Kota, Vamsi

Background: Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia (CBF-AML) is characterized by the presence of inv(16)/t(16;16) or t(8;21), and is classified as favorable risk by the 2022 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) guidelines. High remission rates are observed in the setting of cytarabine- or anthracycline-based induction regimens. However, for the subset of patients (pts) who relapse, outcomes after relapse were poor in prior single-center analysis with median survival of less than 1.5 years (Khan et al. Clin Leuk Lymph Myeloma 2017). There remains a need to better understand outcomes of pts who experience relapse after initial complete remission (CR), particularly after diverse intensive chemotherapy (IC) induction regimens, where variable practices show differential induction outcomes. We set out to investigate the outcomes of pts with CBF-AML in first relapse or with disease refractory to initial therapy, across 5 institutions that are part of the Consortium on Myeloid Malignancies and Neoplastic Diseases (COMMAND). Methods: Retrospective chart review was done to identify pts who were treated with intensive IC with inv(16)/t(16;16) or t(8;21) identified on cytogenetics, from January 2010 through April 2023, with disease in first relapse after initial CR or refractory to primary induction. Pts were treated across 5 geographically-diverse, academic institutions. Pt clinical characteristics, cytogenetics, molecular testing via next-generation sequencing (NGS), treatment, relapse, and overall survival (OS) data were collected. OS since time of disease relapse was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Fifty-four consecutive pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CBF-AML were identified, 24 (44%) with inv(16) and 30 (56%) with t(8;21). Median age of pts at initial diagnosis was 50 years (yrs) (range 20-80yrs), with 61% male pts. Molecular testing and/or NGS was available at initial diagnosis for 41 pts (76%); 12 (22%) pts had adverse-risk ELN cytogenetics or mutations when excluding CBF status, and 8/41 (20%) pts harbored KIT mutations. Other baseline pt characteristics are listed in Table 1. All pts underwent induction with IC; 14 (26%) pts received intensive induction with gemtuzumab ogozamicin (GO), 3 (6%) received intensive induction with a KIT inhibitor (dasatinib or midostaurin), and the remaining 37 (68%) received IC induction without a targeted agent. Forty-one (76%) pts achieved a CR to induction therapy. Measurable residual disease (MRD) testing by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for CBF protein was available in 30 (56%) pts, with 16/21 (76%) achieving MRD-negativity by PCR and 20/26 (77%) by FISH. Forty-six pts underwent consolidation with a median of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (IQR 3-4), with 9 (17%) pts receiving GO with consolidation and 4 (7%) receiving a KIT inhibitor with consolidation. Median time to relapse was 10.1 months (IQR 8.0-13.6 months), and median OS after relapse was 9.2 months (IQR 4.4-22.1 months) for the whole cohort. Second line treatment data was available for 44 pts, with 29 (66%) receiving intensive 2nd line therapy vs 15 (34%) receiving lower intensity 2nd line therapy; 14 (32%) pts received venetoclax as part of their 2nd line therapy. There was no significant difference in 2-yr OS after relapse for those who received IC (50%, 95% CI: 34-72%) vs lower intensity therapy (24%, 95% CI: 8-72%) ( p=0.28) (Figure 1A). Twenty-eight (52%) pts who received 2nd line therapy for R/R disease proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), with a 2-yr OS of 57% (95%CI: 40-80%) for this group after time of relapse, compared to 15% (95% CI: 5-42%) for those who did not achieve CR after 2ndline therapy and/or proceed to transplant ( p<0.01) (Figure 1B). Conclusions: In this multi-center retrospective study of pts with R/R CBF-AML, we describe patterns of relapse after intensive induction chemotherapy, and do not observe a statistically difference in outcomes based on intensity of 2nd line therapy among pts with available treatment information. Median OS in the entire cohort was 9.2 months from diagnosis of R/R disease. Pts who proceeded to alloSCT after receiving 2nd line therapy had significantly improved long-term outcomes compared to those who did not proceed to alloSCT, highlighting the need for better therapies in the 2nd line and beyond to improve longer term outcomes for pts with CBF-AML.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). Bridging therapy, defined as anti-leukemia therapy given between apheresis and lymphodepleting chemotherapy, was permitted on the pivotal ZUMA-3 trial. The optimal bridging therapy is unknown in this setting. Here we report patient and disease characteristics in those receiving bridging therapies prior to brexu-cel and the impact of bridging on clinical outcomes in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results: ROCCA includes 25 US institutions contributing retrospective data from 152 B-ALL patients treated with standard of care brexu-cel between 2021-2023. Ninety-nine patients (65%) received bridging therapy, while 53 patients (35%) received no bridging therapy. Bridging therapy consisted of cytotoxic chemotherapy ( n=65, 66%), immunotherapy ( n=26, 26%; 23 inotuzumab, 3 blinatumomab), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) ( n=20, 20%; 16 ponatinib), steroids only ( n=10, 10%), and intrathecal chemotherapy ( n=22, 22%). The median age of the cohort was 46 (IQR 32-61). Patients were heavily pre-treated with a median of 4 prior lines of therapy. The median days from apheresis to infusion was 33 (IQR 26-42). 119 patients had known pre-apheresis blast counts; the bridging group had higher pre-apheresis blast burden, with 21 of 76 patients (28%) having ≥ 50% blasts compared to only 5 of 43 patients (12%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.02). In addition, more patients who received bridging had pre-apheresis extramedullary disease (32% vs. 15%, p=0.02). All other baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups (Table 1). Fifty-four (54%) patients had response assessment after bridging therapy and prior to brexu-cel infusion. In patients who received inotuzumab for pre-apheresis active disease, defined as ≥ 5% blasts, 6 of 13 (46%) who had post-bridging assessment achieved a complete response (CR; 5 measurable residual disease (MRD)+, 1 MRD-), with a mean proportional reduction in blast burden of 46% from baseline. In contrast, after chemotherapy bridging, only 2 of 16 patients (13%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Patients receiving chemotherapy bridging had a mean proportional increase in blast burden of 4.4%. In recipients of TKI bridging, 2 of 4 patients (50%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Compared to no bridging, patients in the bridging group had similar rates of grade 3 or 4 CRS (9% bridging vs. 8% no bridging, p=0.73) and grade 3 or 4 ICANS (34% vs. 26%, p=0.32). In univariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in day 28 response with 63 patients (72%) achieving MRD- complete response in the bridging group as compared to 36 patients (78%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.60). Non-relapse mortality was similar between the two groups (17% bridging vs. 9% no bridging, p=0.20). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were superior in the no bridging group: 1-year OS 74.7% vs 56.8% (log-rank p=0.04), and 1-year PFS 57.3% vs 41.7% (log-rank p=0.04). In a multivariate analysis stratified by bridging and pre-apheresis disease burden, patients with pre-apheresis blasts ≥ 5% and bridging had worse survival than ≥ 5% blasts and no bridging: 1-year OS 45.3% vs. 87.5% and 1-year PFS 27.7% vs. 64.3% (Figure 1). However, patients with < 5% blasts had similar survival regardless of bridging. Conclusions: In our real-world analysis, adults with R/R B-ALL receiving bridging therapy had a higher disease burden at baseline. Despite greater baseline disease, there were no significant differences in toxicity and day 28 response in those receiving bridging therapy vs. not. While survival was inferior in patients with pre-apheresis active disease who received bridging, this may be confounded by the degree of tumor burden. In patients with < 5% blasts pre-apheresis, bridging did not impact survival. Furthermore, inotuzumab bridging demonstrated the most significant disease debulking. However, the comparisons in this study are limited by the variability in practice for post-bridging disease reassessment and the small proportion of patients with active disease who did not receive bridging. A more uniform approach to peri-CAR disease assessment would enable more robust study of optimal bridging strategies.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the clinical outcomes of patients with TP53‐mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are dismal, subsets of patients eligible for curative‐intent therapies may fare better. Because racial disparities are known to affect outcome in hematologic malignancies, the authors sought to explore disparities among patients with TP53‐mutated AML.MethodsA multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in a cohort of 340 patients who had TP53‐mutated AML (275 non‐Hispanic White [NHW] and 65 non‐Hispanic Black [NHB]) to analyze differences in treatment and outcome among NHW and NHB patients.ResultsThe median patient age was comparable between NHW and NHB patients (p = .76). A higher proportion of NHB patients had therapy‐related AML (31% vs. 20%; p = .08) and had co‐mutations (74% vs. 61%; p = .06). A higher proportion of NHW patients received intensive chemotherapy compared with NHB patients (47% vs. 31%; p = .02). Conversely, a higher proportion of NHB patients received low‐intensity chemotherapy (9% vs. 5.5%; p = .02) or best supportive care (22% vs. 7%; p < .001). The complete response rate (including complete responses with or without complete count recovery) was 31% versus 24.5% (p = .39) in NHW and NHB patients, respectively. Only 5% of NHB patients received allogeneic stem cell transplantation compared with 15.5% of NHW patients (p = .02). The proportion of patients who were event‐free (18.5% vs. 8.5%; p = .49) or who remained alive (24.9% vs. 8.3%; p = .13) at 18 months was numerically higher in NHW versus NHB patients, respectively, but was not statistically significant.ConclusionsThe current study highlights disparities between NHW and NHB patients with TP53‐mutated AML. Efforts are warranted to eliminate treatment disparities in minority populations.

Abstract We conducted a multi-center study to analyze factors predicting survival among patients with TP53-mutated (m) AML receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) in the recent era. Among 370 patients, 68 (18%) patients were bridge to allo-HSCT. The median age of the patients was 63 years (range, 33–75), 82% of patients had complex cytogenetics and 66% of patients had multi-hit TP53m. Forty three percent received myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and 57% received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC). The incidence of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) was 37% and chronic GVHD was 44%. The median event-free survival (EFS) from the time of allo-HSCT was 12.4 months (95% CI: 6.24–18.55) and median overall survival (OS) was 24.5 months (95% CI: 21.80-27.25). In multivariate analysis utilizing variables that showed significance in univariate analysis, complete remission at day 100 post allo-HSCT retained significance for EFS (HR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10–0.57, p = 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.10–0.50, p = < 0.001). Similarly, occurrence of chronic GVHD retained significance for EFS (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.09–0.46, p = < 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15–0.75, p = 0.007). Our report suggests that allo-HSCT offers the best opportunity to improve long-term outcome among patients with TP53m AML.