Liedtke, Michaela

PURPOSE In immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis, amyloid fibrils cause organ dysfunction. Anselamimab, a monoclonal antibody, selectively binds to amyloid fibrils, accelerating their clearance. METHODS Newly diagnosed patients with European modification of Mayo 2004 stage IIIa or IIIb AL amyloidosis were randomly assigned to receive anselamimab or placebo with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (with or without daratumumab). The primary end point was a hierarchical composite of time to all-cause mortality (ACM) and frequency of cardiovascular hospitalizations (CVHs), analyzed using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld test and win ratio estimation. RESULTS Among 406 randomly assigned patients, the primary end point win ratio for anselamimab versus placebo was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.83, 1.50; P = .332) and the hazard ratio (HR) for ACM was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57, 1.13; P = .290). CVH rates in the anselamimab and placebo groups were 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42, 0.83) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.55, 1.43), respectively ( P = .145). Among patients with kappa isotype (n = 72), the win ratio was 2.06 (95% CI, 0.98, 4.31; P = .100) and anselamimab reduced ACM by 62% versus placebo (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.86; nominal P = .012), and CVH by 71% (IRR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.87; nominal P = .028) with improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Score. There was no clinical benefit observed in the lambda population. Anselamimab was generally well-tolerated; safety data were comparable between treatment arms overall. CONCLUSION Treatment with anselamimab, an antifibril antibody used alongside antiplasma cell dyscrasia therapy, while not meeting the primary end point in the overall population, significantly improved ACM and CVH in patients with kappa AL, potentially offering a new therapeutic option for this isotype.

7501 Background: AL amyloidosis is a plasma cell dyscrasia (PCD) characterized by κ or λ Ig light chain amyloid fibrils that deposit in vital organs. Anselamimab is an investigational mAb designed to complement anti-PCD therapy through accelerated removal of amyloid fibrils. Cardiac Amyloid Reaching for Extended Survival (CARES) studies (NCT04512235 and NCT04504825) investigated the efficacy and safety of anselamimab compared with placebo, in addition to anti-PCD therapy. Methods: Alongside anti-PCD therapy with CyBorD (daratumumab was permitted) newly diagnosed patients with European modification of Mayo stage IIIa or IIIb AL amyloidosis were randomized 2:1 to receive anselamimab (1000 mg/m 2 ) or placebo (normal saline) IV every 7 days for 4 weeks followed by every 14 days for the remainder of the blinded study (18 months after the last participant enrolled). The primary endpoint was a hierarchical combination of time to all-cause mortality (ACM) and frequency of adjudicated cardiovascular hospitalizations (CVH) using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld test and win-ratio in the combined study population. Subgroup analysis by involved κ or λ free light chain (iFLC) was prespecified. Results: 271 patients were randomized to receive anselamimab and 135 placebo. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms. The median duration of treatment was 21.4 months and 21.1 in the anselamimab and placebo arms, respectively. Daratumumab was used in 79.3% and 83.7% of the anselamimab and placebo arms, respectively. Results of the primary efficacy analyses are shown in the table. Anselamimab-treated patients with κ iFLC had a 62% reduction in ACM (HR = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.86; nominal P = 0.012) and a 71% reduction in risk for CVH (estimated CVH rate ratio = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.87; nominal P = 0.028). Patients with λ iFLC had a 10% reduction in risk for CVH; none in ACM. Safety data were comparable between both treatment arms. In anselamimab-treated patients, safety findings were similar between κ subgroup and full population. Conclusions: Anselamimab, a κ light chain–directed anti-fibril monoclonal antibody used alongside standard of care chemotherapy, offers a first-in-class, new therapeutic option for patients with newly diagnosed κ AL amyloidosis. Clinical trial information: NCT04512235 and NCT04504825 . Summary of primary efficacy endpoints. Endpoint Overall κ Isotype λ Isotype Anselamimab (N=271) Placebo (N=135) P -value Anselamimab (N=48) Placebo (N=24) P -value Anselamimab (N=219) Placebo (N=109) P -value ACM and CVH win ratio (95% CI) 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) 0.332 2.06 (0.98, 4.31) 0.100 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) 0.848 ACM n (%) 90 (33.2) 52 (38.5) 15 (31.3) 14 (58.3) 73 (33.3) 37 (33.9) HR (95% CI) 0.8 (0.6, 1.1) 0.290 0.38 (0.2, 0.9) 0.012 1.0 (0.7, 1.5) 0.647 CVH Frequency/year (95% CI) 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) 0.145 0.41 (0.2, 0.8) 1.4 (0.6, 3.4) 0.028 0.7 (0.4, 1.0) 0.8 (0.4, 1.3) 0.664 Incidence risk ratio (95% CI) 0.7 (0.4, 1.2) 0.29 (0.1, 0.9) 0.9 (0.5, 1.7)

Objectives: Amyloidosis is a group of rare diseases that often manifest in multi-organ symptoms requiring an effective multidisciplinary team of care providers to manage. This study aimed to identify the best practices and key barriers to patient-centric care at US specialized amyloidosis centers (SACs) which have emerged as central hubs for multidisciplinary amyloidosis care. Methods: We conducted and analyzed interviews with 77 stakeholders of amyloidosis diseases, including specialist physicians from 17 SACs across the US, patients, patient advocacy group representatives, and referring physicians. Results: The most commonly mentioned best practices were patient-centric multidisciplinary care, timely intake of new high-risk patients, and responsiveness to patient questions. Expanding local physician education was noted as critical to earlier diagnosis. Fifteen out of 17 SACs are actively involved in clinical trials for amyloidosis treatments. Key barriers to care identified were patient distance to SACs, limited medical records and data sharing, and insurance hurdles. Most SACs keep track of metrics, such as patient volume, patient demographics, time to first appointment, as part of internal or in external registries to measure progress. Conclusion: These findings offer practical insights for optimizing amyloidosis care and highlight the structural and informational gaps that must be addressed to improve access and outcomes.

The treatment landscape for multiple myeloma (MM) is evolving rapidly and includes several new options. The management must be tailored to the individual. The NCCN Guidelines for MM provide a framework to base decisions regarding diagnosis, workup, treatment, and follow-up of both newly diagnosed and previously treated relapsed/refractory MM. This manuscript outlines the recommendations from NCCN Guidelines for MM specific to newly diagnosed MM (NDMM).

Abstract Introduction:A comprehensive integration of significantly mutated genes and pathways with molecular subgroups is lacking in adult B-ALL. Furthermore, the genomic drivers underlying each subgroup remain to be identified.We aimed to perform genomic analysis on a large cohort of patients with adult B-ALL, and to correlate genomic markers with achievement of MRD negativity enabling blinatumomab randomization, and with subsequent response to blinatumomab. Methods:For genomic analysis, we studied 569 adults with newly diagnosed B-ALL registered for initial screening on the ECOG-ACRIN-led E1910 trial (NCT02003222), which evaluated the addition of blinatumomab to standard consolidation chemotherapy. The median age was 52 yrs (range 30 to 71 yrs), with 52% males. Analysis was performed on tumor and matched-normal samples using whole transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq; tumor only; n=569), whole exome sequencing (n=490), whole genome sequencing (n=131), and single nucleotide polymorphism array (n=445). B-ALL cases were classified into 22 molecular groups. Outcome analysis was limited to patients enrolled and treated on E1910 (n=319). Results: Driver genes (n=268) were identified by the mutation-significance detection tool dNdScv or by the presence of pathogenic variants in known cancer genes, with NUP188 identified as a novel driver gene. Recurrently mutated pathways included: B-cell development (46%), cell cycle (44%), epigenetic regulation (30%), other transcriptional regulation (27%), Ras signaling (25%), RNA machinery (17%) and JAK-STAT signaling (8%). A high frequency of high-risk subtypes was observed including BCR::ABL1 (20%), BCR::ABL1-like (18%), low hypodiploid (14%) and KMT2A (12%). Using tSNE analysis, we identified a new cluster of cases (n=20, 3.5%) lacking a known subgroup driver, with overexpression of CEBPA (n=13) or CEBPB (n=7), distinct from CEBPE/ZEB2, termed “CEBP-altered” ALL (CEBPalt). Five of 13 cases with high CEBPA expression harbored an IGH::CEBPA rearrangement and one harbored a RXRA::CEBPA enhancer hijacking alteration. Of the 7 cases with high CEBPB expression, 5 harbored IGH::CEBPB, and two of these had concomitant clonal BCR::ABL1 fusions. To identify additional mechanisms of CEBP deregulation, in situ Hi-C coupled to H3K27 acetylation immunoprecipitation (HiChIP) was performed on 5 cases. Four cases showed evidence of de novo CEBPA enhancer activity. In two cases, we identified novel insertions (12 and 34nt) ~2kb downstream of CEBPA. A novel translocation and enhancer hijacking event between LINC00426 and the 5' UTR of CEBPB was identified in the remaining case. Overall, we confirmed genomic alterations of CEBPA or CEBPB in 16 of 20 cases with available material. Thus, we have identified a new molecular subgroup of adult B-ALL characterized by genomic alterations that drive enhancer hijacking and oncogenic deregulation of CEBPA/CEBPB. Several subgroups were enriched in patients that failed induction chemotherapy (n=62) or were MRD-positive (n=63) compared to those that achieved MRD-negative status (n=194): BCR::ABL1-like (30 vs 14%, p<0.001), KMT2A (18 vs 9%, p=0.03) and BCL2/MYC (5 vs 1%, p=0.06). Conversely, the following subgroups were enriched in patients that achieved MRD-negativity: PAX5alt (6 vs 18%, p=0.002), TCF3::PBX1 (0 vs 5%, p=0.01) and ZNF384 (2 vs 6%, p=0.08) Within each molecular subgroup we compared the survival of patients who achieved MRD-negative status after induction and were randomized to receive blinatumomab plus chemotherapy (n=93) or chemotherapy only (n=91). Although numbers were low, blinatumomab improved relapse-free survival for patients with hyperdiploid, PAX5alt, BCR::ABL1-like and KMT2A ALL compared to chemotherapy alone. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP)-related gene mutations were identified in 121 of 417 cases analyzed (29% total: somatic 74%, remission 31%, both 5%). TP53 mutations were most frequent (n=65 patients), with the majority identified in patients with low hypodiploid (n=52). Interestingly, patients with CRLF2 rearrangements collectively harbored the highest number of other CHIP gene mutations (n=13), including DNMT3A (n=4), TET2 (n=3) and ASXL1 (n=3). Conclusions:We provide a comprehensive landscape of genomic alterations in adult B-ALL and identify a new group characterized by deregulation of CEBPA/CEBPB (CEBPalt). We also provide insights into the efficacy of blinatumomab in different molecular subgroups of adult B-ALL.

Abstract Background: The addition of the CD19/CD3 bispecific T-cell engager, blinatumomab, to standard consolidation chemotherapy in adults with ALL who achieved a measurable residual disease negative (MRDneg) remission (CR), demonstrated an improvement in 3-year overall survival (OS, 85% vs 68%, HR 0.41, P=0.002) and 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS, 80% vs 64%, HR 0.53) compared to conventional chemotherapy in the ECOG-ACRIN E1910 study (Litzow et al, NEJM 2024). Given the complex therapy in this study, treatment delays and modifications are expected. We herein explored the impact of such delays on patient outcomes. Methods: In the phase 3 ECOG-ACRIN E1910 trial (NCT02003222), adults aged 30-70 years with newly diagnosedALL who had achieved MRDneg CR following induction and intensification were randomized to consolidation chemotherapy with blinatumomab (blina arm) or chemotherapy alone (chemo arm). We examined the association between the timing of the initiation of maintenance therapy and OS and RFS. The expected duration of consolidation was 252 days vs 126 days for patients on the blina and chemo arms, respectively. For this analysis, participants were classified into two groups (no/short delay or long delay) depending on whether they started on time/before or after the median time between the beginning of consolidation and start of maintenance therapy for their treatment group (medians: 335 days, range, 181-457 days vs 176 days, range, 139-265 days for blina and chemo arms, respectively). Multivariate analyses of OS and RFS were performed to examine the effect of no/short delay vs. long delay in starting maintenance. Patients were stratified according to their assigned consolidation treatment arm, and the models were further adjusted for age, sex, white blood cell count, platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, bone marrow blasts, performance status and genetic-genomic risk at diagnosis. Results: Of the 488 patients enrolled, 224 MRDneg patients were randomized to consolidation chemotherapy with or without blinatumomab and 135 of the 224 went on to maintenance therapy on study (N= 66 on blina arm and 69 on chemo arm, respectively). The median follow-up from the time of maintenance registration was 43.4 months. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients in either arm who experienced no/short delay or long delay. In the blina group, 60 of 66 patients (90.9%) received all 8 cycles of consolidation therapy of which 31 (45.6%) had long delays. Sixty-eight of 69 patients on the chemo arm (98.5%) received all cycles of consolidation therapy, of which 34 (50%) had a long delay. Strikingly, patients who had a long delay before initiation of maintenance had a significant improvement in OS in multivariate analysis compared to patients who had no/short delay (HR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11-0.91; P =0.03). However, within each treatment group, OS benefit did not reach statistical significance (blina arm: HR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.001-1.64; P =0.09; chemo arm: HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.08-1.38; P =0.13). Similar results were observed for RFS in multivariate analysis (HR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.16-1.01; P =0.05), though this impact on improved RFS was noted in the chemo arm but not in blinatumomab treated patients (blina arm: HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.10-3.24; P =0.52; chemo arm: HR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04-0.83; P=0.03). Additionally, patients who had no/short delay before starting maintenance experienced a longer median duration of maintenance treatment (blina arm, 548 days; chemo arm, 708 days) compared to patients who had a long delay (blina arm 488 days; chemo arm 598 days) before initiation of maintenance (P=0.0008). Conclusion: In the phase 3 randomized ECOG-ACRIN E1910 clinical trial, long delays between initiation of consolidation therapy and start of maintenance therapy were associated with improved OS compared to no/short delays. However, within each treatment group (blina or chemo), no significant difference of OS was observed. We postulate that these longer delays allowed more patients to receive all of the recommended protocol-assigned therapy thereby resulting in improved survival. Furthermore, patients who had no/short delays had a significantly longer duration of maintenance therapy. These data indicate that treatment delays during consolidation do not worsen survival. Further studies are being done to better understand why patients with long delays had better overall survival.

Abstract The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) receiving asparaginase-based induction is high despite primary thromboprophylaxis. Our aim was to derive and externally validate a VTE risk prediction model in patients with ALL receiving asparaginase-based induction. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed ALL receiving asparaginase-based induction. The derivation and external validation cohorts included 306 and 94 patients, respectively. Primary outcome was VTE at any site. A cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model stratified by thromboprophylaxis and center was performed to identify VTE risk factors in the derivation cohort. A risk prediction model for VTE at 30 days was derived using variables with P value < .05 in the multivariable model and was tested in the validation cohort. VTE risk factors on multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort included D-dimer ≥1 μg fibrinogen equivalent unit per mL (hazard ratio [HR], 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-6.5) and hemoglobin (HR for each 1 g/dL increment, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.34) at ALL diagnosis. A VTE risk score based on these variables distinguished between a 4% (95% CI, 0.72-12) and 20% (95% CI, 14-27) 30-day cumulative incidence of VTE in the derivation cohort, with similar findings in the validation cohort (area under the curve, 0.56). The negative predictive value for VTE at 30 days was 96% and 93% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively, and the positive predictive value was 20% in both. We derived and validated a model using D-dimer and hemoglobin, which stratifies VTE risk in patients with ALL receiving asparaginase-based induction.

e13574 Background: AL (amyloid light chain) amyloidosis is associated with poor prognosis especially if diagnosis occurs with cardiac involvement. Current AL treatments target the plasma cell clone producing the light chains that misfold, aggregate and deposit in various tissues. The multi-organ manifestations of AL amyloidosis require a multidisciplinary care team of hematologist-oncologists, cardiologists, and other healthcare providers (HCPs) for comprehensive, patient-centric management. Since 2022, Amyloidosis Stakeholder Partnerships for Impact, Reach & Equity (ASPIRE), facilitated by Amyloidosis Research Consortium (ARC) has been bringing together biotech and pharmaceutical companies with the shared goal of optimizing amyloidosis patient care. Through this study, ARC-ASPIRE sought to document and share the current best practices and key barriers to patient-centric amyloidosis care at US specialized amyloidosis centers (SACs). A broad range of stakeholders in amyloidosis care – healthcare providers at SACs, patients, referring physicians, and patient advocacy group representatives – were interviewed for this study. This abstract presents findings relevant to the management of patients with AL amyloidosis. Methods: Structured interviews were conducted between December 2023 and February 2024 with 77 amyloidosis stakeholders (physicians, advanced practice providers, registered nurses from 17 SACs, patients, referring physicians, and patient advocacy group representatives), including 12 hematology-oncologists and 8 AL patients. SACs were selected to be representative of current US amyloidosis care, based on geography, amyloidosis patient volume, years since establishment, and types of amyloidosis treated. Results: Three-quarters of participating SACs treat AL patients under a single multidisciplinary amyloidosis program. Multidisciplinary care is facilitated by regular team meetings, dedicated clinic days, and informal communications across specialties. At diagnosis, collaboration between cardiology and hematology-oncology ensures AL patients are accurately diagnosed and promptly treated. Sixty percent of SACs have a centralized intake system, and patients suspected with AL are prioritized to ensure an appointment within 1 week of referral. Key barriers were delayed or missed diagnosis due to low awareness of AL amyloidosis within community oncologists, travel burden to SACs, lack of seamless medical records sharing and telehealth regulations. Conclusions: The best practices outlined in this study serve to educate AL amyloidosis and non-AL amyloidosis HCPs for better multidisciplinary collaboration and early diagnosis. The key barriers identified should be addressed to improve patient care.

The NCCN Guidelines for Multiple Myeloma (MM) provide recommendations for diagnosis, initial workup, treatment, follow-up, and supportive care for patients with MM. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the important updates and changes specific to systemic therapy for patients with newly diagnosed as well as previously treated MM included in Version 1.2025 of the NCCN Guidelines for MM.