Zarnegar‐Lumley, Sara

Abstract BACKGROUND Children exposed to poverty during frontline therapy for B-lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) experience inferior overall survival (OS), higher relapse rates, and earlier relapse than their peers. Real-world data describing treatment patterns and survival after relapse of B-ALL are lacking and, as a result, the impact of poverty following relapse remains poorly understood. This study evaluated the association of poverty exposure, proxied by insurance status, with post-relapse survival and explored potential explanatory mechanisms, including disease biology and therapy utilization. METHODS Data from Retrospective Study of Contemporary Approaches to First Relapse in B-ALL (ReCALL-1), a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients < 30 years old with first relapse of B-ALL from 2018-2022, were used. The primary exposure was poverty, proxied by insurance status at relapse, categorized as any private insurance (poverty unexposed), public-only insurance (poverty exposed), no insurance, or unknown; the latter two were not included in comparative analyses due to low numbers. The primary outcome was OS. Secondary outcomes included measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative second complete remission (CR2), relapse after CR2, non-relapse mortality (NRM), with relapse treated as a competing risk, and receipt of cellular and immunotherapies. RESULTS Among 462 patients from 31 U.S. institutions, 41% had private insurance, 47% public-only insurance, 2% no insurance, and 10% unknown. Compared to privately insured patients, those with public insurance were more likely to be Hispanic (56% vs 19%, p<0.001) and have non-English preferred language (30% vs 6%, p<0.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients comprised 9% of those with public insurance and 5% of those with private insurance. Disease characteristics that differed by insurance status at relapse included: Ph-like cytogenetics, more common in publicly insured (23% vs 11%, p=0.002), and infant ALL, more common in privately insured patients (10% vs 5%, p=0.06). Publicly insured patients were more likely to have experienced major organ toxicity during frontline therapy (32% vs 18%, p=0.002) and very early relapse (<18m from diagnosis: 43% vs 32%, p=0.07). Other demographic and disease characteristics, including relapse site and cytomolecular features, were similar by insurance status. With a median follow-up of 51 months from relapse, 4-year OS differed by insurance (log-rank p=0.02): 72% for private vs 56% for public insurance. After adjusting for race/ethnicity and language, public insurance increased the hazard of death by 65% (aHR 1.65 95% CI 1.13-2.42, p=0.004). The association remained, but was attenuated, when unbalanced disease characteristics (time to relapse, infant ALL, Ph-like cytogenetics, prior organ dysfunction) were included (aHR 1.47, 95% CI 1.00-2.16, p=0.05). Rates of MRD-negative CR2 were similar (85% public vs 87% private). However, point estimates suggested publicly insured patients had more relapse after CR2 (44% vs 37%, p=0.42) and higher 4-year NRM (16% vs 10%, Gray's test p=0.12), though neither were significant. Treatment choices for first relapse did not differ by insurance status. Utilization of intensive reinduction (91% vs 95% for public vs private, p=0.18) and clinical trial enrollment (22% for both) were similar. Receipt of cellular therapies did not significantly differ by public vs private insurance: Chimeric Antigen Receptor-T cells (CAR-T: 38% vs 34%, p=0.41), hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT: 42% vs 47%, p=0.32). Use of blinatumomab trended higher in those with private insurance (36% vs 45%, p=0.07), and inotuzumab was similar (11% for both, p=0.87). Median time from relapse to CAR-T or HCT was comparable (to CAR-T 102 vs 100 days, to HCT 117 vs 114 days). CONCLUSION This is the first study to demonstrate differential survival by insurance type, a proxy for poverty exposure, after first relapse of B-ALL. In this large multicenter, real-world cohort, patients with public insurance had worse OS after relapse than those with private insurance. The survival disparity existed independent of other SDOH factors. Adjustment for known high-risk disease features only partially accounted for the observed differences in OS. In contrast, rates of MRD-negative CR2 and receipt of CAR-T and HCT were comparable across insurance types. These findings highlight the urgent need to identify effective interventions that will ensure equitable outcomes after relapse.

Abstract Introduction Pronounced disparities in pediatric B-lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) outcomes by race and ethnicity persist in the contemporary era. Gaps in overall survival (OS) from initial diagnosis are wider than event-free survival, suggesting that post-relapse mechanisms may contribute. However, data on treatment and outcomes after relapse are lacking. In a large, multicenter, real-world cohort of children and young adults with high-risk 1st relapse of B-ALL, we sought to (1) define survival outcomes by race/ethnicity and (2) explore if differences in therapy utilization drive outcomes. Methods We conducted an analysis within the Retrospective Study of Contemporary Approaches to 1st Relapse in B-ALL (ReCALL-1) cohort, which includes patients <30 years who initiated 1st relapse therapy between 2018-2022. This analysis was restricted to patients treated at US centers for “high-risk” 1st relapse, defined as relapse for which hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) is generally standard-of-care: Early relapse (medullary <36m; isolated extramedullary <18m), late relapse with persistent end of reinduction disease, Ph+ B-ALL or age ≥18 years. Patients with Trisomy 21, those who received cell therapy before relapse and those who died during reinduction were excluded. The primary exposure was race/ethnicity categorized as Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black (NHB), non-Hispanic White (NHW), and other/unknown. The primary outcome was OS from relapse. Multivariable Cox regression models were constructed to include other social drivers of health (SDOH; health insurance, preferred language) and disease characteristics. Results Of 479 patients in ReCALL-1, 311 from 31 centers met inclusion for this analysis (41% Hispanic, 7% NHB, 46% NHW, 5% NH-other/unknown). With a median follow-up of 47m, OS differed by race/ethnicity (log-rank p=0.017): Hispanic, 4y OS 59%; NHB, 37%; NHW, 68%. Compared to NHW patients, NHB patients had an increased hazard of death (HR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-4.3, p=0.006), while Hispanic patients were more similar to NHW patients (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-2.0, p=0.16). Adjustment for SDOH only marginally attenuated the risk for NHB patients (aHR 2.0, 95% CI, 1.1-3.7, p=0.031) and led to equivalent outcomes for Hispanic patients (aHR 0.9, 95% CI, 0.5-1.5, p=0.66). Adjusting for disease characteristics that differed by race/ethnicity at p<0.2 (time to relapse, Ph+, Ph-like, KMT2Ar, age ≥18, or relapsed infant ALL) did not diminish the risk for NHB patients (aHR 2.0, 95% CI, 1.1-3.7, p=0.032) while outcomes remained equivalent for Hispanic patients (aHR 1.2, 95% CI, 0.8-1.8, p=0.40). Point estimates of cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) were highest in NHB patients (Hispanic, 4y NRM 13%, NHB 22%, NHW 11%), but this trend was not statistically significant (Gray’s p=0.52). Only 17% of patients initiated therapy for relapse on a clinical trial with no differences observed by race/ethnicity. Most patients received definitive treatment for relapse with either CAR T cell therapy (CART) or HCT: 79% overall, 74% Hispanic, 91% NHB, and 83% NHW. CART and HCT were utilized equally (39% and 40%, respectively) and the proportion that received each therapy did not vary by race/ethnicity. Time to CART/HCT, external referral for treatment, receipt of investigational v commercial CART, and use of post-CART consolidative HCT revealed no differences by race/ethnicity. Of the 66 patients (21%) who did not receive cell therapy, 26 had planned for CART or HCT, but did not receive due to disease progression or NRM (n=24; 12 Hispanic, 10 NHW), or insurance barriers (n=2, both Hispanic). After HCT, OS was worse for NHB patients (log-rank p=0.03) with 4y OS of 42% v 85% for NHW and 75% for Hispanic. Post-CART, 4y OS was 40% for NHB v 59% for NHW and 51% for Hispanic, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion In a large real-world cohort of children with high-risk 1st relapse of B-ALL, we found a two-fold increased hazard of death for NHB patients compared to NHW patients, even after adjustment for other SDOH factors and high-risk disease features. In contrast to previous studies of adult patients, children appeared to have equal access to cell therapies across races/ethnicities. We found that Hispanic patients, who comprised >40% of the cohort, had similar survival to NHW children, suggesting that availability of cellular and immunotherapies may be mitigating historically observed disparities for children with relapsed B-ALL.

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.

AbstractSomatic mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes occur frequently in adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and less commonly in pediatric AML. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence, mutational profile, and prognostic significance of IDH mutations in AML across age. Our cohort included 3141 patients aged between <1 month and 88 years treated on Children’s Cancer Group/Children’s Oncology Group (n = 1872), Southwest Oncology Group (n = 359), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (n = 397) trials, and in Beat AML (n = 333) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 180) genomic characterization cohorts. We retrospectively analyzed patients in 4 age groups (age range, n): pediatric (0-17, 1744), adolescent/young adult (18-39, 444), intermediate-age (40-59, 640), older (≥60, 309). IDH mutations (IDHmut) were identified in 9.2% of the total cohort (n = 288; IDH1 [n = 123, 42.7%]; IDH2 [n = 165, 57.3%]) and were strongly correlated with increased age: 3.4% pediatric vs 21% older, P < .001. Outcomes were similar in IDHmut and IDH-wildtype (IDHWT) AML (event-free survival [EFS]: 35.6% vs 40.0%, P = .368; overall survival [OS]: 50.3% vs 55.4%, P = .196). IDH mutations frequently occurred with NPM1 (47.2%), DNMT3A (29.3%), and FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD) (22.4%) mutations. Patients with IDHmut AML with NPM1 mutation (IDHmut/NPM1mut) had significantly improved survival compared with the poor outcomes experienced by patients without (IDHmut/NPM1WT) (EFS: 55.1% vs 17.0%, P < .001; OS: 66.5% vs 35.2%, P < .001). DNTM3A or FLT3-ITD mutations in otherwise favorable IDHmut/NPM1mut AML led to inferior outcomes. Age group analysis demonstrated that IDH mutations did not abrogate the favorable prognostic impact of NPM1mut in patients aged <60 years; older patients had poor outcomes regardless of NPM1 status. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00070174, #NCT00372593, #NCT01371981, #NCT00049517, and #NCT00085709.

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Pediatric Aggressive Mature B-Cell Lymphomas include recommendations for the diagnosis and management of pediatric patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBL) and sporadic variants of Burkitt lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PMBL is now considered as a distinct entity arising from mature thymic B-cells accounting for 2% of mature B-cell lymphomas in children and adolescents. This discussion section includes the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pediatric patients with PMBL.

Background: Somatic mutations in the IDH genes are common in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Mutations occur at active site arginine residues in IDH1 (R132) and IDH2 (R140, R172). IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2), have shown improved clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory IDH-mutant AML and are approved for use in this setting, while investigations in combination with chemotherapy are underway in de novo AML. The prognostic significance of IDH mutations remains controversial. We hypothesize that refining our understanding of IDH-mutated AML will contribute to risk-adapted treatment strategies, including optimal use of IDH-targeted agents. The objective of our study was to identify characteristics that affect outcome in de novo IDH-mutated AML across the age spectrum utilizing a large cohort of patients enrolled on several pediatric and adult trials. Methods: The total cohort (N=3588) included patients age <1 month - 88 years. Pediatric and young adult (YA) patients were treated on recent CCG/COG AML trials (CCG2961, COG 03P1, 0531, 1031, N=2231) and YA/adult patients were treated on SWOG S0106 (N=396), ECOG E1900 AML trials (N=398), Beat AML (N=363), or included in the TCGA biology study (N=200; outcomes not evaluated for this group). Patients were analyzed according to three defined age groups: "younger" 0-29 years of age (N=2401), "intermediate" 30-59 years of age (N=819) and "older" 60 years of age and above (N=319). Data regarding clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were collected and evaluated according to the standard practices of each cooperative or research groups for the respective studies. Mutational profiling was performed by targeted sequencing for patient samples from COG trials, Beat-AML, ECOG, and SWOG; whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing for the TCGA cohort. Prevalence of IDH mutations, co-occurring mutations, and outcomes (5-year event-free survival [EFS]) were analyzed across the defined age groups. Results: The prevalence of IDH mutations among the entire cohort was 8.6% (N=276). Analysis according to mutation type demonstrated that IDH2 mutations comprised 57% (N=158) and IDH1 mutations 43% (N=118). The prevalence of IDH mutations was strongly correlated with increased age (Fig 1A); according to the age-defined cohorts was 4.0% (N=82) in younger, 15.2% (N=126) in intermediate, and 20.3% (N=65) in older patients (p<0.001). The co-occurring mutational profile demonstrated that IDH mutations commonly co-occurred with NPM1,DNMT3A, and FLT3-ITD mutations (Fig 1B). Among IDH-mutant patients, 48% (N=132) harbored dual mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut); 11.6% (N=32) triple mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut), the latter particularly prevalent in intermediate-aged adults (N=27/32, 85%). Analysis of the cohort with outcome data (N=2824) demonstrated that IDHmut and IDH-WT patients experienced similar EFS of 39% vs. 40%, respectively (p=0.723). Given the favorable prognostic significance of NPM1, we subsequently analyzed outcomes of this dual mutant group and found that NPM1 mutations retained favorable prognostic impact in the context of IDH mutant patients (Fig 2A). Notably, this effect was age-dependent, as those with IDHmut/NPM1mut had a favorable EFS compared to IDHmut/NPM1-WT for younger (76% vs. 24%, p<0.001) and intermediate patients (43% vs. 15%, p=0.001, Fig 2B) but this favorable effect was lost in older patients (29% vs. 34%, p=0.456, Fig 2C). Among intermediate age patients, outcome was further stratified by DNMT3A status, and IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut patients experienced an inferior EFS of 25% vs. 57% in IDHmut/NPMmut (p=0.003, Fig 2D). Conclusion: Analysis of this large patient cohort provides the most comprehensive description of IDH mutations in AML across the age spectrum. We confirm age-associated prevalence of IDH mutations and frequent co-occurrence with NPM1 mutation in all ages and in further combination with DNMT3A mutation in intermediate-aged adults. We definitively demonstrate that IDH mutation status is not an independent prognostic determinant of outcome in any age group. Co-occurrence of NPM1 and IDH mutations favorably impacts outcome in patients < 60 years of age with AML, particularly in the absence of DNMT3A mutation. Our data support that IDH inhibitors may be of particular interest in older adults and in patients <60 according to co-occurring NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations. Disclosures Othus: Marck: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Radich:Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Abdel-Wahab:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Envisagenics Inc.: Current equity holder in private company; H3 Biomedicine Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; BioSight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Rafael: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioline rx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding. Atallah:Jazz: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy. Luger:Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Loxo Oncology: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cooper:Celgene: Other: Spouse was an employee of Celgene (through August 2019).