Erba, Harry Paul

NPM1 mutations (NPM1+) are found in about 30% of adult AML. While NPM1+ are generally associated with favorable risk, prior studies have shown that NPM1+ older patients, defined as ≥ 65 years, have significantly worse outcomes. The updated European Leukemia Net 2022 (ELN22) now classifies NPM1+ AML patients with FLT3-ITD (ITD+) and MDS-associated mutations (MDSm+) as adverse-risk, while NPM1+/ITD-/MDSm+ patients remain favorable-risk unless they have an adverse-risk karyotype. A recent report (Chan et al., Blood Adv 2024) found MDSm+ conferred worse OS only in patients ≥ 60 years; however another report (Othman et al., Blood 2024) did not find MDSm+ were significantly associated with adverse outcomes in a larger cohort of NPM1+ patients. To further assess this question, we examined the mutational landscape in a large cohort of pre-treatment, diagnostic specimens from 456 patients enrolled in SWOG clinical trials (SWOG-9031, SWOG-9333, S0106, and S0112) and 126 patients from the UW/FHCC Hematopoietic Repository (Total N=582). Patients were treated with curative intent as per standard practice or clinical trials. Out of the 582 patients, 191 were NPM1+ (33%), of which 148 patients had cytogenetic and long-term outcome data. Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence estimates were estimated. C-statistics and AUC for Cox, cause-specific and logistic regression models for overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), time to relapse (TTR, calculated in n=106 who achieved complete remission [CR], death in remission analyzed as a competing risk) and CR were calculated for age, ELN17, and ELN22, as well as ELN17 and ELN22 adjusting for age. ELN17 favorable-risk patients reclassified as adverse-risk (N=5 of 108) demonstrated significantly shorter EFS (HR=2.50, p=0.05) and CR rate (OR=0.20, p=0.024), although with similar OS (HR 1.30, p=0.66) and TTR (HR=1.20, p=0.86). ELN17 favorable-risk patients reclassified as ELN22 intermediate-risk (N=23 of 108) did not show a significant difference in OS (HR 1.47, p=0.20), EFS (HR 1.35, p=0.12), CR rate (OR 0.75, p=0.46), or TTR (HR=1.64, p=0.11) compared to ELN22 favorable-risk. For ELN17 intermediate-risk (N=40), 5 patients were reclassified as ELN22 adverse-risk (12.5%) and had significantly shorter EFS (HR 2.89, p=0.037) compared to ELN22 intermediate risk, although there was not a significant difference in CR rate (OR 0.31, p=0.23) or OS (HR 0.81, p=0.67). We next compared the prognostic significance of age relative to ELN risk classification. Age was associated with higher C-statistics (OS=0.65, TTR=0.57 and EFS=0.60) and AUC (CR=0.64) compared to both ELN17 (OS=0.56, TTR=0.54, EFS=0.54, CR=0.54) or ELN22 (OS=0.57, TTR=0.57, EFS=0.57, CR=0.58). The combination of age and ELN22 resulted in the highest C-statistics for OS, TTR, and EFS (OS=0.68, TTR=0.60, EFS=0.64). To further assess the impact of MDSm on risk-stratification of NPM1+ AML, we performed multivariable analyses adjusting for FLT3-ITD, MDSm, and age in patients without adverse-risk disease. These analyses showed MDSm did not have a significant association with OS when controlling for age or FLT3-ITD. We also compared ELN22 favorable-risk patients with and without MDSm (MDSm+ N=18; MDSm- N=61). Compared with the MDSm-, there was a trend toward an inferior OS (HR 1.85, p=0.054) for MDSm+ patients but not EFS (HR 1.38, p=0.3) or TTR (HR 1.2, p=0.64). When stratified by age (<65, N=53 vs. ≥65, N=26), MDSm+ in younger patients did not show a difference for OS (HR 0.96, p=0.96), EFS (HR 0.63, p=0.53) or TTR (HR 0.4, p=0.37). Older ELN22 favorable-risk patients (≥65) had similarly poor OS (MDSm- HR 3.33 and MDSm+ 3.27, respectively, p=0.001 for both) and EFS (MDSm- HR 3.11 and MDSm+ 2.39, p=0.001 and 0.01) compared to younger MDSm- patients. In our study, the ELN22 guidelines incrementally improve risk stratification for EFS in NPM1+ patients. However, age remains the most prognostic factor, and patients ≥ 65 years have similar adverse clinical outcomes, whether classified as favorable risk by ELN17, ELN22, or incorporating MDSm. Moreover, MDSm do not confer a worse prognosis in NPM1+ patients when accounting for age or FLT3-ITD status. These findings differ from a recent report by Chan et al. and are in keeping with the report by Othman et al. Therefore, further understanding of the underlying biology of age and its effect on NPM1+ AML is needed to improve outcomes for older patients.

Introduction E1910 randomized pts with ALL aged 30-70 years who were measurable residual disease negative (MRD-) by multi-color flow cytometry (FC) after intensification to conventional chemotherapy (chemo) with or without blinatumomab (blina). The addition of blina resulted in improved overall survival (OS) (Litzow, NEJM 2024) and led to a new standard of care. Older ALL pts have inferior outcomes when compared to younger pts in part due to increased treatment toxicity. In E1910, exposure to dexamethasone and pegasparagase was reduced for older pts (age >55 years). We present results of subgroup analyses describing outcomes of older pts enrolled in E1910. Methods Details of the E1910 protocol remission induction (step 1), high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase intensification (step 2), blina randomization (step 3), and maintenance (step 4) or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) were previously presented (Litzow, NEJM 2024). MRD status was determined after step 2 centrally with 6-color FC with MRD- defined as <0.01% in the bone marrow (BM). Following approval of blina in the US for MRD positive (MRD+) disease in 2018, MRD+ pts were assigned to the blina arm and no longer randomized. The primary objective was to compare the OS and relapse free survival (RFS) among older pts aged >55 years (pre-specified stratification factor) who received chemo + blina to that of pts who received chemo alone (step 3 treatment). Estimates of OS and RFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS and RFS between treatment arms was conducted using the two-sided stratified log-rank test and Cox model with CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intended to receive HCT or not as stratification factors. Stratified Multivariate Cox models of OS and RFS were used to further evaluate the effect of step 3 treatment, adjusted by gender, white blood cell count (WBC), platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, BM blasts, performance status and combined molecular risk category. Results Among the 488 enrolled pts, 211 were ≥55 years old with median age of 61 (range 55-70). Among older pts, 49.3% were female and 83.4% were white, 17 (8.1%) pts had WBC >30.000/uL at the time of diagnosis. 156 (73.9%) pts had CD10+ early B-ALL and 46 (21.8%) had CD10- B-ALL immunophenotype. The most common genetic subgroups were low hypodiploid (n=58, 27.5%), BCR::ABL1-like (n=34, 16.1%) and KMT2A rearranged (n=26, 12.3%). 8.1% of pts had low, 9.0% intermediate, 63.5% high combined molecular risk disease and in 19.4% of pts risk could not be assigned. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different in chemo + blina and chemo only pts. The median follow-up for this analysis from step 1 registration was 54.6 months. Complete response with (CR) or without (CRi) count recovery after induction was observed in 174 (82.5%) pts (167 CR, 7 CRi). 93 (44%) pts were MRD-. 32 (15.1%) pts received HCT on study and 24 (11.4%) pts received it off study. Among MRD- pts (n=93), 46 were randomized to and 45 received blina: 6 (13.3%) pts had 1, 14 (31.1%) had 2, 2 (4.4%) had 3 and 23 (51.1%) had 4 cycles. 3-year OS were 71% and 67% for the blina and the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50; multivariate model: HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.25-1.27). 3-year RFS were 69% and 59% for the blina and the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.39-1.45; multivariate model: HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.32-1.42). Among MRD+ pts (n=25), 14 were randomized to and 11 received blina: 7 (63.6%) pts had 2, and 4 (36.4%) had 4 cycles. 3-year OS were 66% and 44% for the blina vs the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.12-3.64). 3-year RFS were 64% and 31% for the blina vs the chemo only arm (univariate model: HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.15-2.74). Frequency of treatment-related toxicities among older pts during different study phases and treatment assignments will be presented. Conclusion Despite evidence of improved outcomes in the whole study cohort, the addition of blina to consolidation chemo for older pts with ALL was not associated with statistically significant improvement of OS or RFS in this exploratory analysis not powered to detect the difference in subgroups. This is possibly due to sample size but may be due to biologic differences in the older adult population. Further studies are needed to definitively determine tolerance and benefit of blina addition to consolidation for older pts with ALL.

Introduction: Based on a donor versus no-donor analysis, UKALLXII/E2993 showed a survival benefit for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in first complete remission (CR1) compared to consolidation/maintenance chemotherapy alone. The follow-up phase 3 E1910 trial (NCT02003222) randomized BCR::ABL1-negative B-lineage ALL patients (pts) aged 30-70 years in measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative CR1 after intensification to conventional chemotherapy (CC) +/- blinatumomab (blin) and demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) with blin (Litzow, NEJM 2024). The current exploratory subgroup analysis evaluates outcomes of MRD-negative pts randomized on E1910 who underwent alloHCT on trial. Methods: Among pts enrolled on E1910, pts in MRD-negative CR1 by 6-color flow cytometry after intensification who were randomized to CC +/- blin and subsequently underwent alloHCT were identified. We compared baseline characteristics, MRD status post induction, relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS using the Kaplan-Meier method and the two-sided log-rank test and Cox model. A multivariable analysis was performed with alloHCT included as a time-varying covariate as well as a landmark analysis comparing the outcome of pts with unfavorable risk on the CC + blin arm who underwent alloHCT versus those who did not. Results: Of 224 MRD-negative randomized pts, 44 underwent alloHCT on trial: 22 in each arm. The median time from randomization to transplant was 3.2 months (mos). The median follow-up from initial registration was 57.8 mos. Baseline demographics including age (median 55 years), gender (53% male), race (89% white) and ethnicity (89% non-Hispanic/Latino) were equally distributed. Compared to CC + blin, the median peripheral blood white cell (WBC) count and blast percentage at diagnosis were higher in the CC arm at 6,640 vs 3,740/uL and 55 vs 9%, respectively, while median marrow blast percentage and overall unfavorable risk as defined in E1910 (55% vs 64%) were similar. Of the 44 MRD-negative pts who proceeded to alloHCT on study, 77% in the CC arm and 64% in the CC+ blin arm were MRD-negative after induction. Myeloablative conditioning was given to the majority of pts (68% CC arm and 73% CC+blin arm) and the most common graft versus host disease prophylaxis was tacrolimus-based on both arms. Among the 44 pts who underwent alloHCT, the observed hazard ratio (HR) comparing relative risk of death between pts randomized to CC+blin or CC only was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.12-2.11) with a 3-year OS rate of 82% versus 71% and the HR comparing relative risk of relapse/death was 0.52 (CI: 0.15-1.79) with a 3-year RFS rate of 82% versus 67%. For patients with unfavorable risk, 3-year OS and 3-year RFS in each treatment arm were both 71% versus 65%. Among 50 pts with unfavorable risk in MRD-negative CR after intensification who were randomized to CC + blin, a landmark analysis performed at 5 mos post randomization showed 3-year OS and RFS rates of 71% versus 90% and 71% versus 86% between the 14 pts who underwent alloHCT and those who did not, respectively. Receipt of alloHCT was a time-varying covariate in a multivariable analysis with gender, WBC count, platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, bone marrow blasts, performance status, and combined molecular risk category. Age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and intention to receive alloHCT were used as stratification factors. In the entire cohort of MRD-negative pts who were randomized, there was a significant association between improved OS and the receipt of CC+blin vs CC alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.26 - 0.82; p=0.009), better performance status of 0-1 vs ≥2 and favorable vs unfavorable risk ALL. In contrast, the receipt of alloHCT had no significant effect on OS (HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.49 - 2.01). Conclusions: Within the constraints of small numbers, this exploratory subgroup analysis demonstrates that in pts with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1-negative B-ALL treated on E1910 who achieved MRD-negativity after intensification, alloHCT outcomes did not appear to be different with or without blin in consolidation. In a multivariate analysis of all MRD-negative pts, receipt of blin but not alloHCT was associated with improved OS. Further investigation is warranted to characterize the relative benefit of blinatumomab in pts receiving alloHCT in frontline consolidation.

Introduction: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO) is an antibody targeting CD22 conjugated with a cytotoxic antitumor antibiotic (calicheamicin) approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory CD22 positive B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (Kantarjian et al. NEJM 2017). CD22 is expressed on the surface of lymphoblasts in ALL (~95%). Young adult patients (pts) 18-39 years (yrs) treated on the pediatric regimen CALGB 10403 resulted in a 3-yr event-free survival (EFS) of 59% (95% CI: 52-67%) and an estimated 3-yr overall survival (OS) of 73% (95% CI: 68-78%) (Stock et al. Blood 2019). Alliance A041501(NCT03150693), a phase 3 NCTN sponsored cooperative group trial was conducted to determine if the addition of INO to the CALGB 10403 pediatric regimen would significantly improve EFS. Methods: Eligibility included pts 18-39 years with newly diagnosed CD22 positive ALL, defined as baseline expression in > 20% of lymphoblasts by local institution. Pts with Burkitt-type ALL, BCR::ABL1 positive ALL, or Down syndrome were excluded. Eligible pts received the CALGB 10403 regimen modified to omit extended induction, include dexamethasone as opposed to prednisone as steroid backbone, cap the pegaspargase dose to 3750 units, and adding rituximab for pts with CD20 expression (> 20%). An amendment added blinatumomab for minimal residual disease (MRD) positivity. Pts achieving a complete remission (CR/CRi) or partial remission (PR) were eligible for randomization. Following a 6 pt safety run-in with INO, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive INO or continue CALGB 10403 backbone. Two cycles of INO (1.5 mg/m2/cycle) were administered following induction in the experimental arm. Pts were stratified by age, disease status post induction (M0/M1 vs M2), CD20 status, and LDA Card, which tests for the Ph-like status. The primary endpoint was to determine if the addition of INO would improve the EFS of the pediatric regimen CALGB 10403 without censoring for stem cell transplant (SCT). Key secondary endpoints included the impact of INO on disease-free survival (DFS), OS, and MRD. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board halted enrollment after 273 out of a planned 341 pts were registered because of increased grade (gr) 5 events in the INO arm compared with the control arm. Results: 273 pts were enrolled between 6/15/2018, and 5/24/2022. Median age was 27.0 yrs, 65.2% were White, 30.4% were Hispanic, and 63.4% were male. Baseline CSF analysis revealed 14% with CNS-2/3 disease. The overall CR rate was 86.8% (82.8-90.8%). 46 pts were not randomized due to death (5), withdrawal (6), ineligibility (3), toxicity (5), receipt of non-protocol therapy (8), progression (5), and other (14). 227 eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to receive INO (N=111) or not (N=116)). For randomized pts, 92.5% achieved M0/M1 marrow status, 48.9% had a positive LDA Card defining Ph-like ALL, 50.7% were CD20 positive. Only 36 pts (13%) received a SCT. With a median follow up of 28.3 months for randomized pts, 3-yr EFS was 69.0% (59.1-80.5%) for the INO arm and 66.7% (57.1-78.1%) for the control (HR=0.97; 0.58-1.63). Similarly, the 3-yr OS was 79.4% (71.0-88.7%) for the INO arm and 80.3% (71.9-89.6%) for the control (HR=1.05; 0.55-2.01). The MRD undetectable rate at Course II Day 56 was 80.6% in the INO arm and 74.2% in the control arm. Univariate analysis suggests improved EFS with INO in pts with a positive LDA card (Ph-like ALL) and of Hispanic ethnicity. There were 22 gr 5 events, 7 occurred prior to randomization. Of the 15 gr 5 events on the randomized cohort, 12 were reported in the INO arm and 3 in the control arm. Of the 12 gr 5 events in the INO arm, all occurred during intensive consolidation courses complicated by prolonged pancytopenia infection/sepsis (8), hepato-biliary in setting of infection (2), multi-organ failure (1), or post-surgical complication (1). These events occurred after INO during Course II (3), Course III (5), or Course IV (4). Conclusions: Although this trial did not meet the primary EFS endpoint for the addition of INO to the pediatric regimen CALGB 10403, these data provide compelling evidence for continued use of pediatric regimens in young adults with ALL as the EFS and OS compares favorably with prior published results. INO may still be efficacious if late toxicity can be mitigated. A pilot study is planned that will decrease INO dose, add 2 cycles of blinatumomab and strict infectious prophylaxis guidelines. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882

AbstractIntroductionAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains one of the deadliest hematopoietic malignancies. A better understanding of the molecular biology governing AML may lead to improved risk stratification and facilitate the development of novel therapies. Proteins are responsible for much of the biology of cells. Several studies have examined the global proteome in bulk mononuclear cells (MNCs) from AML specimens, which are comprised a heterogenous population of cells at various stages of differentiation.MethodsGiven the potential impact of the nonleukemic cells on protein expression profiles, we applied an integrative proteogenomic approach utilizing next‐generation sequencing and mass spectrometry‐based proteomics to identify novel protein biomarkers in unsorted MNCs and viable leukemic blasts (VLBs) isolated from blood and bone marrow specimens obtained at the time of AML diagnosis.ResultsWe identified significant differences in protein expression between VLBs and MNCs. Subsequent studies (N = 27) focused on proteomic profiling of VLBs that identified novel candidate biomarkers associated with mutational genotypes and clinical outcome, some of which were recapitulated in an independent cohort of patients. Using mass spectrometry, we also detected mutated protein products, some of which were predicted via in silico analyses to be potential neoantigens amenable to adoptive immunotherapy. As previously described, analyses comparing transcript and protein expression showed an overall modest correlation between mRNA and protein dataset, but enriching for genes associated with mutations significantly improved the protein–RNA correlation.ConclusionTogether, the results provide insight into the biology of VLBs and demonstrate the gains derived from examining the proteome in addition to genome and transcriptome.

Abstract Background:Evorpacept (EVO) is a high affinity CD47-blocking fusion protein with an inactive human immunoglobulin Fc region designed to enhance the activity of other anti-neoplastic therapies with minimal additional toxicity. Here, we present final phase 1 results from the ASPEN-02 study. Methods:ASPEN-02 is an open-label, multicenter phase 1/2 study designed to evaluate the safety and activity of EVO in combination with azacitidine (AZA) in subjects with newly diagnosed (ND) higher-risk (HR) or relapsed/refractory (R/R) MDS. Adult subjects with ND HR (IPSS-R > 3.5) or R/R MDS were enrolled into phase 1 cohorts receiving escalating doses of EVO (20 mg/kg Q2W, 30 mg/kg Q2W, and 60 mg/kg Q4W) combined with AZA (75 mg/m2 IV/SC x 7d) in a 28-day treatment cycle. A phase 1 dose expansion portion enrolled adults with ND HR MDS into two dosing cohorts determined to be safe at EVO 40 mg/kg Q4W and 60 mg/kg Q4W. This clinical trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04417517. Results: As of June 2, 2023, 65 subjects were treated in the phase 1 portion, including 13 subjects with R/R MDS [EVO doses of 20 mg/kg Q2W (n=1) or 60 mg/kg Q4W (n=12)], and 52 subjects with ND HR MDS [EVO doses of 40 mg/kg Q4W (n=23) and 60 mg/kg Q4W (n=29)]. Of 52 ND HRMDS subjects, 9 (17.3%) had therapy-related MDS. Multi-hit TP53 mutations were present at baseline in 2/13 (15.4%) R/R MDS and 3/52 (5.8%) ND HR MDS patients. 13/13 (100%) R/R MDS patients had received prior hypomethylating agents or cytotoxic chemotherapy. Median age was 70 (range 24 - 88) years, and baseline ECOG scores were 0 (n=27, 41.5%), 1 (n=31, 47.7%), or 2 (n=7, 10.8%). No dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. Treatment-emergent AEs and treatment-related AEs for EVO were reported in 65/65 (100%) and 35/65 (53.8%) subjects respectively; discontinuation, however, was infrequent. Seven (10.8%) subjects experienced a serious adverse event related to EVO. There were no EVO-related deaths on study. Preliminary PK indicated dose-proportional pharmacokinetics consistent with prior studies. Objective response [complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), marrow CR (mCR), hematologic improvement (HI)], per modified International Working Group 2006 criteria, was observed in 19/52 (36.5%) ND HR [CR=8, mCR=9, HI=2] and 2/13 (15.4%) R/R [mCR=2] MDS subjects. Conclusion:The myeloid checkpoint inhibitor EVO was well tolerated in combination with AZA with an initial safety and activity profile comparable to that of historical AZA monotherapy. Additional updated data will be provided at the time of presentation. Citation Format: Guillermo Garcia-Manero, Bart L. Scott, Ashwin Kishtagari, Srinivasa R. Sanikommu, Aref Al-Kali, Je-Hwan Lee, Juan M. Bergua Burgues, Maria Diez-Campelo, Harry P. Erba, Carmen Garcia-Hernandez, Guillermo Sanz Santillana, Casey O'Connell, Jun-Ho Jang, Dong-Yeop Shin, Hamid Sayar, Mayank Rao, Richard S. Schwartz, Grace An, Feng Jin, Alison J. Forgie, Athanasios C. Tsiatis, Jessica K. Altman. Phase 1 study of azacitidine in combination with evorpacept for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(7_Suppl):Abstract nr CT060.

Abstract A041202 (NCT01886872) is a phase 3 study comparing bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and rituximab did not add additional benefits. Here we present an updated analysis. With a median follow-up of 55 months, the median PFS was 44 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-54) for BR and not yet reached in either ibrutinib-containing arm. The 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76%, and 76% for BR, ibrutinib, and IR, respectively. The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over chemoimmunotherapy was consistent across subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV). No significant interaction effects were observed between the treatment arm and del(11q), the complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, a greater difference in PFS was observed among the patients with TP53 abnormalities. There was no difference in the overall survival. Notable adverse events with ibrutinib included atrial fibrillation (afib) and hypertension. Afib was observed in 11 patients (pts) on BR (3%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (18%). All-grade hypertension was observed in 95 pts on BR (27%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (55%). These data show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS compared with BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. These benefits were observed across subgroups, including high-risk groups. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there was no inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature observed in CLL. These data continue to demonstrate the efficacy of ibrutinib in treatment-naïve CLL.

Introduction: ECOG ACRIN E1910 is a randomized phase III trial that showed that adults with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who become MRD negative (<0.01%) after induction chemo who receive blinatumomab with conventional chemotherapy (chemo) have improved survival compared with those who received chemo only (Litzow et al, Blood (2022) 140: Supplement 2, LBA-1). However, not all pts were able to receive all four planned cycles of blinatumomab in consolidation. In this report we assessed outcomes of pts in the blinatumomab arm of the trial who received all 4 cycles of blinatumomab compared to those who received 1-2 cycles. Methods: Patient between the ages of 30 and 70 with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL were enrolled and initially received 2.5 months of combination induction chemo utilizing a BFM-like regimen adapted from the E2993/UKALLXII clinical trial, with pegaspargase (after induction only for patients >=55 years of age) and addition of rituximab for CD20 positive patients. After remission induction (step 1) pts in morphologic complete remission (CR/CRi) received an intensification course of high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase for CNS prophylaxis (step 2). At the conclusion of step 2, remission and MRD status were determined centrally by 6-color flow cytometry with MRD negativity defined as <0.01%. In the primary analysis subset, MRD negative patients were randomized to receive an additional 4cycles of consolidation chemo or 2 cycles of blinatumomab at 28 mcg/day (flat dose) for 28 days each cycle followed by 3 cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (3rd cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a 4th cycle of blinatumomab (step 3). Following completion of consolidation chemo +/- blinatumomab, pts were given 2.5 years of POMP maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4). Estimates of OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS between treatment arms were conducted using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model with age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intend to receive HSCT or not as stratification factors. As the number of cycles needed to optimize outcome has not been studied, an unplanned landmark analysis was used to compare OS of pts in the blinatumomab arm who received all 4 cycles o those who received 1-2 cycles. Time 0 was chosen as 9 months post step 3 randomization (the time that patients were supposed to complete 4 cycles of blina). Four pts who received blinatumomab but died within 9 months post step 3 randomization were therefore excluded from this analysis. Results: The study was activated on December 17, 2013 and closed to enrollment on October 15, 2019. 772 pts were screened for the trial and 488 were enrolled on step 1 induction therapy. The median age of the pts was 51 years (range 30-70). 224 MRD negative pts were randomized, 112 pts to each arm. In the blinatumomab arm 12 pts received 1 cycle (11%), 32 pts received 2 cycles (29%), 4 pts received 3 cycles (4%) and 63 pts received 4 cycles (57%). The OS of pts who received 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab was compared to control (Figure 1) The difference was not significant (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.34, p=0.22). Fig 2 compares the survival of those who received 1-2 cycles to those who received 4 cycles ( (HR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.16, p=0.076). Conclusion: The addition of blinatumomab to consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a significantly better overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in pts with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL who were MRD negative after intensification. This represents a new standard of care for pts aged 30-70 years with BCR::ABL1 negative ALL. The optimal dose and number of cycles is however unknown. In this unplanned subgroup analysis we demonstrate that a survival benefit can only be confirmed in patients who receive the intended 4 cycles of blinatumomab during consolidation. Further studies will be needed to determine if fewer cycles can provide a similar benefit.