Gore, Steven D.

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.

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.

Abstract BACKGROUND Selinexor (SEL) is a first-in-class XPO1 inhibitor with potent antitumor activity through the nuclear retention and reactivation of tumor suppressor proteins, reduced translation of oncogenes, and decreased expression of anti-apoptotic proteins. As a single agent, SEL has demonstrated brain penetration and clinically relevant responses in glioblastoma. We seek to enhance the effect and benefit of SEL by priming with temozolomide (TMZ). METHODS Through an NCI Project Team, we developed a multi-institutional phase I/II clinical trial which opened across the NCI Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trial Network. Eligibility included histologically confirmed 1st recurrent MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma. We evaluated safety, tolerability, and dose finding with an IQ 3 + 3 design of TMZ 150mg/m2 on days 1-5 of a 28-day cycle plus SEL on days 8 and 15. RESULTS From October 2022 to March 2024, we enrolled 12 patients (n=11 evaluable) into phase I of the study. Patient characteristics included 82% male, median age 62 (range 50-77), 64% white. The median number of cycles administered was 6 (range 1-12). Two dose levels (SEL 60mg and SEL 80mg) were evaluated. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed. The most common treatment related adverse events were nausea (58%), decreased platelet count (50%), fatigue (50%), constipation (42%), vomiting (25%), decreased lymphocyte count (25%), and decreased neutrophil count (25%). Grade 3+ treatment related adverse events included nausea, grade 3 (n=1); decreased lymphocyte count, grades 3-4 (n=2); and anorexia, grade 3 (n=1). Phase I has completed enrollment and the recommended phase II dose will be SEL 80mg. Additional results will be presented. CONCLUSION Results suggest that a sequential dosing regimen of SEL+TMZ is feasible, well-tolerated, and may minimize the cumulative toxicity of SEL. The phase II randomized portion of this trial is enrolling nationwide and will investigate efficacy and candidate molecular signatures of vulnerability (NCI #10505, NCT05432804).

7012 Background: DLBCL with expression of MYC and BCL2 (double expressor lymphoma, DEL), has an adverse prognosis. Venetoclax, an inhibitor of BCL2, was previously studied in combination with R-CHOP. A051701 is a phase II/III randomized trial of chemoimmunotherapy +/- venetoclax in DEL and double hit lymphoma cohorts. Here we report initial phase II results from the DEL cohort. Methods: Patients (pts) age ≥ 18 years (y) with untreated DEL were randomized 1:1 to R-CHOP (Arm 1) or R-CHOP-venetoclax (Arm 2). DEL was defined as MYC expression ≥40% and BCL2 expression ≥50%, without double hit cytogenetics. Enrollment was based on local pathology results that were centrally confirmed. Venetoclax 800 mg was given orally days 4-8 of cycle 1 and days 1-5 of subsequent cycles for up to 6 cycles. All cycles were supported by GCSF or peg-GCSF. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with 84% power to detect a HR of 0.518 corresponding to 2y PFS rate of 65% in Arm 1 and 80% in Arm 2 (1-sided α=0.20). Results: 119 DEL pts were enrolled: 60 Arm 1; 59 Arm 2. Analyses were performed for the modified intent-to-treat population, defined as eligible pts with confirmed DEL histology (n=113; 56 Arm 1, 57 Arm 2). Median age was 64 y (range 22-85); baseline demographic factors were well balanced except for advanced stage (more common in Arm 1; (77% vs 60%, p=0.051). Most pts were non-germinal center B cell-like by immunohistochemistry (Arm 1 72%, Arm 2 58%), high-intermediate/high risk IPI (Arm 1 54%, Arm 2 51%) and ECOG performance status 0-1 (Arm 1 95%, Arm 2 86%). BCL2 rearrangements were detected in 25% and 33% of pts on Arm 1 and Arm 2, respectively. Most pts completed therapy per protocol (84% Arm 1, 75% Arm 2). Median follow up is 27 months (m). No difference in PFS was observed with 12-m PFS estimates of 77% in Arm 1, 76% in Arm 2 [HR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.48 – 2.01), p=0.95]. The end of treatment (EOT) overall and complete response rates among patients with an EOT assessment were 87.5% and 70% in Arm 1, and 90% and 82% in Arm 2. Overall survival (OS) was not statistically significantly different with 12-mo OS estimates of 94% in Arm 1 and 79% in Arm 2 [HR = 1.27 (95% CI: 0.57 – 2.79), p=0.56]. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred more frequently in Arm 2 (42% vs 76%). The most commonly increased grade ≥3 AEs included neutropenia (20% vs 47%), anemia (4% vs 25.5%), thrombocytopenia (5.5% vs 24%), febrile neutropenia (7% vs 16%) and fatigue (0% vs 11%). No grade 5 AEs on treatment were reported on Arm 1, and 3 were reported on Arm 2 (lung infection and sudden death NOS, both possibly related; respiratory failure, unlikely related). Conclusions: Adding venetoclax to R-CHOP in DEL pts did not improve PFS and resulted in increased toxicity. The study did not meet its primary endpoint in phase II, and so did not proceed to phase III. Clinical trial information: NCT03984448 .

Background and Significance: The rare nature and diagnostic difficulty associated with myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) has limited the inclusion of patients (pts) with these diseases, other than chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), in relevant clinical trials. This has resulted in the complete lack of approved agents for the treatment of pts with non-CMML MDS/MPN. Moreover, ASTX727 (oral decitabine-cedazuridine) was approved for CMML based on a study of only 16 pts with CMML. A larger study of CMML and non-CMML MDS/MPN is needed. MDS/MPNs appear to be BCL2-dependent (Bogenberger et al., 2015; Jilg et al., 2016), but data for venetoclax combination therapy are derived from retrospective analyses of relapsed/refractory disease (Cortes et al. 2019; Hammond et al., 2020) or single-arm studies not dedicated to MDS/MPN (NCT04655755, Venugopal et al. 2021). Venetoclax exposures are not affected by coadministration of ASTX727 and predict responses similar to historical data (Mannis et al. 2021). Based on these promising early data and the critical need, we proposed a randomized study of ASTX727 alone or in combination with venetoclax for pts with MDS/MPN and >5% blasts. Study Design and Methods: This is a National Cancer Institute-sponsored, multi-center, international, randomized phase 2 study (NCT05600894, NCI 10538) designed to evaluate the efficacy of ASTX727 alone or in combination with venetoclax in pts with newly diagnosed MDS/MPN with >5% marrow blasts. Key eligibility criteria include allowing hydroxyurea cytoreduction to a WBC <10,000/mm 3 for proliferative disease and excluding pts with need for emergent disease-directed therapy as well as prior therapy for myeloid malignancy other than hydroxyurea or thrombopoietic/erythropoietin stimulating agents. Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive either ASTX727 alone (Days 1-5) or in combination with venetoclax, initially administered with a 3-day dosing ramp-up and given for 14 days per 28-day cycle (Figure 1). Pts are stratified by disease subtype, specifically CMML and non-CMML MDS/MPN. The primary endpoint is the rate of complete remission (adapted from the MDS/MPN-specific response criteria developed by Savona et al. 2015). Secondary endpoints include the overall response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation rate, clonality at time of hematologic remission, number of red cell and platelet transfusions required and toxicity of ASTX727 versus ASTX727 + venetoclax. Pts randomized to the ASTX727 monotherapy arm and without response after 4 cycles of therapy, or with progressive disease after an initial response, cross over to the ASTX727 + venetoclax arm. A futility analysis is planned for each cohort (first 18 and 13 pts in each treatment arm for the CMML and non-CMML cohorts, respectively). We assume that 85% and 90% of pts in the CMML and non-CMML MDS/MPN cohorts, respectively, randomized to the ASTX727 monotherapy arm will not achieve the primary endpoint and will cross over to the ASTX727 + venetoclax combination arm. The estimated accrual time of a total of 70 pts with CMML and 50 pts with non-CMML MDS/MPN will require about 2.9 and 2.1 years, respectively. Planned integrated studies include the use of an apoptosis multiplex immunoassay to evaluate how the addition of a BCL-2 inhibitor will influence the ability of ASTX727 to induce apoptosis and if particular thresholds of apoptosis are predictive of clinical response. Planned exploratory studies include the use of: 1) RNA-seq to evaluate if differences in baseline transcriptional programs appear to be predictive of response to ASTX727 and ASTX727+venetoclax, 2) next generation (Oncomine Comprehensive Assay (OCAv3)/whole exome sequencing to uncover biomarkers predictive of response/outcome, validate risk modeling to stratify these pts and detect/monitor measurable residual disease (MRD) on serial marrow samples that can predict depth of response with translation in improvement in event-based endpoints, and 3) circulating tumor DNA as a non-invasive means (i.e., without need for a marrow evaluation) of prospective MRD detection for prognostic use. This ongoing, randomized study may inform frontline therapeutic options, provide prospective data for venetoclax combination after HMA failure, and generate striking correlative science for pts with “high risk” MDS/MPN.

Introduction: ECOG ACRIN E1910 is a randomized phase III trial that showed that adults with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who become MRD negative (<0.01%) after induction chemo who receive blinatumomab with conventional chemotherapy (chemo) have improved survival compared with those who received chemo only (Litzow et al, Blood (2022) 140: Supplement 2, LBA-1). However, not all pts were able to receive all four planned cycles of blinatumomab in consolidation. In this report we assessed outcomes of pts in the blinatumomab arm of the trial who received all 4 cycles of blinatumomab compared to those who received 1-2 cycles. Methods: Patient between the ages of 30 and 70 with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL were enrolled and initially received 2.5 months of combination induction chemo utilizing a BFM-like regimen adapted from the E2993/UKALLXII clinical trial, with pegaspargase (after induction only for patients >=55 years of age) and addition of rituximab for CD20 positive patients. After remission induction (step 1) pts in morphologic complete remission (CR/CRi) received an intensification course of high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase for CNS prophylaxis (step 2). At the conclusion of step 2, remission and MRD status were determined centrally by 6-color flow cytometry with MRD negativity defined as <0.01%. In the primary analysis subset, MRD negative patients were randomized to receive an additional 4cycles of consolidation chemo or 2 cycles of blinatumomab at 28 mcg/day (flat dose) for 28 days each cycle followed by 3 cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (3rd cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a 4th cycle of blinatumomab (step 3). Following completion of consolidation chemo +/- blinatumomab, pts were given 2.5 years of POMP maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4). Estimates of OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS between treatment arms were conducted using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model with age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intend to receive HSCT or not as stratification factors. As the number of cycles needed to optimize outcome has not been studied, an unplanned landmark analysis was used to compare OS of pts in the blinatumomab arm who received all 4 cycles o those who received 1-2 cycles. Time 0 was chosen as 9 months post step 3 randomization (the time that patients were supposed to complete 4 cycles of blina). Four pts who received blinatumomab but died within 9 months post step 3 randomization were therefore excluded from this analysis. Results: The study was activated on December 17, 2013 and closed to enrollment on October 15, 2019. 772 pts were screened for the trial and 488 were enrolled on step 1 induction therapy. The median age of the pts was 51 years (range 30-70). 224 MRD negative pts were randomized, 112 pts to each arm. In the blinatumomab arm 12 pts received 1 cycle (11%), 32 pts received 2 cycles (29%), 4 pts received 3 cycles (4%) and 63 pts received 4 cycles (57%). The OS of pts who received 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab was compared to control (Figure 1) The difference was not significant (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.34, p=0.22). Fig 2 compares the survival of those who received 1-2 cycles to those who received 4 cycles ( (HR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.16, p=0.076). Conclusion: The addition of blinatumomab to consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a significantly better overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in pts with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL who were MRD negative after intensification. This represents a new standard of care for pts aged 30-70 years with BCR::ABL1 negative ALL. The optimal dose and number of cycles is however unknown. In this unplanned subgroup analysis we demonstrate that a survival benefit can only be confirmed in patients who receive the intended 4 cycles of blinatumomab during consolidation. Further studies will be needed to determine if fewer cycles can provide a similar benefit.

Background. The inclusion of gene mutations and chromosomal abnormalities in the 2022 WHO and ICC Classifications of MDS has enhanced diagnostic precision and is expected to improve clinical decision-making process. Although these two systems share similarities, clinically relevant discrepancies still exist and potentially cause inconsistency in their adoption in a clinical setting. In this study on behalf of the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS), we adopted a data-driven approach to provide a harmonization roadmap between the 2022 WHO and ICC classification for MDS. A modified Delphi Process consensus approach is currently ongoing among icMDS experts to finalize a harmonized MDS classification scheme. Methods. We analyzed retrospective international cohorts of patients with a diagnosis of MDS (n=7017) and AML (n=1002) according to WHO 2016 criteria. Hierarchical Dirichlet Processes were applied to define clusters capturing broad dependencies among all gene mutations and cytogenetic abnormalities. To investigate the features of importance and their impact on the clustering process, we employed the SHapley Additive exPlanations approach (SHAP). This allowed to define harmonized labels for each clinical entity. The clinical relevance of the unsupervised clustering was assessed through the analysis of phenotypic features and outcomes among each group. ( Blood 2022;140: 9828-9830) Results. Patients' characteristics are summarized in Table 1. We identified 9 clusters, defined by specific genomic features. The cluster of highest hierarchical importance was characterized by biallelic inactivation of TP53 (biTP53). According to SHAP analysis, bi TP53 was defined as 2 or more TP53 mutations, or 1 mutation with copy number loss or cnLOH. Most patients assigned to bi TP53 cluster had TP53 VAF>10% (77.9%) and complex karyotype (70.1%). Assignment to bi TP53 cluster was irrespective of blast count. Patients with monoallelic TP53 mutation segregated into other clusters. Hierarchically, the second cluster included patients with del(5q). SHAP analysis highlighted 5q deletion alone, or with one other chromosomal abnormality other than -7, and absence of bi TP53, as the most relevant features. Most of these patients had blast counts <5% (88.1%). The third distinct cluster included patients with SF3B1 mutations (in the absence of concurrent del(7q), abn3q26.2, complex karyotype or RUNX1 mutation). Most patients with MDS and SF3B1 mutation had <5% blasts (94.2%). Common co-mutated variants in the SF3B1 cluster included mutant DNMT3A (25.2%) and TET2 (38.3%). Morphologically defined MDS cases (i.e., not meeting criteria for bi TP53, del(5q) or SF3B1) were preferentially assigned to the following additional clusters: SF3B1 and concurrent higher-risk mutations (e.g., RUNX1 and ASXL1); SRSF2 and concomitant TET2 mutations; U2AF1 mutations with del(20q), del(7q) or -7; SRSF2 with TET2 mutations and co-mutational patterns including RUNX1 and ASXL1; and AML-like genomic signatures. Our analyses suggest that morphologically defined MDS is characterized by a large heterogeneity in terms of mutation profiles, not entirely captured by the presence of unilineage versus multilineage dysplasia, percentage of bone marrow blasts, and presence of hypocellularity and fibrosis. To better investigate the continuum between high risk MDS (i.e., patients with ≥10% blasts) and AML, an exploratory comparison was made using a cohort of AML (defined according to WHO 2016) patients analyzed using the same statistical methods. Only a partial overlap in genetic signatures was observed between MDS with ≥10% blasts and AML. However, similarities were observed between the AML-like MDS clusters (characterized by mutant NPM1, bZIP CEBPA, and Core Binding Factor abnormalities) and AML clusters defined by the same genetic signature, thus supporting the classification of these entities as AML, irrespective of blast count. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the utility of a data-driven approach based on advanced statistical methods to generate a harmonized classification for MDS. Table 2 shows a provisional, hierarchical classification algorithm. Further refinement of entity labels and classification criteria is the subject of the ongoing modified Delphi Process consensus approach among icMDS experts.

Abstract BACKGROUND Selinexor (SEL) is a first-in-class XPO1 inhibitor with potent antitumor activity via tumor suppressor protein nuclear localization and reactivation, oncoprotein translation suppression, and DNA repair inhibition. As a single agent, SEL has demonstrated adequate brain penetration and clinically relevant responses in glioblastoma. We seek to enhance the effect and benefit of SEL by priming with temozolomide (TMZ). METHODS We developed in vitro and in vivo studies to rationally design a phase I/II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the sequential combination of SEL+TMZ. Sequential treatment of U87 cells and intracranial mouse xenografts demonstrated superior DNA damage (ɣH2A.X, cleaved PARP) and overall survival compared to combination or single-agent therapy (HR 0.25 [95% CI, 0.07-0.84]; p = 0.01, log-rank). We used the top-scoring pair method to identify a 6 gene-pair RNAseq signature associated with response to SEL. RESULTS Based on preclinical findings, we developed and opened a multi-institutional phase I/II clinical trial in October 2022. Eligibility includes histologically confirmed 1st recurrent MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma. Primary objectives are safety and preliminary efficacy. Secondary objectives are overall response rate, efficacy, and prospective validation of a molecular signature of response. Phase I dose finding by IQ 3 + 3 (n = 12) involves TMZ 150mg/m2 on days 1-5 of a 28-day cycle plus SEL on days 8 and 15. Phase II will involve randomization (n = 72) to the RP2D of SEL+TMZ versus monotherapy TMZ. Using proportional hazards regression, RHR 0.5 with p < 0.1 will demonstrate sufficient efficacy. We have enrolled 3 participants in dose level 1 (SEL 60mg) with no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed. Additional preliminary results will be presented. CONCLUSION Preliminary results suggest that a sequential dosing regimen of SEL+TMZ is feasible and initial dose is well-tolerated and may minimize the cumulative toxicity of SEL. The trial is currently enrolling nationwide (NCI #10505, NCT05432804).