Koller, Paul

Background: Ph-like ALL is a high-risk subset of B-lineage ALL that responds poorly to standard chemotherapy regimens. While allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is routinely recommended for patients with Ph-like ALL, large multicenter data addressing its role is limited. Here, we conducted a multicenter study to evaluate the role of HCT in adolescent and young adult (AYA) and adult patients (pts) with Ph-like ALL and compare their outcomes to pts with Ph-pos and Ph-neg (non-Ph-like) ALL. Methods: The study included pts (age ≥18) with B-lineage ALL who received HCT in first complete remission (CR1) at 3 academic centers (MD Anderson Cancer Center, City of Hope and Mayo Clinic) between 2006 and 2021. Pts were divided into 3 main subgroups: Ph-like, Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL. Ph-like ALL cases were identified using cumulative data obtained by targeted RNA sequencing, conventional cytogenetics, FISH studies, whole genome chromosomal microarray and flow cytometry. Measurable residual disease (MRD) prior to HCT was measured using flow cytometry with a sensitivity of 0.01% for Ph-neg and Ph-like ALL, and with a PCR assay for BCR::ABL1 for Ph-pos ALL. MRD-negativity was defined as <0.01%. Predictors of relapse were evaluated in univariate and multivariate analysis using Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard models considering non-relapse mortality (NRM) as a competing risk. Results: 673 patients were identified, 83 (12.3%) had Ph-like ALL, of which 73% had CRLF2-alterations. The remaining patients were classified either as Ph-pos (N=271, 40.3%) or Ph-neg ALL (N=319, 47.4%). Patients with Ph-like ALL were younger (median age 40 years vs 48 and 46 years for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively, p=0.01), more likely to be of Hispanic ethnicity (69% vs 32% and 48% for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL respectively, p<0.001). Patients with Ph-like ALL were also more likely to have induction failure (24% vs 2% and 11% for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively, p=0.001). A summary of pts characteristics for each subgroup can be found in Table 1. The median follow-up was 30, 52 and 48 months for patients with Ph-like, Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively. In univariate analysis, 3-yr OS and PFS did not differ significantly (66% and 59% vs 59% and 54%, p=0.1) between patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL, respectively. Similarly, the cumulative incidence of relapse was comparable between patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL (22% vs 20%, respectively, p=0.7). In contrast, the 3-yr OS (75%, p<0.001) and PFS (70%, p=0.001) were significantly higher and relapse rate significantly lower (12%, p=0.003) in pts with Ph-pos ALL compared with Ph-like or Ph-neg ALL (Figure 1). The inferior survival in patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL was likely attributable to higher relapse rates (22% and 20% vs 12%, respectively, p=0.003) compared to Ph-pos ALL. Finally, the 3-yr NRM rate in patients with Ph-like ALL was comparable (20% vs 18% and 23%, respectively, p>0.1) to Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL. We confirmed that the relapse rate in patients with Ph-like ALL was comparable to the rate in pts with Ph-neg ALL (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.6-1.8, p=0.9) on multivariate analysis (MVA). Ph-pos ALL was associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with Ph-neg ALL (HR=0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, p<0.001). MRD positivity prior to allo-HCT was the only additional significant predictor for relapse on MVA (HR=2.9, 95% CI 1.8-4.7, p<0.001). Conclusions: HCT appears to overcome the poor prognosis of patients with Ph-like ALL. Despite higher induction failure rates, patients with Ph-like ALL undergoing HCT in CR1 had similar outcomes to other Ph-neg ALL subsets. The impact of effective salvage therapy leading to MRD-negativity in CR1 in this group is under investigation and will be reported. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of different Ph-like alterations on HCT outcomes. Outcomes for patients with Ph-pos ALL are significantly better than other groups, likely due to the use of TKIs pre- and post-HCT.

INTRODUCTION: Luxeptinib (CG-806; LUX) is an orally active noncovalent kinase inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), wild type and mutant forms of Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) (including the internal tandem duplicates (ITD), tyrosine kinase domain (TKD), and F691L mutant forms), and growth receptors like KIT, CSF1R, PDGFRα, and TRKs. In prior studies, LUX has been shown to suppress aberrant proliferative signaling in B cell malignancies and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) via regulation of BTK, LYN, SYK, AKT, ERK, and MAPK. LUX is cytotoxic to primary AML cells insensitive to other FLT3 inhibitors and to malignant B-cells insensitive to ibrutinib, at pM and nM concentrations, respectively. AIMS: The primary objectives of these studies are to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of LUX and determine recommended phase 2 doses for relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML and B cell malignancy patients. METHODS: In two studies (NCT04477291; NCT03893682), LUX (original formulation, G1) was administered continuously as oral capsules BID in 28-day cycles of ascending cohorts (relapsed or refractory de novo, secondary, or therapy-related AML or higher risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and relapsed and refractory for B cell lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic/small lymphocytic leukemia). A novel generation 3 (G3) formulation of LUX designed to increase bioavailability was tested at a single-dose (sub-study) for relative bioavailability (RBA), followed by continuous dosing in subsequent R/R AML patients. RESULTS: In the B-cell study (as of 15 th May 2023), LUX has been administered to 36 patients at dose levels from 150 mg to 900 mg BID in patients with a median of 3 lines of prior treatment, with 47.2% having received a BTK-inhibitor. Only one (2.8%) patient had a DLT of hypertension and 14 (38.9%) experienced at least one drug related ≥Grade3 treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE). Two patients (900 mg) are currently on study with no DLT and no ≥Grade 3 related TEAEs. A Follicular lymphoma patient is at cycle 28, and achieved a best response as partial response (PR) with a decrease in lesion size of 76.2%; an SLL patient is at cycle 13, and achieved stable disease (SD) showing a decrease in lesion size of 43.1% (Figure A). The overall best response achieved among the 17 patients who have been on treatment for more than 12 weeks are stable disease (SD) (n=11), partial response (PR) (n=3), minor response (n=2) and complete response (CR) (n=1). As of 5 th June 2023, in the AML trial, a total of 40 patients (16 (40%) FLT3-ITD, 21 (52.5%) FLT3-WT, 2 (5.0%) FLT3-TKD, and 1 (2.5%) unknown mutations) with a median of 3 prior treatments (range, 1 - 10) have been treated with LUX G1 formulation at dose levels from 450 mg - 900 mg BID (n=34) or with 50 mg BID of G3 formulation (n=6). Four (10%) experienced drug related SAE and 7 (17.5%) had a drug related grade ≥3 TEAEs. The most common related TEAEs were lymphocyte count decrease, platelet count decrease, and anemia (n=2; 5% patients each). One (2.5%) patient at 450 mg dose, reported complete remission without minimum residual disease (CRmrd) and remained on study for 56 weeks. In the RBA sub-study, G3 (50 mg) produced comparable exposures to G1 (450-900 mg range) (Figure B) and was, therefore, selected as the starting dose for use in the R/R AML study. Six patients were treated with a continuous dosing of 50 mg BID G3; with plasma levels of 274 ng/mL and 195 ng/mL LUX observed by the end of C1D15 and C1D22 respectively. No drug related Grade ≥3 TEAEs or DLTs were observed in 50 mg BID G3 LUX treated patients; with no new safety signals observed for the G3 formulation. Based on these findings and expected exposures for higher dose levels, the cohort safety review committee has approved escalation of G3 dosing to 200 mg BID at which dosing is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: LUX has a favorable safety profile in patients at all tested dose levels, for multiple cycles, for both studies. Antitumor activity was observed in a heavily pretreated relapsed AML patient and in multiple B-NHL subtypes and CLL/SLL patients including several with prior ibrutinib exposure. Continuous dosing of patients with R/R AML and Higher-Risk MDS with the G3 formulation is ongoing; with updated clinical data (200 mg dose level) to be presented at the meeting.