Grupp, Stephan A.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Outcomes for 1st relapse of pediatric B-lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), especially high/intermediate-risk (HR/IR) relapse, remain unacceptably poor. Limited enrollment of this population on cooperative group clinical trials has impeded our ability to study potentially effective regimens. In the current era, patients can access innovative immunotherapies commercially. However, there is no mechanism to capture outcomes for these off-study patients and no comparative effectiveness data to guide treatment selection. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of patients <30 years who initiated 1st relapse therapy at a participating center from 2018-2022 (ReCALL-1 Study). Objectives were to define real-world survival outcomes, compare response rates of reinduction strategies, describe the post-reinduction treatment landscape, and, for patients with HR/IR relapse, assess the comparative effectiveness (CE) of blinatumomab to hematopoietic cell transplant (blina/HCT) v CD19 CAR T cells (CART). For the CE analysis, we emulated an open-label, randomized study of blina/HCT v CART who achieved an M1/M2 marrow at the end of an intensive reinduction (EoRI). Patients were classified by their intended treatment at EoRI. Cox regression models were used to adjust for unbalanced patient and disease features by arms. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from EoRI. RESULTS The full cohort included 479 patients from 33 centers (31 US, 2 international). Median time to relapse was 31 months (m); 77% had bone marrow (BM) involvement and 31% central nervous sytem involvement. With a median follow-up of 49m from relapse, 4 year (y) OS, event-free survival (EFS), and non-relapse mortality (NRM) were 64%, 43%, and 13%, respectively. Among patients with very early BM (<18m, n=79), early BM (18-35m, n=76), late BM (≥36m, n=162), and isolated CNS (n=85) relapses, 4y OS/EFS were 29%/20%, 57%/35%, 78%/49%, and 84%/61%, respectively. Only 19% received reinduction therapy on a clinical trial. Among patients with BM disease, R3 reinduction (n=179) and VXLD (n=61) had identical MRD-negative (<0.01%) CR rates of 38% (p=1.00) and equivalent treatment failure (TF; M3 or extramedullary disease) rates: R3, 8% v VXLD 7%, p=0.79. Blina (n=33) and inotuzumab-based (n=21) reinductions achieved MRD-negative CR rates of 39% and 52%, respectively, but higher TF rates of 39% and 24%. Reinduction mortality was 2%: R3, n=5; VXLD, n=3; 3-drug reinduction, n=1. Overall, as part of 1st relapse therapy, 36% received CART (78% commercial product), 44% HCT, 40% blina, and 11% inotuzumab. The emulated trial included 159 patients, 95 on blina/HCT and 64 on CART. Study arms were well matched by demographics, cytogenetics, and relapse sites, but CART patients were more likely to have relapsed <18m from diagnosis (34% v 24%) and have EoRI M2 marrows (31% v 11%), and less likely to have private insurance (36% v 51%). Unadjusted OS was comparable between arms (log rank p=0.18): CART, 60% at 4y; blina/HCT, 71%, as was NRM (10% v 13% at 4y). EFS was lower for CART (p=0.049): 4y EFS 35% v 49% for blina/HCT. After adjustment for unbalanced covariates, the hazard of death was equivalent for CART as compared to blina/HCT (aHR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.1, p=0.67) and EFS became more comparable (aHR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.1, p=0.22). 91% of blina/HCT and 97% of CART received their intended cell therapy; time from EoRI to cell therapy was shorter for CART (67 v 86 days, p<.001). In the CART arm, 34% underwent consolidative HCT; 1/3 were preplanned and 2/3 due to loss of B cell aplasia or NGS-MRD positivity. Of those with a 2nd relapse, CART patients were more likely to be CD19 negative (47% v 10%, p=0.003). CONCLUSION In this multicenter, real-world cohort of children treated for 1st relapse in the immunotherapy era, suboptimal outcomes for early BM relapse persisted, with particularly dismal 4y OS of 29% for relapses <18m after diagnosis. In contrast, survival for late BM and isolated CNS relapses compared favorably to historic data. Only 1 in 5 patients initiated relapse therapy on a clinical trial and although 1st relapse is not an approved indication for commercial CART in pediatrics, 36% received CART. In an emulated trial of post-reinduction blina/HCT v CART, adjusted EFS and OS were comparable, suggesting that CART may be a viable alternative to HCT for select patients. Post hoc analyses will identify whether specific subgroups may benefit more from one strategy.

Abstract Lineage switch (LS), defined as the immunophenotypic transformation of acute leukemia, has emerged as a mechanism of relapse after antigen-targeted immunotherapy, which is associated with dismal outcomes. Through an international collaborative effort, we identified cases of LS after a host of antigen-targeted therapies (eg, CD19, CD22, CD38, and CD7), described how LS was diagnosed, reviewed treatment approaches, and analyzed overall outcomes for this form of postimmunotherapy relapse. Collectively, 75 cases of LS were evaluated, including 53 (70.7%) cases of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) transforming to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), 17 (22.7%) cases of B-ALL transforming to mixed phenotypic acute leukemia (MPAL)/acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage (ALAL), and 5 (6.7%) cases of rare LS presentation (ie, T-cell ALL to AML). An additional 10 cases with incomplete changes in immunophenotype, referred to as “lineage drift” were also described. With a primary focus on the 70 cases of LS from B-ALL to AML or MPAL/ALAL, LS emerged at a median of 1.5 months (range, 0-36.5) after immunotherapy, with 81.4% presenting with LS within the first 6 months from the most proximal immunotherapy. Although most involved KMT2A rearrangements (n = 45, 64.3%), other rare cytogenetic and/or molecular alterations were uniquely observed. Treatment outcomes were generally poor, with remission rates of <40%. The median overall survival after LS diagnosis was 4.8 months. Outcomes were similarly poor for those with rare immunophenotypes of LS or lineage drift. This global initiative robustly categorizes lineage changes after immunotherapy and, through enhanced understanding, establishes a foundation for improving outcomes of LS.

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 < .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 The significance of biomarkers in second-line treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) has not been well characterized. We analyzed clinical data and serum samples at the initiation of second-line systemic treatment of acute GVHD from 167 patients from 17 centers of the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) between 2016 and 2021. Sixty-two patients received ruxolitinib-based therapy, whereas 102 received other systemic agents. In agreement with prospective trials, ruxolitinib resulted in a higher day 28 (D28) overall response Frate than nonruxolitinib therapies (55% vs 31%, P = .003) and patients who received ruxolitinib had significantly lower nonrelapse mortality (NRM) than those who received nonruxolitinib therapies (point estimates at 2-year: 35% vs 61%, P = .002). Biomarker analyses demonstrated that the benefit from ruxolitinib was observed only in patients with low MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs) at the start of second-line treatment. Among patients with a low MAP, those who received ruxolitinib experienced significantly lower NRM than those who received nonruxolitinib therapies (point estimates at 2-year: 12% vs 41%, P = .016). However, patients with high MAP experienced high NRM regardless of treatment with ruxolitinib or nonruxolitinib therapies (point estimates at 2-year: 67% vs 80%, P = .65). A landmark analysis demonstrated that the relationship between the D28 response and NRM largely depends on the MAP level at the initiation of second-line therapy. In conclusion, MAP measured at second-line systemic treatment for acute GVHD predicts treatment response and NRM. The outcomes of patients with high MAP are poor regardless of treatment choice, and ruxolitinib appears to primarily benefit patients with low MAP.

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.

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] 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.

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.