Finn, Laura

Abstract Background: Allogeneic Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is potentially curative therapy for MDS and AML. Although the median age at presentation is >65 years, most patients receiving HCT for these disorders are young (<60years). With the availability of Reduced Intensity Conditioning (RIC) many older patients are able to undergo HCT. The older age group is the most rapidly increasing cohort in CIBMTR registry. We analyzed the outcomes of AML and MDS patients' ≥ 60 years who received allogeneic sibling or unrelated donor HCT at our institution between 2009 and 2014. We also evaluated the influence of patient-, disease-, and transplant related factors on outcomes. Methods: Prospectively collected data available in the BMT databases at Mayo Clinic Florida, Arizona and Rochester as well as individual patient charts were reviewed after IRB approval. Patients with MDS or AML in complete remission at the time of transplant were included; those with active disease, induction failure, or prior transplant were excluded. HCT-specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) and the disease risk index (DRI- Armand et al. Blood 2012) was noted. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Associations with survival were explored using single variable Cox-regression modeling and log-rank tests. Results: 80 patients were included; 68 AML and 12 MDS. 31 (39%) were male. Median age 66 years (range 60-75). 33%, 52%, and 13% patients had ECOG status of 0, 1, >2, respectively. Thirty-seven patients (46%) had low or intermediate DRI and 43(54%) had high DRI. Twenty-two (28%), 24 (30%), and 34 (43%) patients had HCT-CI of 0, 1, or >2. There were equal number of sibling and unrelated donors; 85% were full HLA match and 15% with 1 or 2 mismatches; mean age of the donors was 52years (range18-74). Transplant conditioning was fludarabine-containing reduced intensity regimens in 78 (97%), 2 patients received myeloablative conditioning. The source of stem cells was peripheral blood in all patients. A median of 5.87 x10^6 CD34/kg donor cells were infused (range 1.58-10.92 X10^6). All patients received calcineurin inhibitor based GVHD prophylaxis (tacrolimus 56%, cyclosporine 44%); 6 patients also received ATG. The median follow up of survivors was 13 months. Kaplan Meier estimate of overall survival at 100 days, 1 year, and 2 years was 90%, 64%, and 55%. Cumulative incidence of relapse at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years was 19.5%, 22.3%, and 27.1%. Relapse free survival at 2 years was 50%. The non-relapse/ treatment related mortality at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years was 11.7%, 15.9% and 15.9%. The rate of acute grade 2-4 GVHD was 30% and chronic GVHD was 39%. Univariate analysis identified secondary disease (compared to de novo) and high DRI(compared to low/intermediate) to be associated with worse mortality - HR 2.54 (1.31-4.93; P = 0.006), and 2.31 (1.13-4.73; P = 0.021), respectively. Probability of overall survival at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years for patients with de novo disease (n=57) vs. secondary disease (n=23) was 87.1% vs. 64.5%, 71.1 vs. 45.6%, and 63.2 vs. 32.6%, respectively; P= 0.006. There was no effect of donor age, donor type or degree of mis-match on the survival. Conclusion: Allogeneic HCT is feasible in older patients with MDS and AML utilizing reduced intensity conditioning regimens with acceptable outcomes that are comparable to published results in younger patients. Patients with high DRI and secondary disease have poorer overall survival as compared to those with de novo disease and low/intermediate disease risk index. These data support other studies that age alone does not negatively influence transplant outcomes. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: The incidence of secondary Acute Lymphoblastic leukemia (sALL) after a preceding first primary solid organ malignancy (1M) is not well defined. We undertook a Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-based analysis to describe the occurrence of sALL among adult patients with a history of common 1M's. We also evaluated differences in sALL survival on the basis of age, the site and extent of 1M, and for evidence of any underlying racial/ethnic disparity. Methods: The SEER-18 database (1973-2011) was interrogated for the current study. All confirmed cases of ALL (ICD-O-3 codes: 9811, 9812, 9814-18, 9826-28, 9835-37) in adult patients (age ≥18 years) were identified. De novo ALL vs. sALL was determined by using the SEER variable ‘First Malignant Primary Indicator'. 1M prior to the diagnosis of ALL was identified by merging all SEER databases together by patient ID number. Those with 1M stage of ‘in situ'; sALL cases reported <2 months after the diagnosis of 1M; and those with “unknown” information on 1M (n=471) were excluded. Standard race/ethnicity categories were used. Latency interval (time from diagnosis of 1M to sALL) was calculated for all patients. Overall survival (OS) was calculated as the interval from diagnosis to death, or censored at date of last contact, December 31st 2011, or 5 years after diagnosis, whichever came first. A proportional hazards Cox regression model was performed to evaluate the impact of sALL and latency on OS, adjusting for age at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, marital status, birthplace, SEER registry site, and year of diagnosis. All statistical tests were two-sided and utilized the SAS software (v9.4) with a two-sided significance level of 0.05. Results: A total of n=8,398 adult patients with primary ALL (1ALL) and n=414 with sALL were identified. Patient characteristics were significantly different between 1ALL & sALL (Table). Males comprised 49.8% of sALL patients as compared to 58% with 1ALL. Age at diagnosis of ALL was also significantly different, with 55.5% of sALL patients being ≥65 years as compared to 51.4% of 1ALL observed in the 18-44 years age group. Non-Whites comprised 27.3% of sALL and 40.4% of 1ALL, with Hispanics having the most differential distribution of 13.3% and 24.6%, respectively in the two groups. Distribution of sALL patients by latency from 1M is shown in Table. The majority of sALL patients had a diagnosis of local/regional (rather than advanced stage) 1M (Table). sALL patients had a significantly inferior OS when compared to 1ALL (HR 1.211, 95%CI 1.079-1.359) (Median OS 14 months vs. 18 months, Figure). sALL cases with longer latency interval (>5 year) appeared to have better median OS compared to shorter latency intervals, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.53). Conclusion: We have performed the largest population-based analysis identifying sALL after 1M, demonstrating that sALL patients are older and have significantly worse OS than 1ALL. We noted a lower relative incidence of sALL in Hispanics as compared with 1ALL, while the converse was true for Whites. Although detailed treatment data (specifically with respect to chemotherapeutic agents) is not available in SEER, it is possible that treatment for local/regional 1M - presumably adjuvant in nature - may be associated with the risk of sALL. Further analyses are required and are ongoing to confirm the relative incidence after specific 1M's, and the impact of both specific treatment modalities and the era of treatment for 1M on risk of developing sALL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

AbstractThe detection of recurrent genetic abnormalities in B‐lymphoblastic leukemia (B‐ALL) is critical for risk stratification and therapy‐related decisions. Near‐haploidy (24‐30 chromosomes), a subgroup of hypodiploidy (<46 chromosomes), and BCR/ABL1 gene fusions are both recurrent genetic abnormalities in B‐ALL and are considered adverse prognostic findings, although outcomes in BCR/ABL1‐positive patients have improved with tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. While near‐haploid clones are primarily observed in children and rarely harbor structural abnormalities, BCR/ABL1‐positive B‐ALL is primarily observed in adults. Importantly, recurrent genetic abnormalities are considered mutually exclusive and rarely exist within the same neoplastic clone. We report only the second case to our knowledge of a near‐haploid clone that harbors a BCR/ABL1 fusion in an adult with newly diagnosed B‐ALL. Conventional chromosome studies revealed a near‐haploid clone (27 chromosomes) along with a der(22)t(9;22)(q34.1;q11.2) in 17 of 20 metaphases analyzed. Our B‐ALL fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) panel confirmed the BCR/ABL1 fusion and monosomies consistent with chromosome studies in approximately 95% of interphase nuclei. Moreover, no evidence of a “doubled” near‐haploid clone was observed by chromosome or FISH studies. This highly unusual case illustrates that while rare, recurrent genetic abnormalities in B‐ALL can exist within the same neoplastic clone.

AbstractWe conducted a surveillance epidemiology and end results (SEER)‐based analysis to describe the incidence and characteristics of second primary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (sALL) among adults (≥18 years) with a history of primary malignancies (1M). Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of sALL cases were calculated by site and 1M stage. We also evaluated the differences in 5‐year sALL survival by age, site, and extent of 1M, latency of sALL after 1M, and evidence of underlying racial/ethnic disparity. We identified 10,956 patients with de‐novo/primary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (1ALL) and 772 with sALL. Women (49.1% vs. 42.9%), white patients (72.0% vs. 59.5%), older patients (58.8% vs. 25.2%; age ≥65 years), and patients diagnosed between 2003 and 2012 (66.8% vs. 53.9%) had a higher proportion of sALL compared with 1ALL. There was a significantly inferior median 5‐year survival for sALL patients compared to 1ALL (6 vs. 15 months; HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10–1.31, P < 0.001). The median latency period was 60.0 months; the most common 1M among sALL patients were breast (17.9%) and prostate (17.4%). Patients with any 1M were at increased risk of developing sALL (SIR 1.76, 95% CI 1.58–1.95, P < 0.001). Hematological‐1M sites had significantly higher SIRs (hematological‐SIR 7.35; solid‐SIR 1.33; P < 0.001). We observed a significant increase in sALL incidence after a 1M and a significantly worse 5‐year survival with different demographic characteristics from 1ALL. There is a need to define appropriate screening methods for patients surviving their primary cancer.

Abstract Current understanding suggests that malignant stem and progenitor cells must be reduced or eliminated for prolonged remissions in myeloid neoplasms such as acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Multicolor flow cytometry has been widely used to distinguish stem and myeloid progenitor cells from other populations in normal and malignant bone marrow. In this study, we present a method for assessing drug sensitivity in MDS and AML patient hematopoietic stem and myeloid progenitor cell populations ex vivo using the investigational Nedd8-activating enzyme inhibitor MLN4924 and standard-of-care agent cytarabine as examples. Utilizing a multicolor flow cytometry antibody panel for identification of hematopoietic stem cells, multipotent progenitors, common myeloid progenitors, granulocyte-monocyte progenitors, and megakaryocyte-erythroid progenitors present in mononuclear cell fractions isolated from bone marrow aspirates, we compare stem and progenitor cell counts after treatment for 24 hours with drug versus diluent. We demonstrate that MLN4924 exerts a cytotoxic effect on MDS and AML stem and progenitor cell populations, whereas cytarabine has more limited effects. Further application of this method for evaluating drug effects on these populations ex vivo and in vivo may inform rational design and selection of therapies in the clinical setting.

No single therapy benefits the majority of patients in the practice of oncology as responses differ even among patients with similar tumor types. The variety of response to therapy witnessed while treating our patients supports the concept of personalized medicine using patients' genomic and biologic information and their clinical characteristics to make informed decisions about their treatment. Personalized medicine relies on identification and confirmation of biologic targets and development of agents to target them. These targeted agents tend to focus on subsets of patients and provide improved clinical outcomes. The continued success of personalized medicine will depend on the expedited development of new agents from proof of concept to confirmation of clinical efficacy.