Ravandi, Farhad

Introduction HMAs are the only approved therapy for CMML. In order to improve response rates and survival, the addition of VEN has been utilized in both CMML and after blast transformation (CMML-BT) with conflicting results in small single center studies. To clarify the role of upfront HMA+VEN in CMML and CMML-BT, we performed a large multicenter analysis. Methods We included patients with HMA-naïve CMML and CMML-BT treated with combination HMA and VEN from 4 academic centers. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) with secondary outcomes including overall response rate (ORR) by 2015 MDS/MPN IWG criteria for CMML and 2022 ELN criteria for CMML-BT. To better appreciate the benefit of adding VEN to HMA treatment, we also performed 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of patients treated with HMA alone as upfront therapy for CMML or CMML-BT. Matching was based on age, sex, ECOG performance status, CPSS-Mol, blood counts, peripheral and bone marrow blasts. Results Eighty-nine patients were treated with frontline HMA+VEN, 51 CMML and 38 CMML-BT (5 had received HMA alone for prior CMML). The median age was 71 years, 70% were male, and 83% had ECOG 0-1. Among CMML patients, 55% had MP-CMML subtype, 65% had CMML-2 and 12%, 30%, 58% were CPSS-mol intermediate-1, intermediate-2 and high risk, respectively. In the entire cohort, ASXL1 (63%), TET2 (47%), SRSF2 (39%) and RUNX1 (27%) were the most commonly mutated genes and 55% of patients harbored a RAS mutation ( KRAS [20%], NRAS [18%], CBL [13%], NF1 [11%], PTPN11 [9%]). For HMA combination partner, 46 (52%) were treated with azacitidine, 35 (39%) with decitabine, and 8 (9%) with both during their VEN course. During a median follow-up time of 15.8 months (mos) 52 patients (58%) died: 23 (45%) with CMML and 29 (76%) with CMML-BT. Among CMML patients, the ORR was 90%, including complete remission (CR) in 22%, complete cytogenic remission (CCR) in 4%, optimal marrow response (CMR) in 50%, and partial marrow response (PMR) in 6%. The OS of CMML patients was 25.1 mo (95% CI 15.7 - NR). A PSM population of HMA patients matched to HMA+VEN treated patients showing similar baseline characteristics. ORR was significantly higher with HMA+VEN (95%) as compared those treated with HMA alone (46%), p < 0.001. However, there was no significant OS difference between HMA+VEN vs HMA alone (19.1 mos vs 19.1 mos, p = 0.85, Figure 1). For CMML-BT patients, the ORR of HMA+VEN was 81% including CR in 17%, CR with partial hematologic recover (CRh) in 3%, CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi) in 28%, morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS) in 22% and partial response (PR) in 11%. The OS of CMML-BT patients was 8 mos (95% CI 4.6 - 26.2). A PSM population of CMML-BT patients treated with HMA alone showed a significantly increased ORR with HMA+VEN (82% vs 40%, p = 0.039). However, there was no difference in OS (7.49 mos vs 9.26 mos, p = 0.83, Figure 2). Among HMA-VEN treated patients, achievement of a CR was associated with an improved OS in the CMML (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.75) and CMML-BT (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19 - 0.74). No predictors of response were identified, including the presence of a RAS mutation. In terms of safety, 7 patients (7.9%) had a grade 3/4 (G3/4) neutropenic infection and 2 patients (2.2%) had a G3/4 hemorrhagic event while being treated with HMA+VEN. A total of 29 patients went on to receive allogeneic transplant (alloSCT): 22 (43%) with CMML and 7 (18%) with CMML-BT. CMML patients who underwent alloSCT after HMA+VEN were younger as compared to non-transplanted patients (64 vs 74 years, p < 0.0001), but had otherwise similar baseline characteristics including stage, CPSS-mol category and prevalence of RAS mutations. Similarly, CMML-BT patients bridged to alloSCT were younger (66 vs 74 years, p < 0.002) and had a better ECOG performance status (p = 0.047). Of patients who received alloSCT, 10 patients (34%) died, 5 with CMML and 5 with CMML-BT. The median OS after alloSCT was 26.7 mo. Conclusions Although the use of VEN with HMA in the upfront treatment of CMML and AML secondary to CMML results in higher response rates compared to HMA alone, this combination does not improve survival based on this multi-center PSM analysis. The current sample size of CMML-BT may limit detection of OS differences between treatment groups. The role of VEN to reduce blasts and serve as a bridge to alloSCT, particularly after HMA failure, requires further investigation in larger studies in both the CMML and CMML-BT populations.

Abstract Acute myeloid leukemia (AML), an aggressive malignancy with unmet medical need, lacks immunotherapeutic options. CD123, the cellular receptor for interleukin-3, expressed in AML is an attractive target for tumor-specific therapy. Vibecotamab (XmAb14045), a humanized bispecific antibody, monovalently binds both CD3 and CD123 to recruit cytotoxic T cells to kill CD123+ tumor cells. This phase 1 study’s primary objectives were safety and tolerability and identification of a maximum tolerated dose/recommended dose for use as monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory AML. Identification of a recommended phase 2 vibecotamab dose comprised 3 step-up doses (Week 1), which were noted to reduce cytokine response syndrome (CRS), followed by weekly dosing (1.7 μg/kg, Cohort -1D). In 16 of 120 patients, at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event was classified as a dose-limiting toxicity. CRS, the most common adverse event (59.2%), managed with premedication, were mostly ≤grade 2. A secondary objective was assessment of efficacy in patients with CD123-expressing leukemias. A total of 10 of 111 (9.0%) efficacy-evaluable patients with AML achieved an overall response of morphologic leukemia-free state or better with an overall objective response rate (ORR) of 9.0%. Response was only observed in patients receiving a target dose of 0.75 μg/kg or higher (n = 87) in which the efficacy-evaluable ORR was 11.5%. Response was associated with lower baseline blast counts in blood and bone marrow (<25%) suggesting potential benefit. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02730312.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous hematologic malignancy characterized by the clonal expansion of myeloid blasts in the peripheral blood, bone marrow, and/or other tissues. It is the most common form of acute leukemia among adults and accounts for the largest number of annual deaths from leukemias in the United States. Like AML, blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is a myeloid malignancy. It is a rare malignancy characterized by the aggressive proliferation of precursors of plasmacytoid dendritic cells that frequently involves the bone marrow, skin, central nervous system, and other organs and tissues. This discussion section focuses on the diagnosis and management of BPDCN as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for AML.

Abstract Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is a rare hematologic malignancy with historically poor outcomes and no worldwide consensus treatment approach. Unique among most hematologic malignancies for its frequent cutaneous involvement, BPDCN can also invade other extramedullary compartments, including the central nervous system. Generally affecting older adults, many patients are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy, and although hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is preferred for younger, fit individuals, not all are eligible. One recent therapeutic breakthrough is that all BPDCNs express CD123 (IL3Rα) and that this accessible surface marker can be pharmacologically targeted. The first-in-class agent for BPDCN, tagraxofusp, which targets CD123, was approved in December 2018 in the United States for patients with BPDCN aged ≥2 years. Despite favorable response rates in the frontline setting, many patients still relapse in the setting of monotherapy, and outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory BPDCN remain dismal. Therefore, novel approaches targeting both CD123 and other targets are actively being investigated. To begin to formally address the state of the field, we formed a new collaborative initiative, the North American BPDCN Consortium (NABC). This group of experts, which includes a multidisciplinary panel of hematologists/oncologists, hematopoietic stem cell transplant physicians, pathologists, dermatologists, and pediatric oncologists, was tasked with defining the current standard of care in the field and identifying the most important research questions and future directions in BPDCN. The position findings of the NABC’s inaugural meetings are presented herein.

AbstractThe current study was approached with the assumption that response to induction chemotherapy, in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), overshadows pre‐treatment risk variables in predicting survival and therefore be used as an anchor for a simplified risk model. We considered 759 intensively‐treated patients with AML, not promyelocytic: median age 60 years; primary 66%, secondary 25%, and therapy‐related 9%; European LeukemiaNet cytogenetic risk category favorable 8%, intermediate 61%, and adverse 31%. Complete remission with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery was achieved in 608 (80%) patients. After a median follow‐up of 22 months, 503 deaths, 272 relapses, and 257 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (AHSCTs) were recorded. Multivariable analysis identified failure to achieve CR/CRi (HR 3.8, 95% CI 3.1–4.8), adverse karyotype (2.2, 1.8–2.8), and age >55 years (2.1, 1.6–2.7) as main risk factors for survival. HR‐weighted scoring resulted in four‐tiered risk stratification: low (0 points; N = 183), intermediate‐1 (1 point; N = 331), intermediate‐2 (2 points; N = 117), and high (≥3 points; N = 128), with respective median survival (5‐year rate) not reached (68%), 34 (37%), 13 (20%), and 5 (5%) months (p < .001). FLT3‐ITD mutation was associated with inferior survival in intermediate‐1 (p = .004) and TP53 in intermediate‐2 (p = .06) and high (p = .02) risk disease; the latter was fully accounted for by the close association between TP53 mutation and complex/monosomal karyotype while the observations regarding FLT3‐ITD were not affected by treatment with midostaurin. AHSCT had a favorable impact on survival, most apparent in intermediate‐1 (p < .001), intermediate‐2 (p = .03), and high (p = .01) risk disease. The proposed 3‐factor survival model offers a novel prototype that is amenable to further enhancement by molecular information and was validated in an external cohort of 1032 intensively‐treated AML patients.

AbstractThe progress with intensive chemotherapy and supportive care measures has improved survival in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Given the recent development of effective low intensity therapies, an optimal decision on the therapy intensity may improve survival through the avoidance of early mortality. We reviewed the outcome of 3728 patients with newly diagnosed AML who received intensive chemotherapy between August 1980 and May 2020. Intensive chemotherapy was defined as a cumulative cytarabine dose ≥ 700 mg/m2 during induction therapy. We divided the whole cohort into a training and validation group at a 3:1 ratio. The population was divided into a training (2790 patients) and a validation cohort (938 patients). The median age was 55 years (range, 15‐99). Among them, 442 patients (12%) had core‐binding factor AML. Binary logistic regression identified older age, worse performance status, hyperbilirubinemia, elevated creatinine, hyperuricemia, cytogenetic abnormalities other than CBF and ‐Y, and pneumonia as adverse prognostic factors for an early 4‐week mortality. This risk classification for early mortality was verified in the validation cohort of patients. In the validation cohort of more recently treated patients from 2000 to 2017, the 4‐week mortality rates with intensive chemotherapy were 2%, 14%, and 50% in the low‐, high‐, and very high‐risk group, respectively. The mortality rates with low intensity therapies were 3%, 9%, and 20%, respectively. The risk classification guides treatment intensity by the assessment of age, frailty, organ dysfunction, cytogenetic abnormality, and infection to avoid early mortality.

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low‐intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML.MethodsThis randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1‐hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1‐hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109/L and ≥10 × 109/L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1‐year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796).ResultsBetween October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017).ConclusionsThe regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.

PURPOSEStandard cytotoxic induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) results in prolonged neutropenia and risk of infection. Romyelocel-L is a universal, allogeneic myeloid progenitor cell product being studied to reduce infection during induction chemotherapy.PATIENTS AND METHODSOne hundred sixty-three patients with de novo AML (age ≥ 55 years) receiving induction chemotherapy were randomly assigned on day 0 (d0), of whom 120 were evaluable. Subjects received either romyelocel-L infusion on d9 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) starting daily d14 (treatment group) or G-CSF daily alone on d14 (control) until absolute neutrophil count recovery to 500/µL. End points included days in febrile episode, microbiologically defined infections, clinically diagnosed infection, and days in hospital.RESULTSMean days in febrile episode was shorter in the treatment arm from d15 through d28 (2.36 v 3.90; P = .02). Similarly, a trend toward decreased microbiologically defined infections and clinically diagnosed infection in the treatment arm was observed from d9 to d28 (35.6% v 47.5%; P = .09), reaching a statistically significant difference from d15 to d28 (6.8% v 27.9%; P = .002). Because of this, antibacterial or antifungal use for treatment of an infection was significantly less in the treatment group (d9-d28: 44.1% v 63.9%; P = .01). Significantly fewer patients in the treatment arm received empiric antifungals from d9 tod28 (42.4% v 63.9%; P = .02) and d15-d28 (42.4% v 62.3%; P = .02). Patients in the treatment arm also had 3.2 fewer hospital days compared with control (25.5 v 28.7; P = .001). Remission rates and days to absolute neutrophil count recovery were similar in the two groups. No patients in the romyelocel-L plus G-CSF group died because of infection compared with two patients in the control arm. No graft-versus-host disease was observed.CONCLUSIONSubjects receiving romyelocel-L showed a decreased incidence of infections, antimicrobial use, and hospitalization, suggesting that romyelocel-L may provide a new option to reduce infections in patients with AML undergoing induction therapy.