Rubio, Marie‐Thérèse

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.

Outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have improved over time. Studies have shown that total body irradiation (TBI) is the preferable type of myeloablative conditioning (MAC). However, outcomes based on central nervous system (CNS) involvement, namely CNS-positive versus CNS-negative, have not been compared. Here, we evaluated outcomes of 547 patients (CNS-positive = 96, CNS-negative = 451) who were allografted in the first complete remission (CR1) between 2009 and 2019. Primary endpoint was leukemia-free survival (LFS). Median follow-up was not different between the CNS-positive and CNS-negative groups (79 versus 67.2 months, P = 0.58). The CNS-positive group were younger (median age 31.3 versus 39.7 years, P = 0.004) and were allografted more recently (median year 2012 versus 2010, P = 0.003). In both groups, MAC was the preferred approach (82.3% versus 85.6%, P = 0.41). On multivariate analysis, the CNS-positive group had higher incidence of relapse (RI) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-2.35], P = 0.025), but no adverse effect on LFS (HR = 1.38 [95% CI = 0.99-1.92], P = 0.057) or overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.28 [95% CI = 0.89-1.85], P = 0.18). A subgroup multivariate analysis limited to CNS-positive patients showed that a TBI-based MAC regimen resulted in better LFS (HR = 0.43 [95% CI = 0.22-0.83], P = 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.44 [95% CI = 0.21-0.92], P = 0.03) and lower RI (HR = 0.35 [95% CI = 0.15-0.79], P = 0.01). Another subgroup analysis in CNS-negative patients showed that MAC-TBI preparative regimens also showed a lower RI without a benefit in LFS or OS. While a MAC-TBI allo-HCT regimen may not be suitable to all, particularly for older patients with comorbidities, this approach should be considered for patients who are deemed fit and able to tolerate.