with newly diagnosed high-risk GVHD. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as # NCT02133924.