Badar, Talha

Abstract Background: CD19 CAR T cell therapies have demonstrated high initial complete remission (CR) rates of 70-80% in relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with durable remissions observed in a subset of patients. Despite the remarkable initial CR rate, relapses occur in 20-45% of patients and with increasing use of CD19 CAR T cell therapies in ALL, a key remaining clinical question is the role of post-CAR HCT. Methods: Patients up to 26 years treated with the commercial (i.e., tisagenlecleucel) or investigational CD19 CAR T cell products from 2014 to 2019 in the United States were included. The objectives were to examine the impact of post-CAR HCT on mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), leukemia relapse, GVHD and transplant related mortality among HCT recipients. The intent of HCT was analyzed as consolidation when there was no evidence of post-CAR T cell relapse prior to HCT. Cox regression multivariable analysis used HCT as time-dependent variable along with age, performance status and time from diagnosis to CAR-T cell infusion to evaluate its impact on outcomes. Results: We identified 347 patients who received CD19 CAR T cells from 86 centers. Median age was 13 (range, 0.4-26 years) with 39% of patients from Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin. Patients were high risk and heavily pretreated; 56% had poor cytogenetics, 51% had ≥3 line of prior therapies and 34% had prior HCT. Most of the patients (74%) received tisagenlecleucel. Disease burden at the time of CAR T cell infusion included morphologic disease (≥5% bone marrow blasts) (65%), measurable residual disease (MRD) positive (16%) and negative CR (18%). CRS of all grades was observed in 57.6% and grade 3-4 CRS in 13%; neurotoxicity of all grades was observed in 25% and grade 3-4 in 8%. With a median follow-up of 12.7 months (range, 2.2-60.3), DFS at 3, 6 and 12 months following CAR T cell infusion was 80.9% % (95% CI: 76.6%-84.9%), 71.2% (95% CI: 66.1%-76.0%) and 57.6% (95% CI: 51.8%-63.3%), respectively. OS at 3, 6 and 12 months was 93.6% (95% CI: 90.8%-96.0%), 89.8% (95% CI: 86.4%-92.8%) and 79.4% (95% CI: 74.7%-83.6%), respectively. Incidences of relapse without censoring at subsequent HCT at month 3, 6 and 12 were 18.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-22.8%), 28.2% (95% CI: 23.5%-33.3%), and 40.6% (95% CI: 35.0%-46.3%), respectively. Of the 347 patients who received CD19 CAR therapy, 62 patients (18%) had subsequent HCT in CR as a consolidation post-CAR with a median time from CAR T to HCT of 4.7 months (range, 1.1-18.6). 36% had a prior HCT (i.e., pre-CAR), 87% received myeloablative regimen and among the 57 patients with MRD evaluation 56 were negative (98%). Frequencies of post-CAR HCT did not change during the 5-year study period. Overall, transplant related mortality (TRM) at month 6 was 8.9% (95% CI: 3.6-16.1), and grade 2-4 acute GvHD was observed in 38.0% (95% CI: 28.4-48.2) of patients at month 6. Post-CAR HCT used as a consolidation was associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.37; p=0.037) but no significant impact on mortality (HR 0.75, p=0.51) or DFS (HR=0.46, p=0.057). When accounting for any HCT performed after CAR T cell, HCT was associated with higher mortality (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest clinical series to date examining the impact of post-CAR HCT on clinical outcome of R/R B-ALL patients. We found that 18% of the patients had post-CAR HCT as a consolidation therapy with a favorable safety profile of 8.9% TRM rate despite a prior transplant rate of 36%. Consolidation HCT after CAR T cell resulted in significant reduction in leukemia relapse with a trend towards better DFS. Consolidation HCT seem safe and incurred a benefit by reducing disease relapse. Further studies in understanding the role of consolidation HCT as planned, or post-CAR T cell response-based strategy or treatment for early B-cell recovery are needed to further define the best candidates for HCT after tisagenlecleucel . Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Park: BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Ahmed: Merck: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cairo: Servier: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dholaria: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Grover: Kite: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC: Other: Advisory Board; Tessa: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mussetti: GILEAD: Other: Clinical trials participation, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trials participation. Pulsipher: Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria; Adaptive: Research Funding; Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medexus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other. Reshef: Gilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Rizzieri: Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acrotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution. Schultz: BMS DSMB: Other: payment; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Turtle: Century Therapeutics Ad hoc advisory boards (last 12 months): Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene, PACT Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eureka Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; T-CURX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloid Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArsenalBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Minerva: Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Other; Juno Therapeutics/BMS: Other: Payments, Patents & Royalties: Patent licensed to Juno Therapeutics.; Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Myeloid Therapeutics, ArsenalBio: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Perales: MorphoSys: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Relapsed Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) is not curable with standard therapies. Effective outpatient treatment, allowing patients to maintain a good quality of life, while offering a meaningful chance of remission, is an appealing alternative to prolonged admission required for currently available multi-agent regimens. Vincristine sulfate liposomal injection (Marqibo) was approved in 2012 for treatment Ph-ALL in second or greater relapse, originally developed to overcome pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic limitations of vincristine. Approved dosing is 2.25 mg/m 2 without a dose cap. Pre-clinical studies showed it increases plasma circulation time, increases tumor tissue delivery, accumulates in tumor tissue, and slowly releases vincristine in tumor tissues rather than into systemic circulation. In a phase 2 trial, as a weekly administered single agent, CR/CRi rate was 20%, with median duration of 23 weeks and overall response rate of 35%. Blinatumomab is a murine recombinant single-chain antibody construct belonging to a class of bispecific T-cell engager (BITE) immuno-oncology. BITE molecules are designed to direct T-effector memory cells towards target cells, triggering cell-specific cytotoxicity. Blinatumomab specifically targets cells that express CD19 and the presence of both, CD19+ target cells and T cells are required for its cytotoxic activity. In previous phase 2 trials, responses to single agent blinatumomab in the relapsed setting were near 60%, although only 34% (44%, including partial and incomplete hematologic recovery) in the pivotal phase 3. Median duration of remission was only 7.3 months and half were very heavily pretreated. Here, we describe a trial designed to target ALL cells with Marquibo as a microtubule inhibitor and blinatumomab as a BiTE immuno-oncology therapy and evaluate whether this combination results in an effective and safe therapeutic option for relapsed/refractory ALL patients. We anticipate additive benefits of the regimen and define a clinically meaningful outcome as >75% (CR/CRi) rate and median progression-free survival (PFS) of ≥1 year. This higher rate of response is expected as many patients are using blinatumomab at first relapse, and therefore we anticipate less prior therapy than overall in the pivotal phase 3 study. Further, we hypothesize that the combination will result in a high rate of response, allowing enhanced immunologic recovery. Study Design/Methods: This is a phase 2, single arm, trial to evaluate the efficacy of blinatumomab and vincristine sulfate liposomal injection. The study will include up to 35 participants who are ≥18years of age, with Ph-, CD19+ ALL, and are either relapse or refractory to ≥2 prior regimens, have ≥5% blasts in the bone marrow or peripheral blood or persistent extranodal/marrow site or have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2. The active study period includes a 3-week screening phase, followed by a treatment period (induction phase and consolidation phase) of up to 58 weeks (6 cycles), a safety follow-up 30 days later and a long-term follow-up period of up to 18 months. The induction phase includes two cycles of blinatumomab and liposomal vincristine. A single cycle is defined as 6 weeks in duration, which includes 4 weeks of continuous intravenous infusion (CIVI) of blinatumomab (initial dose 9 μg/day for first 7 days, then escalated to 28 μg/day starting on day 8 (week 2) through day 29 (week 4), followed by a 2-week treatment-free interval and 3 weekly doses of liposomal vincristine, administered intravenously at 2.25 mg/m 2, with no dose cap (per label),in the outpatient setting over 1 hour. Subjects who achieve at least stable disease within 2 induction cycles may continue to the consolidation phase to receive up to a maximum of 6 cycles under the same treatment schedule. The primary objectives are to evaluate whether the combination will result in a median PFS of ≥1 year, and if the CR/CRi rate is ≥75% following 2 cycles and duration of remission. Secondary outcomes will include evaluation of the rate of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) and duration, the proportion of patients who are able to progress to allogeneic transplantation, the safety of blinatumomab and liposomal vincristine sulfate in combination and the effect of the combination and response on measures of immune reconstitution. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Rizzieri: Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acrotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Leonard: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shah: Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Incyte: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Servier Genetics: Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Outcomes of adults with relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoma (T-ALL or T-LBL respectively) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remained poor despite the availability of newer agents. CD38 is a 45 kDa transmembrane glycoprotein expressed by lymphoid and myeloid cells with several important functions including a role in immune escape from tumor cells [Chillemi A et al. Front Immunol 2017, Furano A et al. J Immunol 1990]. Several studies have demonstrated that CD38 is expressed in tumor cells of patients with T-ALL and AML and potentially targetable using CD38 blocking agents [Naik J et al. Haematologica 2019, Bride KL et al. Blood 2018, Tembhare et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020, Farber M et al. ASH 2018]. XmAb18968 is structurally distinct CD3-CD38 bi-specific T-cell engager with a full fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain modified to minimize Fcγ receptor binding and non-selective activation of T cells and other immune effector cells. XmAb18968 has optimized relative affinities for both CD3 and CD38 which results in reduced cytokine release without compromising target cell killing. We hypothesize targeting CD38 in relapsed/refractory- T-cell ALL/LBL and AML is safe and feasible using XmAb18968, a novel CD3-CD38 bispecific antibody. Study design and methods: This is an investigator-sponsored multi-institutional phase I study evaluating the safety and tolerability of XmAb18968. Patients aged 18 years or above with T-ALL, T-LBL or AML (including undifferentiated leukemia and bi phenotypic leukemia), in relapsed/refractory status (at least one line of prior therapy) including measurable residual disease relapse, CD38 expression ≥ 20%, and adequate organ function will be eligible. Major exclusion criteria are hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 6 months of enrollment, active acute GVHD, veno-occlusive disease, and acute promyelocytic leukemia. The study is planned to be conducted at 6 sites in United States. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of XmAb18968. The secondary endpoints include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include correlation of responses with genomic profile, assessment of serum cytokine response, identifying the changes in phenotypic expression of activated T-cells and leukemic cells, correlation of the phenotypic expression with changes in the transcriptome at the single-cell level, proteomics evaluation of cytokine secretion at the single-cell level and correlation of response with N-glycan profiling, quantitative site-occupancy and direct glycopeptide analysis. The study will follow 3+3 design for dose escalation and de-escalation in case of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Dose escalation will proceed in two separate groups: Group A for subjects with T-ALL and T-LBL and Group B for subjects with AML. Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level, starting with the first dose level. The DLT observation period for dose-escalation will be 28-days. RP2D will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the first 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the first 6 treated subjects experience a DLT. A minimum of 24 and a maximum of 60 patients will be needed for the dose escalation phase. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Qessential: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Cardinal health: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Johnson: Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding. Stock: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; amgen: Honoraria; agios: Honoraria; jazz: Honoraria; kura: Honoraria; kite: Honoraria; morphosys: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pluristeem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shah: Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Servier Genetics: Other; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Leonard: Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pratz: Agios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Research Funding; University of Pennsylvania: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract DDX41 mutations (germline and somatic) are associated with late onset myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). Myeloid neoplasms (MN) with germline predisposition was identified as a distinct category in the 2016 WHO classification revision, including MN with germline DDX41 mutation. We retrospectively analyzed the molecular findings and clinical characteristics of thirty-three DDX41-mutated (mDDX41) patients at our institution. We identified 14 distinct pathogenic DDX41 variants in 32 patients and 8 DDX41 variants of unknown significance (VUS) in 9 patients. Five (16%) patients had a second DDX41 somatic mutation p.R525H and 13 (40%) had at least one additional oncogenic co-mutation in other genes. The median age at the time of diagnosis was 66 years, with male predominance (72%) and the majority of patients had normal cytogenetics (91%). Two-year overall survival (OS) was 86% and 6 (21%) MDS/AML patients with relatively preserved hematopoietic function were observed without further intervention. In comparison to AML patients with prognostically more favorable subtypes [t(8;21), n=27 and inv(16), n=40], mDDX41 patients in our cohort showed similarly favorable OS. Our study highlights that mDDX41-MN patients often have an indolent course and mDDX41-AML has comparable OS to favorable-risk AML.

AbstractIntroductionWhile most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) receive therapy shortly after diagnosis, a subset of patients with indolent‐behaving disease can safely defer treatment. In this subgroup, we evaluated the importance of treatment intensity in patients with MCL who defer initial therapy.MethodsOut of 1134 patients with MCL from 12 academic centers, we analyzed 219 patients who initiated therapy at least 90 days after diagnosis. Patients who received induction with high‐dose cytarabine and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in first remission were considered to have received intensive therapy (n = 88) while all other approaches were non‐intensive (n = 131).ResultsThere was no difference in progression‐free (PFS; P = .224) or overall survival (OS; P = .167) in deferred patients who received non‐intensive vs. intensive therapy. Additionally, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed for PFS and OS. Treatment at an academic center (HR 0.43, P = .015) was associated with improved OS in both univariate and multivariate models, while intensity of treatment was not associated with improved OS in either model.ConclusionsThese results indicate that intensified initial treatment is not associated with improved survival after deferring initial therapy, although prospective studies are needed to determine which of these patients with MCL may benefit from intensive therapy.

Introduction: Secondary Central Nervous System Lymphoma (SCNSL) is the spread of a lymphoma to the CNS, the primary focus of which is situated elsewhere in the body. Most commonly, it is a non-Hodgkin lymphoma which either presents as a CNS involvement due to systemic relapse or progression, or as an isolated relapse in the CNS despite systemic remission. Traditionally, it has been treated by intrathecal or systemic chemotherapy and/or WBRT (Whole-brain radiation therapy) but recently, the use of high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown encouraging results. We present a systematic review of literature displaying the treatment outcomes of HDT/ASCT in SCNSL. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search (following PRISMA guidelines) on July 08 2020 on PubMed, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.Gov by using the relevant MeSH terms of high-dose chemotherapy, autologous stem cell transplantation, CNS lymphoma, efficacy and safety. Following screening by 2 reviewers, we selected 12 published studies (n=353) and included data from these studies in our systematic review. We manually extracted data summarized the results. Results: 232/353 patients eventually underwent sequential HDT+ASCT who were evaluable for treatment response out of which 190 patients had SCNSL (see table 1). Carmustine (BCNU) based HDT: BCNU based regimens have been the most extensively studied HDT among SCNSL patients (n=81). Korfel et al. in a phase 2 trial (2013, n=30) used HDT combination of BCNU, thiotepa and etoposide followed by ASCT in SCNSL patients. No patient was given whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT). The results yielded a PR of 8%, CR of 63% and 2-year OS of 63%. 1 toxicity related mortality (TRM) was noted and >grade 4 adverse effects included infection (4%) and stomatitis (13%). Ferreri et al. (2015, n=38) in a phase 2 trial use HDT with BCNU plus thiotepa on 38 patients 20 of whom underwent subsequent ASCT. The results showed CR of 100%, event free survival (EFS) of 40% ±9% and OS of 41% ±8% at 5 years with four patients suffering TRM. Thiotepa, busulfan and cyclophosphamide (TBC) based HDT: The combination based on TBC has been a popular option for SCNSL patients (n=53). In a retrospective analysis by Welch et al. (2014, n=17), TBC combination followed by sequential ASCT was studied in both primary and SCNSL patients (primary malignancy being diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) and the collective results showed complete response (CR) of 100%, PFS of 93% (95% CI: 61-99%) and OS of 93% (95% CI: 61-99%) at 3 years. In addition to the excellent efficacy response, no TRM or grade 4 toxicities were documented. Chen et al. (2015, n=12) in a phase 2 trial used HDT with rituximab and TBC (R-TBC) combination followed by ASCT rescue in 12 SCNSL patients. At 2 years, the progression free survival (PFS) was 51% (95% CI: 18-77%) and overall survival (OS) was 83% (95% CI: 48-96%). Two patients developed neurotoxicity and one TRM was recorded. Methotrexate (MTX) based HDT: MTX based combinations have also been widely used as HDT preceding ASCT in SCNSL patients (n=51). Fischer et al. (2008, n=20) studied HDT of MTX plus ifosfamide (IFO) in a retrospective analysis which showed PR of 30%, CR of 60% and median OS of 8.7 months and two TRM (due to sepsis in neutropenia) in SCNSL patients. Lee et al. (2015, n=31) in a prospective cohort study evaluated HDT with MTX based multidrug combination with ASCT in SCNSL patients which yielded a PR of 41.6%, CR of 50% and OS of 9 months (95% CI: 5-12 months). Five patients had suffered TRM. Conclusion: The combination of HDT with ASCT has yielded promising treatment outcomes both in terms of favorable efficacy rates and reduced rates of toxicity in SCNSL patients proving to be a comparable alternative to traditionally used chemo-radiation. However, the data at present is limited to few phase 2 trials with some being displayed collectively with data of primary CNS lymphoma patients. There is an increased need to carry out randomized phase 3 trials exclusively on SCNSL patients to better predict the efficacy and safety profile of HDT/ASCT in these patients. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

BackgroundThe availability of novel agents (NAs), including blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), has improved the outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Because of the relative effectiveness, it is often a challenge for clinicians to determine how to best sequence these NAs with respect to efficacy and toxicity.MethodsIn this multicenter, retrospective study of patients with RR ALL treated with blinatumomab, InO, or both, their efficacy as a first or second NA was compared.ResultsAmong 276 patients, 221 and 55 received blinatumomab and InO, respectively, as a first NA therapy. The complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi) rate was 65% and 67% for the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively (P = .73). The rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was 4% and 7% in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. Ninety‐two patients (43%) in the blinatumomab group and 13 patients (29%) in the InO group proceeded with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The median overall survival (OS) was 15 and 11.6 months in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. A subset analysis was performed for 61 patients who received both NAs (blinatumomab and then InO [n = 40] or InO and then blinatumomab [n = 21]). The CR/CRi rate was 58% for patients who received InO as the second NA and 52% for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA. The median OS was 10.5 for patients who received InO as the second NA and 5.9 months for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA (P = .09).ConclusionsAlthough the limited power of this study to detect a significant difference between subgroups is acknowledged, the data suggest that blinatumomab and InO may have comparable efficacy as a first or second NA therapy in RR ALL.

Introduction: According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2019 guidelines on multiple myeloma (MM) treatment, three-drug regimens using bortezomib (V) and dexamethasone (d) in combination with either lenalidomide (R), (VRd) or Cyclophosphamide (C) combination (VCd) are standard first-line treatment options in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), regardless of transplant eligibility. However, the two combinations have not been studied head-to-head. This systemic review aims to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of VCd versus VRd in NDMM patients. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov on July 27, 2020. We used the MeSH terms for 'multiple myeloma', 'cyclophosphamide', 'bortezomib', 'dexamethasone', 'lenalidomide', and their associated keywords. The search yielded 410 articles. Screening and data extraction were done according to PRISMA guidelines. After excluding case reports, case series, observational studies, review articles, meta-analysis, and retrospective studies, 11 phase II and III clinical trials (n=1088) were included of which three assessed VCd and eight assessed VRd in NDMM. Results: There was no trial on the direct comparison of VCd with VRd. Total 111 NDMM patients were evaluable who received VCd (Table 1). Moreover, total 977 NDMM patients were evaluable who received VRd (Table 2). VCd arm results: Reeder et al. (2009, n=33) achieved the best ORR of 88% which was largely VGPR or better (61%). Tuchman et al. (2017, n=14) reported similar results of ORR (64%) with 58% achieving VGPR or better and 7% achieving PR. Contrary to these ORR distributions, Sunami et al. (2019, n=64) reported the ORR of 80% which was largely driven by PR of 41%. Moreover, a 2-year OS of 97% and PFS of 77% which is consistent with previous results. The toxicity profile with VCd was manageable with mostly hematological adverse events. Neuropathy was significantly lower when compared to VRd. VRd arm results: NDMM patients, in a phase III trial by Durie et al. (2016, n=471) achieved ORR of 82% (PR=38%, VGPR=28%, and CR=16%) with VRd. The mPFS was 43 months and mOS was 75 months, both significantly better than control. Stadtmauer et al. (2019, n=254) results were similar as well with 3-year PFS and OS as 58% and 85% respectively. Kumar et al. (2012, n=42) had a 1-year OS of 100% and PFS of 83%. O'Donnel et al. (2018, n=50) achieved mPFS of 35 months while mOS could not be reached. Luoma et al. (2019, n=78) achieved a 3-year PFS of 52% while OS of 83%. Severe neuropathy was reported with VRd regimen. The remaining toxicity profile was mostly hematological and manageable with prompt intervention. Conclusion: The two upfront regimens of VCd and VRd show favorable efficacy and safety outcomes in NDMM patients. VRd arm achieves relatively higher rates of ORR, CR and VGPR. Cost-effectiveness and lower neuropathy incidence associated with VCd makes it favorable over VRd. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

BackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) with the translocation t(11;14) may have inferior outcomes in comparison with other standard‐risk MM, and it has been suggested to portend a worse prognosis in African Americans in comparison with Whites. This study used the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to examine the impact of t(11;14) on the clinical outcomes of patients with MM of African American and White descent.MethodsThis study evaluated 3538 patients who underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) for MM from 2008 to 2016 and were reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were analyzed in 4 groups: African Americans with t(11;14) (n = 117), African Americans without t(11;14) (n = 968), Whites with t(11;14) (n = 266), and Whites without t(11;14) (n = 2187).ResultsAfrican Americans with t(11;14) were younger, had lower Karnofsky scores, and had more advanced stage MM with a higher Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation–Comorbidity Index (HCT‐CI). Fewer African Americans with t(11;14) (21%) had a coexistent high‐risk marker in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (27%). In a multivariate analysis, race and t(11;14) had no association with progression‐free survival. However, overall survival was superior among African Americans with t(11;14) in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.30‐0.93; P = .03). Survival was also associated with female sex, stage, time from diagnosis to transplant, a low HCT‐CI, and receipt of maintenance.ConclusionsRace may have a differential impact on the survival of patients with t(11;14) MM who undergo autoHCT and needs to be further studied.