Szabo, Aniko

Abstract INTRODUCTION Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is indicated in patients (pts) with FLT3-ITD mutated AML. The randomized BMT CTN 1506 trial (Levis et al. JCO) demonstrated that maintenance with FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (gilt) significantly improved relapse-free survival (RFS) among pts with detectable peri-alloHCT minimal residual disease (MRD) but was also associated with a greater degree of myelosuppression and infections. In older pts, aged >60 years, increasing post-HCT toxicity may adversely impact outcomes. On this basis, we performed a post-hoc analysis of pts aged > 60 years enrolled onto BMT CTN 1506 to examine the impact of gilteritinib maintenance in older pts. METHODS Pts ≥60 years randomized on BMT CTN 1506 (gilt=47, placebo=57; N=104) were included. The primary endpoint of this post-hoc analysis was RFS. We additionally assessed overall survival (OS), incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM) in all pts and in pts with detectable MRD. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were balanced. Age was similar (65.2 vs 64.7 years; p = 0.12), as was prior TKI exposure, and NPM1 mutation status. Myeloablative conditioning (MAC) was used in 8 (17%) pts randomized to gilt and 18 (32%) pts randomized to placebo (p=0.08). Median f/u of survivors was 43.8 months (range:1-61 mo.). Estimated RFS and OS at 48 months were not different between groups (RFS: gilt: 57.0%, 95%CI 44.1-73.7%, placebo: 57.1%, 95%CI 45.4-71.8%; OS: gilt: 56.9%, 95%CI 42.9-46.7%, placebo: 58.4%, 95%CI 46.7-73.1%). While gilt assignment did not affect survival, several predictors of poorer survival were identified including use of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (HR = 3.46; p = 0.014), use of calcineurin inhibitor/MTX for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis (HR = 2.29; p = 0.041), high-risk cytogenetics (HR = 2.64; p = 0.021), and MRD (+) pre-HCT (HR = 2.29; p = 0.018). Finally, relative to gilt assignment, opposing rates of relapse and NRM were observed. The incidence of relapse was lower with gilt (16%, 95%CI 6.8-28% vs 32%, 95%CI 20-45%, p=0.046) but NRM was higher (27%, 95%CI 15-41% vs 11%, 95% CI 4.3-21%, p=0.033). We next analyzed the 49 pts (gilt=22, placebo=27) with detectable peri-HCT MRD. RFS and OS again were not different (RFS: gilt: 44.4%, 95%CI 27.1-72.7%, placebo: 43.8%, 95%CI 28.4-67.5%, OS: gilt: 49.2%,95%CI, 31.3-77.4%, placebo: 55.6%, 95%CI 39.4-77.8%). The incidence of relapse trended lower in gilt pts (25%, 95%CI, 5.3-44.7% vs 45% (95%CI, 25-63%), p=0.2) while NRM trended higher (31%, 95%CI 12-52% vs 11%, 95%CI, 2.7-26%, p=0.12). Seventeen (36%) patients completed planned 2 year maintenance with gilt compared to 29 (51%) completing therapy with placebo. Median time on gilt was 13.2 months. The most common reason for discontinuation was adverse events (n=19, 40%), of which cytopenias (n=8) and infections (n=4) were most frequent. Non-relapse causes of death among gilt treated pts included infections (n=8), intracranial hemorrhage related to thrombocytopenia (n=1), second cancer (n=1), and Guillain-Barre syndrome (n=1). Most infections (n=5) were attributed to GVHD as an underlying cause. CONCLUSION Among pts aged ≥60 years, gilt maintenance did not improve RFS or OS. Gilt use was associated with reduced relapse regardless of peri-HCT MRD status demonstrating disease effect; however, higher NRM limited overall benefit. In older FLT3 mutated pts, employing strategies to mitigate HCT related toxicity, e.g. alternative GVHD prophylaxis strategies, may better accommodate use of maintenance therapy including gilt. Lower doses of gilt (particularly with azole co-use) may be worth exploring to mitigate drug AEs, improve compliance, thus further improving benefit.

Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN) have shown encouraging clinical efficacy in single arm clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (Garcia JS et al. ASH 2023, Zeidan AM et al. Am J Hematol. 2023). Many centers have started utilizing HMA-VEN in the clinical management of MDS due to unmet need, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial (VERONA) using this combination. However, real world studies with large sample size investigating the use of these agents in MDS, practice patterns and clinical outcomes are lacking. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of 13 US academic medical centers. We included contemporary cohorts of adults (age≥18 years) with MDS who were treated with upfront combination of HMA-VEN, upfront HMA monotherapy, or VEN added after inadequate response or progression on HMA (post-HMA failure VEN). Outcomes analyzed includes clinical response, adverse events (AE) of interest, dose administration and survival. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Overall survival and event free survival (EFS: progression, leukemic transformation, death as events) analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier method. Determinants of outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression models. All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: Among 454 patients included, 258 patients received VEN in combination with HMA [upfront HMA-VEN (n=175), post-HMA failure VEN (n=83)] and 196 patients received HMA monotherapy. Median age was 69 (59-77) years and majority of patients had MDS with excess blasts (75%), high risk (31.9%) or very-high (41.8%) risk disease by IPSS-R, 23.7% had therapy related disease, 33% had deletion17p or TP53 mutation and 40.9% underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation. VEN was predominantly started in outpatient setting (78.6%) with tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis and VEN doses ranged from 70-400mg, adjusted for concomitant antifungal drugs. Incidence of TLS was minimal (No TLS- 92.9%, lab-only TLS 6.2%, 1 pt with clinical TLS). Neutropenic fever was the main AE noted [upfront VEN-HMA (34.2%), HMA monotherapy (22.5%), post-HMA VEN (44.5%)]. In the upfront setting, response rate was significantly higher with HMA-VEN than HMA monotherapy (CR: 33% vs 12%; marrow CR: 40% vs 27%, p<.001). VEN given in the post HMA failure setting also resulted in encouraging response rates (CR 10%, marrow CR 32%). After adjusting for covariates in multivariable analysis, patients treated with HMA-VEN in the upfront setting had significantly improved event free survival as compared to HMA monotherapy (HR 0.59, HR 0.44-0.78, p<0.01), but overall survival did not reach statistical significance (overall survival HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.57-1.04, p=0.08). Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective analysis from US academic medical centers, we found that VEN in combination with HMA resulted in encouraging clinical outcomes and was effectively administered in the outpatient setting with minimal TLS. Infection risk management and supportive measures would be important to improve the ability to use this treatment widely, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial. Updated results with additional variables will be available at the main meeting.