Advani, Anjali S.

PURPOSE Chemotherapy outcomes in older patients with Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome–negative B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are very poor. Here, we evaluated blinatumomab as induction and consolidation therapy followed by prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate (POMP) maintenance chemotherapy in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were treated at National Clinical Trial Network sites. Eligibility criteria included age ≥ 65 years and newly diagnosed Ph chromosome–negative B-ALL. Patients received blinatumomab as induction for one-two cycles until attainment of response (complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete count recovery). Patients then received three cycles of consolidation with blinatumomab followed by 18 months of POMP maintenance chemotherapy. Eight doses of intrathecal methotrexate were administered as central nervous system prophylaxis. RESULTS Twenty-nine eligible patients were enrolled. The median age was 75 years, and the median bone marrow blast count at diagnosis was 87%. Cytogenetic risk was poor in 10 patients (34%), and five of 14 patients (36%) tested had the Ph-like ALL gene signature. Nineteen patients (66%; 95% CI, 46 to 82) achieved CR. Kaplan-Meier 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival estimates were 37% (95% CI, 17 to 57) and 37% (95% CI, 20 to 55), respectively. CONCLUSION Blinatumomab was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of older patients with newly diagnosed Ph chromosome–negative B-ALL, including patients with poor-risk cytogenetics. The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival results are encouraging and suggest that this approach should be further explored.

Abstract Introduction According to population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data, approximately 40% of adolescents and young adults (AYA) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in the United States (U.S.) are Hispanic and 7% are Black and both Hispanic and Black patients have significantly inferior outcomes relative to non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). CALGB 10403, a prospective Phase II clinical trial conducted by the U.S. Intergroup, demonstrated the feasibility of delivering a pediatric-inspired ALL regimen to newly diagnosed AYA ALL patients and found this approach to be superior to historical adult regimens (Stock et al. Blood 2019). In the current analysis, we evaluate enrollment patterns of Hispanic and Black AYAs on CALGB 10403 and compare survival relative to SEER estimates. Methods Demographics on AYAs (18-40 yrs) enrolled on CALGB 10403 (N=295 from 2007-2012) were supplemented with patient-reported education and socioeconomic status (SES) information. Data from the North American Association of Cancer Registries (NAACCR; 2013-2017) were used to evaluate U.S. country-wide ALL incidence (20-49 yrs) overall and among Hispanics, reported per U.S. state. SEER registries (2008-2012) provided racial/ethnic distribution and overall survival (OS) of AYA ALL (15-39 yrs). The distribution of OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared across racial/ethnic groups using log-rank tests. Results Relative to the U.S. AYA ALL population, CALGB 10403 included proportionally fewer Hispanics (41.7% vs. 16.3%, P < 0.001); the distribution of blacks was similar (6.4% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.174). Demographics and ALL characteristics among CALGB 10403 enrollees demonstrated no significant differences in age, sex, cytogenetics, or BMI by race/ethnicity; however, Black AYAs were more likely to have T-ALL, and Hispanic patients were more likely to have Ph-like B-ALL and rearrangements in CRLF2. Hispanic and Black patients reported lower household yearly income, and Black patients had less educational attainment. In order to explore reasons for disproportionately low Hispanic enrollment on CALGB 10403, we calculated the proportion of Hispanic AYAs with ALL relative to the AYA ALL incidence across U.S. states using NAACCR data and compared this with the geographical distribution of CALGB 10403 enrollments. The incidence of AYA ALL across U.S. states is represented in Fig 1A and the proportion of Hispanic AYA ALL patients in Fig 1B. The states with highest proportion of Hispanic patients included CA, TX, and NM, followed by AZ, CO, FL, and NJ. Although CALGB 10403 enrolled patients in 31 U.S. states, the trial did not open in TX or FL. The enrollments numbers were highest across the Mid-Western U.S., with only 47/295 (15.9%) of enrollments coming from the seven states with a high proportion of Hispanic AYA ALL patients (Fig 1C). The 3-yr event-free survival (EFS) and OS for the total CALGB 10403 cohort were 59.1% (53.1%, 65.75%) and 73.5% (68.1%, 79.4%), respectively. Per protocol completion of therapy was highest in Hispanics (75%), relative to Black (64%) and NHW patients (56%), P=0.049. Overall survival among CALGB 10403 participants differed significantly across race/ethnicity (Fig 2), with superior OS experienced by Hispanic patients and inferior OS by Black patients (P= 0.021). These clinical trial results differ from SEER estimates, where both Hispanic and Black patients experience worse OS relative to NHW (Fig 2). Conclusions This in-depth analysis of racial/ethnic enrollments and outcomes on CALGB 10403 uncovered findings that may translate across clinical trials beyond AYA ALL. Importantly, our data suggest that closer matching of trial site selection to geographical racial/ethnic disease incidence may improve minority enrollments on multi-center clinical trials. Relative to NHW, Hispanic patients had superior survival despite having higher rates of Ph-like ALL, indicating that clinical trial participation may mitigate racial/ethnic survival disparities seen in population-based data. Finally, we saw no improvement in trial outcomes among Black AYAs; a deeper understanding of the biological leukemia underpinnings and barriers to successful outcomes would aid future efforts at improving survival across racial/ethnic groups. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Muffly: Pfizer, Amgen, Jazz, Medexus, Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas, Jasper, Adaptive, Baxalta: Research Funding; Adaptive: Honoraria, Other: fees for non-CME/CE services: , Research Funding. Advani: Abbvie: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; OBI: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, 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. Tallman: NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Honoraria; UC DAVIS: Honoraria; Northwell Grand Rounds: Honoraria; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Danbury Hospital Tumor Board: Honoraria; Acute Leukemia Forum: Honoraria; Miami Leukemia Symposium: Honoraria; New Orleans Cancer Symposium: Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; NCCN: Honoraria. Litzow: Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Foster: Macrogenics: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Larson: Gilead: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding.

Abstract Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the outcomes of patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Many older patients (pts) are not good candidates for intensive chemotherapy and are treated with TKIs plus corticosteroids or low intensity chemotherapy. Although the remission rates with this approach have been high, the median disease-free survival (DFS) has been short. Therefore, novel treatment strategies are needed. This trial evaluated the feasibility of combining the TKI dasatinib with prednisone and blinatumomab in older pts with Ph+ ALL. Methods: This trial was activated through the NCTN in January 2015 and closed to accrual in April 2021. Pt eligibility included: age ≥ 65 years; Ph+ or Ph-like ALL (with dasatinib-sensitive fusions or mutations); newly diagnosed or relapsed/ refractory; no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease; and adequate organ function. Treatment: For induction, pts received dasatinib 140 mg/d orally (PO) Days 1-56 along with prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d PO Days 1-24. Pts achieving complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (Day 28 or Day 56) continued dasatinib until Day 84 followed by 3 cycles of post-remission therapy (PRT) with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Pts not achieving CR or CRi by Day 56 received re-induction with blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Day 35 of blinatumomab. Pts not achieving CR/ CRi could receive a second cycle of blinatumomab. This was followed by 3 cycles of PRT with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Maintenance therapy consisted of prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d x 5 days every 28 days for a total of 18 cycles along with dasatinib 140 mg po qd indefinitely. CNS prophylaxis included intrathecal (IT) methotrexate every 4-6 weeks x 8 doses. IT methotrexate was given at least 2 days apart from blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Days 28, 56, 84 and additional time points were dependent on response. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed centrally by multi-color flow cytometry at Day 28. Statistics: 9 eligible/ evaluable pts receiving PRT were to be evaluated before enrolling additional pts. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined as: > Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities with the exception of nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea (if manageable with supportive care measures) or Grade 4 neutropenia lasting > 42 days with possible relationship to dasatinib or blinatumomab. If due to unexpected accrual, 12 pts were evaluable for DLT, the following rules would apply. If > 4 of the 12 pts experienced a DLT, the study would be temporarily closed pending review. Upon re-opening, 8 additional eligible and evaluable pts would be enrolled for a total of 20 pts receiving blinatumomab. Results: Due to rapid accrual, 16 pts enrolled before accrual was paused to assess feasibility and safety. Twelve pts were evaluable for DLT and 4 experienced a DLT: Grade 3 dyspnea and gastrointestinal pain (n=1), Grade 3 hypertension (n=1), Grade 3 dyspnea (n=1), Grade 3 hyperglycemia (n=1). These adverse events were deemed acceptable by the NCI and FDA and the study re-opened. A total of 25 eligible pts were accrued. The median age was 73 years (range 62-87). All pts were newly diagnosed. One pt was Ph-like, with the remainder being Ph+; 89% of Ph+ pts had additional cytogenetic abnormalities. During induction, 2 pts experienced treatment-related non-hematologic Grade 4 toxicities. No Grade 4 or higher treatment-related non-hematologic toxicities occurred during post-remission therapy or maintenance. Twenty-three out of 25 pts (92%) achieved a CR during dasatinib-based and prednisone induction therapy. Four did not receive PRT (2 due to adverse events, 1 to receive transplant, 1 because of insurance issues). Sixteen pts who achieved CR had MRD data. Five out of 16 pts (31%) were MRD negative at Day 28. One pt remains on PRT and 10 are on maintenance. The median follow up for pts who are alive is 1.7 years. The median overall survival (OS) and DFS have not been reached as of July 8, 2021. Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimates of OS and DFS are 85% (95% CI 58%-95%) and 80% (95% CI 55%-92%), respectively (Figure). Conclusions: This trial demonstrates the feasibility of combining dasatinib and blinatumomab in Ph+ ALL. In addition, with 1.7 years of follow up, outcomes are encouraging with high estimated 3-year DFS and OS. Longer follow up will be needed to determine the durability of these results. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Advani: Kite Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; OBI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moseley: BioSight Ltd: Consultancy. Wood: Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Juno, Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Other: Laboratory Services Agreement. Park: Intellia: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Wieduwilt: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Reata: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Jeyakumar: Jazz: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Atallah: Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Gerds: PharmaEssentia Corporation: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Constellation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Othus: Celgene: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Merck: Consultancy; Biosight: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Stone: Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Consultancy; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee.

The NCCN Guidelines for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) focus on the classification of ALL subtypes based on immunophenotype and cytogenetic/molecular markers; risk assessment and stratification for risk-adapted therapy; treatment strategies for Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive and Ph-negative ALL for both adolescent and young adult and adult patients; and supportive care considerations. Given the complexity of ALL treatment regimens and the required supportive care measures, the NCCN ALL Panel recommends that patients be treated at a specialized cancer center with expertise in the management of ALL This portion of the Guidelines focuses on the management of Ph-positive and Ph-negative ALL in adolescents and young adults, and management in relapsed settings.

Abstract Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia have improved outcomes when treated with pediatric-inspired regimens. CALGB 10403 was the largest prospective study to evaluate the feasibility of using a pediatric regimen in AYAs with acute lymphoblastic leukemia up to 40 years of age. This article presents the toxicity events observed in the CALGB 10403 study and compares these toxicities vs those observed among AYAs treated on the same arm of the companion Children’s Oncology Group (COG) AALL0232 study. Toxicities in CALGB 10403 were similar to those observed in COG AALL0232. Some grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more often reported in CALGB 10403 compared with COG AALL0232 (hyperglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, transaminase elevation, and febrile neutropenia). Adverse events correlated with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 and some with increasing age. The mortality rate in CALGB 10403 was low (4%) and similar to that in the COG AALL0232 trial. A caveat to this analysis is that only 39% of CALGB 10403 patients completed all planned protocol treatment. In COG AALL0232, although 74% of patients aged <18 years completed treatment, only 57% of patients aged ≥18 years completed treatment. This scenario suggests that issues associated with age and treating physician may be a factor. Due to its improved survival rates compared with historical controls, the CALGB 10403 regimen is now a standard of care. The hope is that the rate of protocol completion will increase as more familiarity is gained with this regimen. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00558519 (CALGB 10403) and #NCT00075725 (COG AALL0232).

Abstract Purpose: TTI-621 (SIRPα-IgG1 Fc) is a novel checkpoint inhibitor that activates antitumor activity by blocking the CD47 “don't eat me” signal. This first-in-human phase I study (NCT02663518) evaluated the safety and activity of TTI-621 in relapsed/refractory (R/R) hematologic malignancies. Patients and Methods: Patients with R/R lymphoma received escalating weekly intravenous TTI-621 to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). During expansion, patients with various malignancies received weekly single-agent TTI-621 at the MTD; TTI-621 was combined with rituximab in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) or with nivolumab in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. The primary endpoint was the incidence/severity of adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoint included overall response rate (ORR). Results: Overall, 164 patients received TTI-621: 18 in escalation and 146 in expansion (rituximab combination, n = 35 and nivolumab combination, n = 4). On the basis of transient grade 4 thrombocytopenia, the MTD was determined as 0.2 mg/kg; 0.1 mg/kg was evaluated in combination cohorts. AEs included infusion-related reactions, thrombocytopenia, chills, and fatigue. Thrombocytopenia (20%, grade ≥3) was reversible between doses and not associated with bleeding. Transient thrombocytopenia that determined the initial MTD may not have been dose limiting. The ORR for all patients was 13%. The ORR was 29% (2/7) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 25% (8/32) for T-cell NHL (T-NHL) with TTI-621 monotherapy and was 21% (5/24) for DLBCL with TTI-621 plus rituximab. Further dose optimization is ongoing. Conclusions: TTI-621 was well-tolerated and demonstrated activity as monotherapy in patients with R/R B-NHL and T-NHL and combined with rituximab in patients with R/R B-NHL.

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.

Abstract The availability and use of blinatumomab symbolizes a paradigm shift in the management of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort analysis of 239 ALL patients (227 relapsed refractory [RR], n = 227; minimal residual disease [MRD], n = 12) who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy in the “real-world” setting. The median age of patients at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) patients had ≥3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) had allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation before blinatumomab. The response rate (complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery) in patients with RR disease was 65% (47% MRD−). Among 12 patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) patients achieved MRD negativity. In patients with RR disease, median relapse-free survival and overall survival (OS) after blinatumomab was 32 months and 12.7 months, respectively. Among patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, median relapse-free survival was not reached (54% MRD− at 2 years) and OS was 34.7 months. Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity were observed in 3%, 7%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Among patients who achieved complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery, consolidation therapy with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation retained favorable prognostic significance for OS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97; P = .04). In this largest “real-world” experience published to date, blinatumomab demonstrated responses comparable to those reported in clinical trials. The optimal sequencing of newer therapies in ALL requires further study.

10520 Background: Outcomes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are superior with pediatric-inspired therapy. CALGB 10403, the first US adult cooperative group prospective trial using a pediatric-inspired augmented BFM (ABFM)-based regimen, demonstrated feasibility and improved survival. We examined differences in drug delivery and targeted toxicities in AYAs who received the same therapy on C10403 vs the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) study AALL1131. Methods: The proportion of AYAs receiving full dose (within 10% of protocol- specified) vincristine (VCR) and pegaspargase (PEG) during induction (IND), consolidation (CON), and delayed intensification (DI); the likelihood of selected grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs); and the impact of patient characteristics were compared in AYAs 16-30 years. Targeted AEs with analogous reporting requirements in both studies included hyperbilirubinemia, pancreatitis, sensory neuropathy, and GI/intracranial hemorrhage. Thrombosis, transaminitis and hyperglycemia were not comparably captured. Fisher’s Exact test and logistic regression models were used for analyses. Results: After excluding AYAs removed from study after induction, 87 AALL1131 AYAs (accrued 2012-2016) and 188 C10403 AYAs (accrued 2007-2012) were analyzed with median ages of 17 (16-26) vs 22 (17-30) years, p < 0.001. There was no difference in the intensity of VCR delivery during IND, but in CON and DI, AALL1131 AYAs were more likely to receive all specified VCR (93.1% vs 81.9%, p = 0.02; 92.7% vs 72.1%, p = 0.01). Women were less likely to receive all specified VCR (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.94, p = 0.03), and overweight/obese AYAs were somewhat less likely to receive all VCR compared to those considered normal weight (OR 0.88 and 0.59, p = 0.09). More C10403 AYAs were obese/overweight compared to AALL1131 AYAs (p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in dosing of PEG during IND/CON, but in DI AALL1131 AYAs were more likely to receive both doses (75.6% vs 57.1%, p = 0.03). No patient variables impacted delivery of PEG. There was no significant difference in grade ≥3 toxicities captured similarly on both studies. Conclusions: AYAs enrolled on AALL1131 were more likely to receive all protocol-specified VCR and PEG compared to those on C10403. Selected AE rates were comparable, suggesting that older AYAs do not tolerate doses of VCR and PEG for reasons other than toxicity, with body habitus as one potential variable. Further analyses to compare dose density, toxicities, and outcomes experienced by younger AYAs versus older are ongoing.

Optimal post-remission therapy for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 16-39 years) with Ph-negative (Ph-) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in first complete remission (CR1) is not well established. We hypothesized that post-remission therapy with a pediatric-inspired regimen would yield superior outcomes to myeloablative allogeneic HCT for AYA patients with Ph- ALL in CR1. We compared overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse, and non-relapse mortality (NRM) for patients receiving post-remission therapy on CALGB 10403 to a contemporary matched AYA cohort undergoing myeloablative allogeneic HCT in CR1 reported to the CIBMTR (Table). The allogeneic HCT cohort consisted of patients 16-39 years of age with Ph- ALL in CR1 undergoing myeloablative transplant from a matched sibling/relative or unrelated donor using peripheral blood or bone marrow stem cells between 11/2002 and 8/2012 in the United States. Patients receiving post-remission therapy with pediatric-inspired chemotherapy had superior OS (P&lt;0.0001), DFS (P=0.0011), and NRM (P&lt;0.001) compared to allogeneic HCT. Patterns of relapse were time-dependent and examined in the Cox model. In multivariate analysis of Cox model, receiving allogeneic HCT was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.5-2.65, P &lt;0.001), inferior DFS (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17-1.94, P 0.002), and increased NRM (HR 3.93, 95% CI 2.53-6.10, P &lt;0.001; Figure). In the early post-remission period (≤15 months after CR1), relapse was more likely with allogeneic HCT (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03-2.59, p=0.04) whereas beyond 15 months after CR1 relapse was more likely in the chemotherapy arm (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.62, P &lt;0.001; Figure). Obesity (BMI ≥30) was independently associated with inferior OS (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.69-2.91, P&lt;0.001), inferior DFS (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.52-2.53, P &lt;0.001), increased relapse (1.90, 95% CI 1.37-2.64, P &lt;0.001), and increased NRM (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.33-2.97, P &lt;0.001). Extramedullary disease at diagnosis was independently associated with inferior OS (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00-1.79, P=0.05). We conclude from this large retrospective study that post-remission therapy with pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as given on CALGB 10403 was superior to allogeneic HCT in CR1 for OS, DFS, and NRM in AYAs with newly-diagnosed Ph-negative B- and T-cell ALL. Late relapse was more likely with chemotherapy whereas early relapse was more likely with allogeneic HCT. Future study should aim to elucidate the impact of measurable residual disease at CR1 and high-risk genetics, including Ph-like ALL, on the superiority of post-remission pediatric-inspired chemotherapy over allogeneic HCT. Figure. Allogeneic HCT (HCT) vs. CALGB 10403 pediatric-inspired chemotherapy (chemo) after CR1: Adjusted (left-truncated) overall survival, disease-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse, and cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality. Disclosures Wieduwilt: Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Leadiant, Merck, Servier: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership. Stock:Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Honoraria. Advani:Macrogenics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Luger:Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria. Larson:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Contracts for clinical trials; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Weisdorf:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy.