Uy, Geoffrey L.

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: Response assessment is used to evaluate effectiveness of hypomethylating agent (HMA)-based therapy in myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) in clinical practice and trials. Recently, the clinical response criteria (IWG 2023) and the clinical-molecular risk assessment (IPSS-M) in MDS were published. However, it remains unknown whether the IWG 2023 response criteria have an independent impact on overall survival (OS) when adjusting for baseline IPSS-M risk. Additionally, the association of IWG 2023 response criteria with OS in patients (pts) undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) versus those who do not is unknown. Lastly, it is unclear if optimal time-to-transplant impacts OS in MDS pts who achieve a IWG 2023 defined remission with HMA therapy. We examined these questions in a large population of MDS pts within the multi-institutional international consortium for MDS (icMDS) VALIDATE database. Methods: High-risk MDS pts with IPSS ≥1.5 or IPSS-R >3.5 treated with HMA-based therapy were included in the study. Baseline IPSS-M risk was stratified into very low/low/moderate low (VL+L+ML), moderate-high/high (MH+H), and very high (VH). Response to treatment was evaluated using the IWG 2023 criteria and grouped into: composite complete response (cCR) and no cCR. cCR included: complete response (CR), CR equivalent (CRequ), CR bilineage (CRbi), CR unilineage (CRuni), and CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh). We analyzed the differential impact of achieving cCR on HMA-based therapy prior to transplant on OS in pts who either did or did not undergo allo-HCT, while adjusting for their baseline IPSS-M risk in Cox regression analysis. Optimal time-to-transplant was determined based on age and IPSS-M category as described by Tentori et al. (JCO 2024). Pts proceeding to allo-HCT were stratified on whether they underwent transplant within the optimal time-to-transplant timeframe after MDS diagnosis or not. VALIDATE protocol was exempted, acknowledged, or approved by all centers' IRBs. VALIDATE is supported by an independent grant from AbbVie. Results: We analyzed 762 MDS pts. The median age at MDS diagnosis was 68 years (range: 19-95 years) and 64% of pts were male. Distribution of the baseline IPSS-M risk was: VL+L+ML in 110 (14%) pts, MH+H in 347 (46%) pts, VH in 305 (40%) pts. Pts received azacitidine monotherapy, decitabine monotherapy, and HMA-based combination therapy (e.g. HMA + venetoclax) in 52%, 21%, and 28% of cases, respectively. A total of 282/762 (37%) pts achieved cCR as their best response to HMA-based therapy. The median OS for all pts was 18.7 months (95% CI: 16.6-21.3 months). Pts who did not undergo allo-HCT (n=436, 57%) had an improved median OS if they achieved cCR when compared to pts in the no cCR group in all IPSS-M risk groups (VL+L+ML: 23.5 months vs. 10.7 months; MH+H: 20.8 months vs. 11.6 months; VH: 13.8 months vs. 7.5 months). Cox analysis demonstrated an independent effect of cCR on OS in these pts when adjusted for baseline IPSS-M risk (cCR vs. no cCR: HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48-0.76, p<0.001). In contrast, in pts who subsequently received an allo-HCT (n=326, 43%), achieving cCR with HMA prior to allo-HCT did not provide an additional OS benefit, when adjusted for baseline IPSS-M risk (cCR vs. no cCR: HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73-1.38, p=0.986). The median time-to-transplant was 6.7 months and 34% of transplanted MDS pts received their allo-HCT during the optimal timeframe. Among pts who achieved cCR with HMA-based therapy prior to allo-HCT, optimal time-to-transplant was associated with significantly improved OS (optimal vs. non-optimal timing: HR 0.55; p=0.033). Conclusion: Baseline IPSS-M risk and allo-HCT had an independent impact on OS, while IWG 2023 defined cCR had an independent effect on OS only in non-transplanted MDS pts. While this retrospective analysis occurred at large academic centers with specific expertise in the management of MDS, our data may have an impact on clinical practice: (i) failure to achieve cCR on HMA therapy prior to transplant should not impact the decision to proceed to allo-HCT, (ii) upfront allo-HCT without prior HMA therapy might also be an option if the clinical situation and availability of donors allow, and (iii) allo-HCT should ideally be performed during the timeframe that is considered optimal as defined by pt age and baseline IPSS-M.

Background: Randomized studies in newly diagnosed (ND) AML patients with a FLT3 mutation show that adding 14 days of a FLT3 inhibitor to each intensive chemotherapy cycle improves overall survival. For patients unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy due to older age or comorbidities, the presence of a FLT3-ITD mutation is associated with high rates of early relapse and short remission duration. There is a limited survival benefit of venetoclax (ven) plus azacitidine (aza) compared to aza alone among patients with AML with a FLT3-ITD mutation. Accordingly, there is significant interest in adding FLT3-targeted therapy to lower intensity chemotherapy for patients with ND AML and FLT3 mutations, but to date no randomized data have demonstrated a survival benefit for this approach.Gilteritinib (gilt) is a highly potent and FLT3-selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is the standard therapy of relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutated AML, based upon superior survival in randomized studies. Gilt can also be combined safely with ven and/or aza, though myelosuppression remains a concern. Despite this, single institution studies of ven, aza, and gilt therapy of ND AML patients with FLT3-mutations show that this three-drug regimen is associated with near-universal complete remission rates (CR 90%, CRi 6%) and a majority of studied patients eliminate detectable FLT3-ITD (<1 x10-5) within four cycles by an ultrasensitive, amplicon-based NGS assay (Short, et al. JCO 2024). Rates of CR with full count recovery and survival appear superior to historical comparisons, but myelosuppression is potentially increased with the triplet regimen. These data demonstrate a need for multi-institutional comparative trials, not only to determine whether adding FLT3-inhibitors to ven and aza improve deep remission rates, but also to refine schedules of the triplet combination that improve tolerability for widespread use.Methods: This tier 1 MyeloMATCH substudy is an open-label, randomized phase 2 trial that will enroll ND AML patients older than age 60 or individuals judged by their treating physician to be best served by azanucleoside + ven-based therapy due to comorbidity. Subjects provide samples to the central MyeloMATCH Master Screening and Reassessment Protocol (MSRP, NCT05564390 ) and are assigned to the MM1OA-EA02 substudy (NCT06317649) based upon the presence of a FLT3-ITD or FLT3-TKD (D835) mutation by NGS. Subjects are randomized to one of three arms (regimens 1, 2, or 3), stratified by age (<70 years vs. older) and FLT3-ITD burden (ITD VAF>33% vs. lower VAF or D835). All study arms contain aza and ven administered in 28-day cycles with two study arms also including gilt. Regimen 1 is ven and aza administered as per the pivotal VIALE-A study. Regimen 2 adds gilt 80 mg once daily on days 1-28 and regimen 3 adds gilt on days 8-21 only. A marrow biopsy is performed during the first cycle (day 14-21, depending on study arm) and all chemotherapy is held until count recovery if a morphologic leukemia-free state or aplasia is seen. Patients receive up to two induction cycles to achieve remission and then receive ongoing consolidation cycles of therapy with a similar pattern of gilt administration up to 2 years. To minimize risk of cumulative myelosuppression, during consolidation azacitidine administration is reduced to days 1-5 on regimens 2 and 3 and ven limited to days 1-7 on regimen 2 and days 1-14 on regimen 3. For all arms, treatment-related adverse events prompt further reduction in ven, aza, or gilt dose or duration. Response will be measured after cycles 2 and 4, including centrally-performed MRD by flow cytometry. The primary endpoint is the rate of MRD(-) CR (<1 x 10-3) after up to 4 cycles. Key secondary endpoints include safety data, response rate, EFS, and OS. The study is powered to detect a 25% absolute improvement in MRD(-) CR rate in either triplet arm from a target accrual of 147 patients. A safety run-in for regimens 2 and 3 to confirm tolerability and feasibility will be performed after 20 subjects enroll to these arms; an interim futility analysis will be performed once response assessment of 50% of all planned accrual occurs. Study was activated on June 6, 2024 and is expected to continue until December 2025.

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

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with AML harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 ( FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202 ) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005]; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387]; P = .575). CONCLUSION Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.

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.

Background: BMT CTN 1506/MORPHO was a randomized study of the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib versus placebo as post-transplant (HCT) maintenance therapy for patients (pts) with FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and then were randomized, in double-blind fashion, to either gilteritinib or placebo for 24 months. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS), and a pre-specified secondary endpoint was the effect of measurable residual disease (MRD) on survival as detected by a highly sensitive assay for FLT3-ITD mutations. In the primary analysis, while RFS was higher for pts randomized to gilteritinib, the difference did not reach the pre-determined threshold for significance (HR: 0.679; 95% CI: 0.459, 1.005; 2-sided p-value: 0.0518). However, in the secondary analysis, the 50.6% of pts who had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT had significantly higher RFS with gilteritinib (HR of relapse or death=0.515, 95% CI: 0.316, 0.838, p = 0.0065). In this post-hoc analysis, we examined 1) the impact on RFS of different levels of FLT3-ITD variant allele frequency (VAF) pre-randomization (immediately before or after HCT but prior to randomization to gilteritinib or placebo); 2) the impact of the presence of multiple mutations detected as MRD pre-HCT; and 3) the eradication of FLT3-ITD clones detected post-HCT during follow up on gilteritinib or placebo. Methods: First-pull marrow aspirates were collected from pts at two time points pre-randomization (pre-HCT and between 30-90 days post-HCT), as well as at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-randomization. For MRD detection (performed at Invivoscribe; San Diego, CA), 700 ng input DNA was amplified by polymerase chain-reaction (PCR) using 25 cycles and primers flanking exons 14 and 15 of FLT3, followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of the amplicons. Variant allele frequency (VAF) was calculated as FLT3 mutant reads/total FLT3 reads. For pts with multiple FLT3-ITD mutations, the VAF used in analysis was the sum of the VAFs for each FLT3-ITD variant. The lower limit of blank (LOB) of the assay is estimated to be 1 x 10 -6 VAF. For terminology, VAF > 1 x 10 -6 and < 1 x 10 -5 is referred to as MRD6, VAF > 1 x 10 -5 and < 1 x 10 -4 is MRD5, VAF > 1 x 10 -4 or greater is MRD4, and MRD0 equals no detectable MRD. Results: MRD was evaluated in 350/356 (98.3%) pts pre-HCT and 347/356 (97.5%) pts post-HCT. MRD was detected in 46% of pts pre-HCT and 19.9% prior to randomization, including 4.5% who did not have detectable MRD pre-HCT. The variant allele frequency (VAF) of detectable MRD ranged from a low of 1.09 x 10 -6 to a high of 3.0 x 10 -1. More than a single mutation was detected in 51 pts pre-HCT. Most of these 51 pts had 2 clones, but the total ranged from 2-9. The presence of more than one mutation detected as MRD immediately pre-HCT was associated with worse RFS compared with all other pts (MRD-positive with only one clone and MRD-negative), irrespective of treatment arm (Figure 1A; HR=2.428, 95% CI: 1.555, 3.792, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in age, mutation length, VAF, or karyotype between pts with more than one mutation and those with single mutations. However, if the VAFs of pts with multiple FLT3-ITD mutations were summed and treated as a single value, then the median VAF for pts with multiple mutations was higher than for those with single mutations (2.14 x 10 -4 vs. 3.12 x 10 -5). The VAF (including the summed VAFs of pts with multiple mutations) at multiple levels correlated very closely with RFS after HCT. To illustrate this quantitative effect of peri-HCT FLT3-ITD VAF on RFS, Kaplan-Meier analysis of pts on the placebo arm grouped by MRD level is displayed in Figure 1B. In the 71 pts with MRD detectable post-HCT, the MRD was eradicated in 69% of pts on gilteritinib versus 44% of pts on placebo. Conclusions Pts with multiple FLT3-ITD mutations have a worse prognosis, which may simply be a reflection of increased disease burden (VAF). The quantity of FLT3-ITD MRD appears to highly correlate with outcome. Gilteritinib appears to augment the effect of HCT, as evidenced by increased eradication of MRD post-HCT. These data illustrate the potential utility of the PCR-NGS FLT3-ITD MRD assay in the management of pts with FLT3-ITD AML.