Horwitz, Mitchell E.

Abstract Background: Dissemination and implementation science (D+I) efforts often begin after clinical trial (CT) efficacy data are available. However, delaying this work limits opportunities to identify barriers and facilitators that can enhance adoption of evidence-based practices. Integrating D+I during trial development, activation, and conduct supports more timely, effective, and scalable implementation. The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) includes >125 centers, conducting transplant and cellular therapy (TCT) trials with practice-changing potential, with >17,000 patients enrolled since 2001. Data from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) provides a way to measure real-world adoption. With this comprehensive structure in place, the BMT CTN launched a D+I Committee that established a D+I process to better understand uptake of CT findings and to leverage that information to promote adoption. Methods: Informed by established D+I frameworks, a structured, cyclical process to integrate implementation considerations spanning the CT lifecycle was developed. A multidisciplinary team including experts in D+I, clinicians, and investigators iteratively refined the proposed D+I algorithm. The process begins upstream when a trial concept is approved to move forward, it is shared with the D+I Committee for initial assessment. This includes a landscape review for studies in development using CIBMTR data, literature, and expert experience. The Committee then reviews the developing protocol with the BMT CTN protocol team to proactively identify implementation barriers and facilitators to implementation in real-world settings and outline plans for dissemination. The Committee also provides recommendations for integrating relevant implementation data collection and analyses within the protocol. After study completion, both clinical efficacy and implementation outcomes are analyzed, followed by active dissemination. Additional assessment using surveys, qualitative methods, and CIBMTR data occurs after dissemination to understand adoption. Insights gathered also inform further refinement of the process. Tools and templates are in development to build capacity and ensure consistency for Committee members. Results: To date, the Committee has published three peer-reviewed articles addressing implementation implications of three BMT CTN trials (PMC7735536, PMC8578257, PMC9364468) and a fourth is in press. Using the designed D+I process flow, a current effort used a survey sent to US CIBMTR centers, to evaluate factors influencing the implementation of results of the BMT CTN 1703 trial of post-transplant cyclophosphamide as graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis and assessed dissemination and adoption considerations for the upcoming BMT CTN 2203 CT of ruxolitinib as GvHD prophylaxis. CIBMTR data is being analyzed to demonstrate practice patterns before, during, and after BMT CTN 1703 study completion. This effort has allowed for further refinement of the BMT CTN D+I process flow and has highlighted critical opportunities for incorporating dissemination and implementation objectives and endpoints into BMT CTN protocols. We also used the process to guide a review of severe aplastic anemia treatment gaps and ongoing studies. This review underscored how proactive transplant and non-transplant stakeholder engagement and early implementation planning, core elements of this process, can bridge evidence to practice and advance access to care. A complementary survey on current practice patterns in severe aplastic anemia is ongoing. Conclusions: With the existing structure of the BMT CTN and associated practice registry of the CIBMTR, the BMT CTN D+I Committee developed a systematic process to build D+I considerations into trial workflows to increase real-world impact. This process aims to ensure that barriers to uptake of trial results can be identified and addressed appropriately, improving care quality for patients undergoing TCT.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) provide expert, multidisciplinary recommendations for autologous and allogeneic HCT based on current evidence. The NCCN Guidelines focus on pretransplant recipient evaluation, hematopoietic cell mobilization, conditioning, and the diagnosis and management of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a common complication of allogeneic HCT that is associated with significant morbidity. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for HCT focuses on the diagnosis, workup, and management of acute and chronic GVHD, as well as important supportive care considerations.

Background: Zamto-cel is an investigational autologous tandem CD20-CD19-directed non-cryopreserved CAR-T cell product administered as a fresh formulation to patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (r/r DLBCL) in the DALY II USA clinical trial (NCT04792489), a multicenter, open label, single-arm Phase 2 study. Here, we report efficacy and safety outcomes as part of a pre-planned interim analysis of 59 evaluable patients and 69 patients in the safety population. Methods: Eligible adults had r/r DLBCL after at least 2 prior lines of treatment including anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and anthracycline-containing regimen and measurable disease per Lugano 2014 classification. Zamto-cel was manufactured utilizing CliniMACS Prodigy® (Miltenyi Biotec), a closed, automated system with a 14-day vein-to-vein time and administered as a fresh formulation. Lymphodepletion chemotherapy was initiated during the manufacturing process (either cyclophosphamide/ fludarabine or bendamustine) prior to receiving a single dose of zamto-cel at a dose of 2.5x106 CAR T cells/kg on Day 0. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) defined as best overall response (BOR) of either complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). Secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and CD19 and CD20 antigen expression at relapse. Results: As of March 29th, 2024, 69 pts received zamto-cel of which 59 were evaluable having received a fresh, conforming product and completed a minimum of 3 months follow-up. Median age was 63 years (range 25-85), 39 (66%) were male. Sixteen pts (27%) received 3 or more lines of prior treatment. The majority of pts (53%) had elevated LDH at study entry, and 49% had ≥ 2 extranodal lesions, indicative of a study population with advanced disease. No pts received any bridging therapy, in the week after apheresis and before lymphodepletion. Only 7 pts (12%) received bendamustine as lymphodepleting regimen. Successful manufacturing of a fresh, in specification product occurred in 91.3% out of 69 treated pts. Four patients received a cryopreserved formulation to permit time for comorbid condition management. The mean viability of the final product was 96.0% with 29.4 % transduction efficacy. No patient died or withdrew during the manufacturing process. The ORR in the evaluable patient population (n=59) as assessed by an Independent Radiology Committee (IRC) was 72.9% (95% CI, 59.7-83.6), with a CRR of 49.2% (95% CI,35.9-62.5). The 6 month and 12 month-PFS was 55% (95%CI, 41-67) and 42% (95%CI, 28-56), respectively; 12 month-OS was 72% (95%CI, 57-83). The median DOR was 11.4 months. All 69 treated pts were assessed for safety outcomes. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly of grade 1-2, the majority of grade ≥ 3 were hematological. Thirty-two pts (46.4%) experienced cytokine release syndrome (CRS), all grade 1-2. Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was reported in 12 pts (17.4%), grade 1-2 (9 pts; 13.1%); grade 3 (3 pts; 4.3%). One patient experienced immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome (IEC-HS), which resolved after 2 days. Biopsies at progression were available in 24 pts. CD19-negative relapse (defined as H Score <100) was seen in 2 pts, CD20-negative relapse was observed in 3 pts. Only one patient experienced loss of both antigens compared to pre-treatment status, demonstrating that most lymphomas maintain target antigen expression at relapse after treatment with zamto-cel. Conclusion: This pre-planned interim analysis represents the first pivotal trial of a tandem CD20-CD19 directed non-cryopreserved CAR-T cell product for patients with third-line r/r DLBCL. The trial plans to enroll 100 evaluable patients and the final data will be presented upon study completion. Among the 59 evaluable patients at the interim analysis, there is encouraging activity and a favorable safety profile in DLBCL patients treated with zamto-cel. Unlike currently registered CAR-T cell products, zamto-cel is administered as a fresh product with a short vein-to-vein time of 14 days with lymphodepletion initiated during the manufacturing process. With a manufacturing success rate of 91% we have demonstrated the feasibility of this process among high-risk patients with r/r DLBCL.

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with AML harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 ( FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202 ) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005]; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387]; P = .575). CONCLUSION Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.

Introduction: AutoHCT is an effective therapy for patients (pts) with DLBCL who are refractory or relapse following first-line chemotherapy, but long term outcomes remain suboptimal. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib has shown promising activity in pts with ABC-DLBCL (Wilson et al, Nat Med 2015). In 2016 we launched a randomized phase III clinical trial to evaluate the addition of ibrutinib to AutoHCT as part of conditioning and as consolidation therapy for pts with relapsed/refractory ABC-DLBCL. Patients and Methods: Following assessment of open-label treatment in a safety cohort of 6 pts, we randomly assigned pts with chemotherapy-sensitive persistent or relapsed ABC-DLBCL to receive ibrutinib 560 mg [Arm A] or placebo [Arm B] concurrently with conditioning on days -6 to -1 of AutoHCT (Cycle 1). Following count recovery and resolution of acute toxicities, pts continued ibrutinib 560 mg in Arm A or placebo in Arm B for 12 additional 28-day cycles. Crossover to Arm A using single agent ibrutinib was allowed for pts progressing on Arm B. Central pathology review was performed for disease confirmation and subtype assignment. Initially, ABC subtype assignment was performed using the Nanostring Lymphoma Subtyping Test (LST) but the study was amended to use the IHC-based Hans classifier for non-GCB on 8/15/19. Other key eligibility criteria included receipt of no more than 3 prior regimens, no active CNS involvement, no need for long-term anticoagulation, and no prior progression on Ibrutinib. Pts were stratified by time to relapse (<=12 mos vs >12 mos), type of conditioning (BEAM or CBV) and prior ibrutinib use. The original design required 296 patients with 82% power to detect a difference in 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates of 67% vs. 50% with a two-sided alpha of 0.05. A revised statistical design allowed an interim futility analysis to be conducted after 40 pts were enrolled and followed for 2 years. Even though the study met criteria to continue accrual to a target of 160 pts, we decided to close it early due to declining accrual on 12/20/2022. We hereby present the primary analysis of the evaluable patients enrolled (data as of 07/17/2023). Results: Between 2/6/17 and 8/24/18, we screened 255 pts but enrolled only 34 (13%) largely due to long assay turnaround times and performance characteristics with the LST. Following the switch to the IHC-based Hans classifier (after 8/15/19), 60 out of 110 pts screened were enrolled (54%) in line with our a priori expectation. In total, 45 pts were randomized to Arm A vs. 43 to Arm B, with 39 and 38, respectively, being evaluable for the primary endpoint at this time. Median age was 61 years (range 20-75 years), median number of prior lines of therapy was 2, 46% of the pts were female, 21% were refractory or had early relapse, 94% were planned to receive BEAM conditioning. Overall, 87% of pts in Arm A and 88% in Arm B underwent conditioning while 70% and 67% respectively, started maintenance therapy. The median number of cycles received was 6 in Arm A vs. 5 in Arm B. The primary endpoint of 2-year PFS was 57.6% (95% CI: 42.1%, 78.8%) in Arm A vs. 40.8% (95% CI: 26.5, 62.8%) in Arm B (HR=0.54; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.10; log-rank p = 0.087). Median PFS was 26.5 months (95% CI: 10.2, not reached [NR]) in Arm A vs. 8.1 months (95% CI: 5.4, NR) in Arm B. Only one pt crossed over to Arm A after progression on Arm B. The most common grade 3-4 AEs in each of the arms were: neutropenia (A: 14%, B: 14%), febrile neutropenia (A: 11%, B: 9%), and thrombocytopenia (A: 11%, B: 7%). Rates of any grade atrial fibrillation were similar between arms (12.8% in Arm A vs. 10.5% in Arm B); one patient had grade 3 and one patient had grade 4 atrial fibrillation, both in Arm B. Six pts had reported grade 5 events (Arm A: 2 sepsis, 1 COVID-19, 1 respiratory failure and 1 disease progression and Arm B: 1 disease progression) but only one grade 5 event (sepsis, Arm A) was deemed probably related to treatment. Conclusions: Despite an early high rate of screen failures and declining accruals due to competition with CAR-T cell therapy, the primary analysis suggests that ibrutinib with and following AutoHCT in relapsed/refractory ABC-DLBCL is well-tolerated and may improve PFS in this high-risk patient population. This trial was supported by: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; U10CA180820, UG1CA233234 (ECOG-ACRIN); U10CA180868 (NRG); U10CA180888 (SWOG) ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02443077 https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org

The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) provide an evidence- and consensus-based approach for the use of autologous and allogeneic HCT in the management of malignant diseases in adult patients. HCT is a potentially curative treatment option for patients with certain types of malignancies; however, recurrent malignancy and transplant-related complications often limit the long-term survival of HCT recipients. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance regarding aspects of HCT, including pretransplant recipient evaluation, hematopoietic cell mobilization, and treatment of graft-versus-host disease—a major complication of allogeneic HCT—to enable the patient and clinician to assess management options in the context of an individual patient’s condition. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of the important recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for HCT, including the incorporation of a newly developed section on the Principles of Conditioning for HCT.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Our group recently reported on the results of Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) Clinical Trials Network (CTN) 1101 a randomized comparison between double umbilical cord blood (dUCB) and haploidentical bone marrow (haplo) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (ptCy) in the nonmyeloablative setting that showed similar progression free survival (PFS) between the two treatment groups, but lower non-relapse mortality (NRM) and better of overall survival (OS) in the haplo arm. In this secondary analysis we sought to investigate if transplant center experience with haplo and or cord blood HCT had an impact on outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patient randomized in BMT CTN 1101 were included. In order to determine the transplant center experience with either haplo or dUCB we queried the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) for number of transplants with each platform in the year prior to initiation of the study. Centers were then grouped as dUCB center (> 10 dUCB, n=117, 10 centers), Haplo center (>10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB, n=110, 2 centers), and ≤10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB HCTs (other center, n=140, 21 centers). Further analysis considered the alternative cut-off for haplo (> 5 vs ≤ 5) experience, and considered the outcomes based on the donor experience vs. others (e.g. dUCB > 10 vs. ≤ 10; haplo > 5 vs. ≤ 5). RESULTS: The effect of center experience on HCT outcomes shown in Figure, below . After adjusting for age, Karnofsky performance score and, disease risk index we found that there was no difference in outcomes between haplo and dUCB for centers that were experienced with dUCB or had limited to no experience with either dUCB or haplo. In contrast, in centers that were primarily experienced with haplo had better outcomes with this donor type, as compared to dUCB. The higher risk of treatment failure (relapse or death) and overall mortality in dUCB in haplo experienced centers was driven by significantly higher risk of relapse. We then considered the transplant experience with each of the donor types separately. In transplant centers that had performed > 10 dUCB, there were similar outcomes for recipients of both dUCB and haplo. Similarly, centers that had ≤ 5 haplo HCTs had no difference in outcomes between donor types suggesting an overlap with centers that had performed > 10 dUCB HCTs. Overall mortality was higher among dUCB recipients in centers that had performed ≤ 10 dUCB. Notably, the hazard ratio of non-relapse mortality favored haplo in all four donor experience type of transplant center, albeit not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Except for dUCB recipients in centers with < 10 dUCB/year had worse overall mortality, primarily driven by relapse, the transplant center experience in the year prior to the initiation of BMT CTN 1101 had limited impact on the outcomes of this randomized clinical trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Brunstein: NANT: Research Funding; FATE: Research Funding; GamidaCell: Research Funding; BlueRock: Research Funding; AlloVir: Consultancy. Costa: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cutler: Deciphera: Consultancy; Cimeio: Consultancy; Editas: Consultancy; Kadmon: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy; Mesoblast: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Horowitz: Sobi: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mesoblast: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy; Actinium: Research Funding. Horwitz: Gamida Cell: Research Funding. McGuirk: Novartis: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rezvani: US Department of Justice: Consultancy; Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding. Rybka: Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Vasu: Kiadis, Inc.: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: Travel support; Seattle Genetics: Other: travel support; Omeros, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Richter syndrome (RS) represents a transformation from chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) to aggressive lymphoma, most commonly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), which is associated with a dismal prognosis. Patients with DLBCL-RS have poor outcomes with DLBCL-directed therapy; thus, consolidation with hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has been used, with durable remissions observed. Studies reporting HCT outcomes in patients with DLBCL-RS have been small, have not evaluated the prognostic impact of cytogenetic risk factors, and were conducted prior to the era of novel targeted therapy of CLL/SLL. We performed a Center for International Blood and Transplant Research registry study evaluating outcomes after autologous HCT (auto-HCT; n = 53) and allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT; n = 118) in patients with DLBCL-RS treated in the modern era. More auto-HCT recipients were in complete response (CR) at HCT relative to allo-HCT recipients (66% vs 34%), whereas a higher proportion of allo-HCT recipients had 17p deletion (33% vs 7%) and had previously received novel agents (39% vs 10%). In the auto-HCT cohort, the 3-year relapse incidence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were 37%, 48%, and 57%, respectively. Among allo-HCT recipients, the 3-year relapse incidence, PFS, and OS were 30%, 43%, and 52%, respectively. In the allo-HCT cohort, deeper response at HCT was associated with outcomes (3-year PFS/OS, 66%/77% CR vs 43%/57% partial response vs 5%/15% resistant; P < .0001 for both), whereas cytogenetic abnormalities and prior novel therapy did not impact outcomes. In our study, HCT resulted in durable remissions in therapy-sensitive patients with DLBCL-RS treated in the era of targeted CLL/SLL therapy, including patients with high-risk features.