Balasubramanian, Suresh

Ziftomenib - a potent, selective, oral menin inhibitor - is approved as monotherapy for adults with relapsed/refractory (R/R) NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (NPM1-m AML). The KOMET-007 phase 1 trial investigated clinical activity and tolerability of ziftomenib in combination with standard therapies for R/R and newly diagnosed AML. Here, we report outcomes of adults with R/R NPM1-m AML treated with ziftomenib plus venetoclax/azacitidine. In phase 1a, patients received ziftomenib 200, 400, or 600 mg once daily with standard doses of venetoclax/azacitidine. In phase 1b, ziftomenib 600 mg was selected for expansion. Sixty-seven patients were treated (27 phase 1a; 40 phase 1b). Median age was 66 years, and 55% were men. Median number of prior therapies was 1 (range 1-8); 55% received prior venetoclax and 22% had prior transplantation. Most common (≥20%) grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were leukopenia (34%), thrombocytopenia (28%), febrile neutropenia and neutropenia (25% each). Six patients developed QTc prolongation (1 ziftomenib-related; grade 1), and 2 experienced differentiation syndrome (grade 3); all events were successfully managed. In patients receiving ziftomenib 600 mg, composite complete remission (CRc) rate was 46% (22/48), with 67% (12/18) achieving central measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity (<0.01% threshold). In venetoclax-naïve and -exposed patients, CRc rates were 70% (16/23) and 24% (6/25), with MRD-negativity rates of 75% (9/12) and 50% (3/6), respectively. Median duration of response was 8.6 months, and median overall survival was not reached. The combination of ziftomenib 600 mg with venetoclax/azacitidine was well tolerated with deep and durable clinical activity in R/R NPM1-m AML. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT05735184.

Abstract Background: Hypomethylating agent (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN) is used in clinical practice for frontline management of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) based on encouraging data from phase 1 clinical trial (Garcia JS et al. Blood 2025). While the randomized clinical trial (VERONA-NCT04401748) did not show a survival benefit of azacitidine-VEN, the study had important differences such as exclusion of therapy related MDS and being conducted in several non-academic US centers. To better understand the impact of this regimen and its effects in subgroups, we conducted a real-world analysis of frontline MDS patients treated mainly at academic medical centers with HMA-VEN and compared to HMA monotherapy. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of 19 US academic medical centers. We included contemporary cohorts of adults (age≥18 years) with MDS (intermediate, high or very high risk by IPSS-R) who were treated outside of clinical trials with either upfront combination of HMA-VEN or HMA monotherapy. Data on patient-related, disease-related and treatment-related variables were collected through chart review. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) 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 1198 patients with intermediate, high or very-high risk MDS, 313 patients received upfront VEN in combination with HMA [HMA-VEN] and 885 patients received HMA monotherapy. Median age was 70 (63-76) years and majority of patients had MDS with excess blasts-1 (34% overall, HMA-VEN=26%, HMA=37%) or MDS with excess-blasts-2 (41% overall, HMA-VEN=60%, HMA=34%). Disease risk by IPSS-R was intermediate (29% overall, HMA-VEN=18%, HMA=33%), high (30% overall, HMA-VEN=31%, HMA=30%) or very-high risk (41% overall, HMA-VEN=51%, HMA=37%, p<0.001). Therapy related MDS (t-MDS) was seen in 27% of patients (HMA-VEN=33%, HMA=25%, p=0.004), 34% had TP53 mutation (HMA-VEN=40%, HMA=32%, p=0.005) and 33% underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) (HMA-VEN=42%, HMA=30%, p<0.001). The most common mutations detected at baseline included TP53 (34%), ASXL1 (22%), DNMT3A (16%), RUNX1 (16%), TET2 (14%), SRSF2 (13%), and U2AF1 (11%). The response rate by IWG 2006 criteria was significantly higher with HMA-VEN than HMA monotherapy (overall 81% vs 39%, CR: 17% vs 9.6%; marrow CR: 56% vs 14%, p<0.001). In multivariable analysis accounting for upfront treatment, AHSCT, genomic mutations, baseline bone marrow blasts and t-MDS, patients treated with HMA-VEN in the upfront setting had significantly improved EFS (median EFS 10.7 vs. 7.8 mon, HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p=0.01) and OS (median OS 22.4 vs. 18.1 mon, HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.64-0.97, p=0.02). In addition, TP53 mutation status (OS: HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.57-2.26, p<0.001, EFS: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.65, p<0.001), subsequent AHSCT (OS: HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27-0.41, p<0.001; EFS: HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.40-0.54, p<0.001), and therapy related MDS (OS: HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00-1.44, p=0.04, EFS: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96-1.27, p=0.2) were significant predictors on multivariable analysis. When separately investigated in subgroups, an OS benefit of HMA-VEN over HMA was seen in patients undergoing subsequent AHSCT (median OS 40.6 vs. 30 mon, p=0.05), bone marrow blast 10-19% (median OS 25.1 vs. 17.4 mon, P=0.01), de novo MDS (median OS 30 vs. 20.1 mon, P=0.003) and absence of TP53 mutation (median OS 34.9 mon vs. 23.1 mon, p=0.004). The benefit of HMA-VEN over HMA was also seen across molecular mutations including presence of ASXL1 mutation (median OS 35.2 vs 20.9 mon, p=0.03). Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective analysis from US academic medical centers, we found that HMA-VEN therapy significantly improved OS in certain subsets of high risk MDS including patients with 10-19% blasts, denovo MDS, subsequent AHSCT and those without TP53 mutation. While our analysis is limited by its retrospective design, prospectively exploring subgroups of MDS patients who could benefit from HMA-VEN therapy is needed.

Abstract Background: Higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (HR-MDS) and secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) share overlapping molecular features but both remain clinically diverse with poor prognosis. Machine learning (ML)-based genomic clustering offers an opportunity to redefine disease subgroups beyond traditional clinical prognostic schemes or pathologic classifications. Prognostic scoring systems emphasize outcomes while pathologic classifications morphology resulting in inclusion of patients (pts) with different genetic background into same outcome or morphologic subgroup. We compared our ML-unsupervised clustering (UC) model named molecular nosology1 with the taxonomy model2 to evaluate differences in cluster architecture and clinical relevance in HR-MDS and sAML. Methods We analyzed HR-MDS (≥10% blasts) and sAML pts with available molecular data at diagnosis from a well-annotated cohort. Our molecular nosology model used UC via a binary latent-factor model to generate molecular clusters (MCs). The taxonomy model assigned pts to predefined genomic classes. We compared MC size, genomic enrichment, and overall survival (OS) across diagnostic categories. Concordance was assessed using Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) and Normalized Mutual Information (NMI). Purity and entropy were calculated to assess how concentrated (purity) or dispersed (entropy) each taxonomy group was across MCs. Results Among 898 pts, 367 (41%) had HR-MDS and 531 (59%) had sAML. Median age was 71 (IQR 65–77) years. Compared to sAML, HR-MDS pts had similar age (71 vs. 72, p=0.556) but higher hemoglobin (9.9 vs. 9.3, p<0.001) and platelet counts (91 vs. 50, p<0.001). Normal karyotype was more common in HR-MDS (55% vs. 42%, p<0.001). TET2 (24%), ASXL1 (24%), RUNX1 (23%), and SRSF2 (22%) were the most frequently mutated genes. Using our nosology model, we identified 14 MCs.1 The most frequent were MC2 (normal karyotype) at 22% and MC13 (TP53-complex) at 17%, followed by MC1 (+8/ASXL1/TET2/RUNX1, 12%), MC6 (SRSF2/RAS-pathway, 9%), and MC9 and MC14 (each 8%). Less common clusters included MC12 (5%) and MC3–MC5 (2–3%). For comparison, the taxonomy model included 18 genomic groups: TP53-complex (20%), mNOS (13%), bi-TET2, IDH-STAG2, and no event (each 10%), CCUS-like, SETBP1/-7, and AML-like (each 6%), SRSF2 (4%), del(5q), BCOR/L1, EZH2-ASXL1, and SF3B1 (each 3%), and five rare subgroups (DDX41, der(1;7), U2AF1157, U2AF134, ZRSR2; all <1%). Our MCs aligned closely with several taxonomy groups: 82% of TP53-complex cases were assigned to MC13, 99% of no event cases mapped to MC2, and 97% of del(5q) cases mapped to MC8. Bi-TET2 cases were distributed across MC6 and MC12 (both TET2-enriched); SETBP1/-7 to MC11; and EZH2-ASXL1 cases to MC1 and MC12. In contrast, mNOS, AML-like, and CCUS-like groups were genomically heterogeneous and spanned multiple MCs. ARI and NMI values were 0.391 and 0.458, indicating moderate concordance. Purity was highest in no event (0.989), del(5q) (0.967), and TP53-complex (0.823), and lowest in IDH-STAG2 (0.247), CCUS-like (0.241), and AML-like (0.347), all with high entropy (>2.5), reflecting genomic diversity not captured by taxonomy groups alone. Median OS for the entire cohort was 17 mo (95%CI: 14–20). HR-MDS pts had longer OS vs. sAML (26 vs. 12 mo, p<0.001). OS did not differ significantly between HR-MDS and sAML within most taxonomy groups or MCs, except for MC3 (NA vs. 11 mo, p=0.014), MC6 (111 vs. 15 mo, p<0.001), and MC9 (18 vs. 9 mo, p=0.027) for the nosology model and SF3B1 (129 vs. 23 mo, p=0.033), del(5q) (33 vs. 6 mo, p=0.022), bi-TET2 (25 vs. 8 mo, p=0.019), mNOS (34 vs. 9 mo, p<0.001) for taxonomy. Conclusions Some molecular taxonomy groups showed strong concordance with our nosology-defined clusters, which served as the gold standard for genomically distinct subsets (e.g., TP53-complex, del(5q), and no event), irrespective of diagnosis or blast percentage which may present the stage of the disease. In contrast, taxonomy-defined categories such as CCUS-like, AML-like, and mNOS were more genetically diverse and less aligned with specific clusters in the nosology model. Median OS within most clusters was not significantly influenced by blast count, underscoring the potential of molecular-driven clustering to reveal underlying disease biology not captured by morphology and to refine classification in MDS/AML and sAML with few exceptions (SF3B1 or biTET2). Ref 1.Kewan, Durmaz et al.Nat Commun 2023 2.Bernard, et al.Blood 2024

Abstract Introduction: Leukemogenesis is driven by nucleophosmin 1 mutations(NPM1-m) or lysine methyltransferase 2A rearrangements(KMT2A-r) in ~35–40% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Nearly half of AML patients will develop relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease within a year, with <20% expected response rate following venetoclax/azacitidine (Ven/Aza) and progressively poorer outcomes with each subsequent line of therapy. Ziftomenib–a potent, highly selective, oral, investigational menin inhibitor–has demonstrated clinical activity as both monotherapy and in combination for adults with R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. KOMET-007 (NCT05735184) is an ongoing, open-label, ph1a/b study of ziftomenib in combination with standard chemotherapies in adults with newly diagnosed and R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. Here we present updated safety and clinical activity in patients with R/R AML treated with the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D) of ziftomenib 600 mg in combination with Ven/Aza across ph1a/b. Methods: Adults (≥18y) with R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML enrolled independently into separate arms; patients in dose escalation (ph1a) and expansion (ph1b) were treated with oral ziftomenib 600 mg once daily (QD; continuously from C1D8 onward) plus standard doses of Ven/Aza. Primary endpoints: AEs, complete remission (CR; ELN 2022), dose limiting toxicities (DLT; ph1a only). Key secondary endpoints: composite CR (CRc; CR with full, partial or incomplete hematologic recovery), overall response, duration of response. Results: As of June 25, 2025, 80 patients (51 NPM1-m, 29 KMT2A-r) with R/R AML were enrolled (20 ph1a; 60 ph1b) and treated with ziftomenib 600 mg QD + Ven/Aza. Median age was 63y (range 19–85), 50% were female, 74% had ECOG PS 0–1; 22 (28%) had FLT3 co-mutations and 7 (9%) had IDH co-mutations. Median number of prior therapies was 1 (range 1–6); 18% (14/80) had prior stem cell transplant; 25 (49%) NPM1-m and 19 (66%) KMT2A-r patients had prior Ven exposure. 71 patients (89%) had Gr ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly (≥20% of patients) febrile neutropenia (31%), decreased platelet count (28%), decreased white blood cell count (26%) and decreased neutrophil count (23%). Gr ≥3 ziftomenib-related AEs occurred in 30 patients (38%), most commonly febrile neutropenia (9%) and anemia (8%). 6% of patients discontinued ziftomenib treatment due to AEs. Differentiation syndrome (DS) occurred in 1 (1%) NPM1-m patient (Gr 3), which lasted 1d and successfully resolved with protocol-specified DS mitigation. No ziftomenib-related QTc prolongation was reported with the combination, and no DLTs were observed in ph1a. 70 patients (43 NPM1-m; 27 KMT2A-r) were response-evaluable (≥1 response assessment or death). Median follow-up was 18.0 wks for NPM1-m and 16.4 wks for KMT2A-r. Overall response rates (ORRs) were 65% (28/43) for NPM1-m and 33% (9/27) for KMT2A-r. CRc rates were 49% (21/43) for NPM1-m and 22% (6/27) for KMT2A-r after median time to first CRc of 4.9 wks (range 2.7–15.6) and 5.5 wks (range 2.6–18.9), respectively; measurable residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates (local) among tested CRc responders were 50% (9/18) for NPM1-m and 60% (3/5) for KMT2A-r after median time to first MRD-negativity of 5.9 wks (range 2.9–15.6) and 8.1 wks (range 7.7–18.9), respectively. During continuous ziftomenib administration in patients who achieved CRc, median time to neutrophil recovery (≥1×109/L) was 43d overall (43d for NPM1-m; 71d for KMT2A-r), and median time to platelet recovery (≥100×109/L) was 27d overall (27d for NPM1-m; 23d for KMT2A-r). As of the data cutoff, overall median duration of CRc was not estimable; median overall survival was not estimable for NPM1-m and 21.1 wks for KMT2A-r. In Ven-naive patients, CRc rates were 71% (15/21) for NPM1-m and 33% (3/9) for KMT2A-r; CR rates were 48% (10/21) and 11% (1/9); and ORRs were 81% (17/21) and 56% (5/9), respectively. The study is ongoing with 44% (19/43) of NPM1-m and 11% (3/27) of KMT2A-r patients still on treatment, with responses continuing to evolve.Updated data to be presented.Conclusions: In the ongoing KOMET-007 study, ziftomenib RP2D of 600 mg QD + Ven/Aza was well tolerated with robust clinical activity in patients with R/R NPM1-mor KMT2A-rAML. No ziftomenib-related QTc prolongation was reported. One case of DS (NPM1-m, Gr 3) successfully resolved with protocol-specified mitigation. These data support further investigation of ziftomenib-based combinations in R/R NPM1-mand KMT2A-rAML.

Abstract Introduction: Nucleophosmin 1 mutations (NPM1-m) drive leukemogenesis in approximately 30% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Ziftomenib is a potent, highly selective, oral, investigational menin inhibitor that has demonstrated clinical activity as both monotherapy and in combination for adults with NPM1-m or lysine methyltransferase 2A-rearranged (KMT2A-r) AML. KOMET-007 (NCT05735184) is an ongoing, open-label, dose-escalation (phase 1a) and expansion (phase 1b) study of ziftomenib in combination with standard chemotherapies in NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. Here we present phase 1b safety and clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who received the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ziftomenib 600 mg in combination with venetoclax and azacitidine (Ven/Aza). Methods: Adults (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy were enrolled in phase 1b and received ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus standard doses of Ven/Aza. Ziftomenib was orally administered once daily continuously from Cycle 1 Day 8 onward. Phase 1b primary endpoints were adverse events (AEs) and complete remission (CR) per ELN 2022. Secondary endpoints included composite CR (CRc; defined as CR with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery), overall response, and duration of response. Local measurable residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing, RT-qPCR, and multiparameter flow cytometry. Results: As of June 25, 2025, 39 patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML were enrolled and treated with ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus Ven/Aza in phase 1b. Median age was 75 years (range 53–93), 54% were female, 46% had ECOG PS 0–1; 12 (31%) had FLT3 co-mutations and 9 (23%) had IDH co-mutations. Median duration of follow-up was 16.3 weeks (range 1.6–41.1). Twenty-nine patients (74%) had grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly (≥20% of patients) decreased neutrophil count (31%) and decreased platelet count (23%). Grade ≥3 ziftomenib-related AEs occurred in 14 patients (36%), most commonly decreased neutrophil count (15%) and decreased platelet count (13%). No ziftomenib treatment discontinuations occurred due to AEs. Differentiation syndrome occurred in 1 (3%) patient (grade 2), which successfully resolved with protocol-specified mitigation. One patient (3%) had investigator-assessed ziftomenib-associated QTc prolongation (grade 3); however, there were concomitant significant electrolyte abnormalities and event resolved with electrolyte repletion. At time of data cutoff, 31 NPM1-m patients were response-evaluable (≥1 response assessment or death). CRc rate was 84% (26/31) after a median time to first CRc of 3.5 weeks (range 2.4–9.4), with local MRD-negativity rates among tested CRc responders of 54% (13/24) after a median time to first MRD-negativity of 8.4 weeks (range 2.9–17.4). CR rate was 58% (18/31) and overall response rate was 94% (29/31), with responses and MRD-negativity rates continuing to evolve. During continuous ziftomenib administration in patients who achieved CRc, median time to neutrophil recovery (≥1×109/L) was 36 days, and median time to platelet recovery (≥100×109/L) was 28 days. The median duration of response and median overall survival were not reached as of the data cutoff, at a median follow-up of 16.3 weeks. The study is ongoing, with 81% (25/31) of NPM1-m patients still on-study and 77% (24/31) still on ziftomenib treatment. Updated safety and clinical activity results will be presented.Conclusions: In the ongoing KOMET-007 study, ziftomenib RP2D of 600 mg once daily combined with Ven/Aza was well tolerated and demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML, including 84% CRc after a median of 3.5 weeks and 54% CRc MRD-negativity after a median of 8.4 weeks. Low rates of ziftomenib-related cytopenia and no additional myelosuppression were observed with this combination. One case each of differentiation syndrome (grade 2) and investigator-assessed QTc (grade 3) were successfully resolved. Taken together, these data support the RP2D determination and advancement of this ziftomenib-based combination in the KOMET-017 (NCT07007312) randomized phase 3 study in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML.

PURPOSE Ziftomenib—a potent, highly selective, oral menin inhibitor—was well tolerated and demonstrated encouraging clinical activity as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory NPM1 -mutated ( NPM1 -m) and KMT2A -rearranged AML in the KOMET-001 phase I trial. METHODS In the registration-enabling phase II part of KOMET-001, patients with relapsed/refractory NPM1 -m AML received ziftomenib 600 mg once daily. The primary end point was the rate of complete remission with full hematologic recovery (CR)/CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh). RESULTS From January 26, 2023, to May 13, 2024, 92 patients (median age, 69 years [range, 33-84]) were treated. The primary end point was met, with a CR/CRh rate of 22% (95% CI, 14 to 32; P = .0058); 61% were negative for measurable residual disease. Overall response rate was 33% (95% CI, 23 to 43), with a median duration of 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 7.4). Prespecified subgroup analyses showed comparable CR/CRh regardless of previous therapy, including venetoclax, or type of comutations. Median overall survival was 6.6 months (95% CI, 3.6 to 8.6). Common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were febrile neutropenia (26%), anemia (20%), and thrombocytopenia (20%). Differentiation syndrome occurred in 25% of patients (15% grade 3; no grade 4-5) and was manageable with protocol-defined mitigation. Three patients (3%) discontinued treatment because of ziftomenib-related adverse events. CONCLUSION Ziftomenib demonstrated significant clinical benefit and deep responses in patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory NPM1 -m AML. Ziftomenib was well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with previous studies, including manageable differentiation syndrome, lack of clinically significant QTc prolongation, and low rates of myelosuppression.

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.

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.

Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin, which is approved for relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), based on efficacy demonstrated in a randomized control trial. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of InO in the "real world" setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of patients (pts) with RR B-cell ALL, who received InO outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response to InO, duration of response, overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Demographic and disease characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Duration of response was estimated among pts who achieve complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Results: From June 2016 to May 2019, 84 pts with RR-B cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at InO initiation was 50 years (yrs) (range, 20-87). Twenty-two (27.5%) pts had t(9;22) (Ph+ve) and 6 (7.5%) pts had t(4;11) (MLL gene) chromosomal abnormalities. Nine (11%) and 20 (25%) pts had CNS disease at diagnosis and at relapse, respectively. Median number of therapies prior to InO was 2 (range, 0-7), 40 (48%) pts had ≥ 3 therapies and 23 (27%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to InO. Forty (48%) pts received blinatumomab prior to InO. Fourteen (17%) pts received InO in combination with chemotherapy and/ or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Overall response rate (CR/CRi) was 63%; 44% had CR with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by flow cytometry. Response rate in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 73%. Twenty-three (27%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median response duration with InO was 11.5 months (mo); 32.5% had sustained response at 2 yrs (Fig. 1a). Median response duration post InO, censored at allo-HCT was not reached (NR) (51% in remission at 2 yrs) (Fig. 1b). Median OS after InO was 11.6 mo and 32% were alive at 2 yrs (Fig. 1c). Median OS post InO, censored at of allo-HCT was 13.6 mo (Fig. 1d). Median OS after InO in Ph+ve pts was NR (71% alive at 1 yr). Forty-nine percent, 27%, 6% and 5% of pts discontinued InO due to progression, allo-HCT, adverse events and maintenance therapy, respectively. Nineteen (30%) pts had dose interruptions. In terms of toxicities, 14 (17%) and 7 (8%) pts had grade (G)1-2 and G3 transaminases secondary to InO, respectively. One pt each had G2 and G3 pancreatitis, respectively. One (1%) and 2 (2%) pts had G2 and G4 veno-occlusive disease secondary to InO, respectively. Two of these pts were treated with defibrotide. Two (2%) pts died due to InO toxicity. A complete description of adverse events are summarized in Table 1. Conclusion: Our real-world data obtained by multicenter collaboration suggest that InO was well tolerated and had significant efficacy in this heavily treated patient population of RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Liedtke: Celator: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Aldoss:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yang:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Advani:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding. Atallah:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy.