Altman, Jessica K.

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

Background There is limited prospective or comparative data evaluating the HRQoL impact of intensive chemotherapy (IC) in older adults (age ≥60 years) with AML. In the recent EA E2906 phase 3 study of '7&3' (daunorubicin & cytarabine) vs. clofarabine (CLO), a putative lower intensity therapy, we incorporated a prospective patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment of HRQoL and fatigue to understand treatment impact from the patients' (pts) perspective. Methods E2906 study design and results have been presented previously [n=727, med. age 68 years (range 60-86), randomized 1:1 to ‘standard’ ‘7&3‘ & high dose cytarabine (Arm A) vs. single agent CLO (Arm B), as remission induction (Step 1) and consolidation (Step 2), respectively]. There was no difference in composite complete remission (CCR, 50%) or 30-day mortality rates (8.5%), and in primary analysis CLO was inferior for Overall Survival. HRQoL was a key secondary protocol endpoint. PROs assessed HRQoL and leukemia-specific symptoms and concerns using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia scale (FACT-Leu), & Fatigue using FACT-Fatigue subscale. PROs were administered at prespecified time points: (1) Baseline; (2) Cycle 1 at nadir (approx. Day 15); (3) End of Step 1 restaging (approx. D 40); (4) Beginning of Step 2 (1 st consolidation, approx. D 45); and (5) 2 nd cycle consolidation/End Step 2 (approx. D 60). The FACT-Leu Trial Outcome Index ( TOI) was calculated by summing physical well-being, functional well-being, and leukemia-specific concerns subscales to create a single composite score. Higher TOI scores correspond to better HRQoL. The primary endpoint was to evaluate TOI difference from randomization to day 30 after induction therapy between arms, evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum test. We also compared Clinically Meaningful differences (CMiD) in TOI (defined as patient change ≥½ standard deviation from baseline TOI) between arms, using the X2 test. Pts not completing at least 2 assessment forms (including baseline) were excluded. Testing of constructs of Physical Well-being (PWB), Functional, Leukemia & Fatigue scales demonstrated high Cronbach's a values (a >0.7) except for PWB (a=0.672) at a single time point (End of Step 2). Results Baseline TOI was available for n=489, and 364 pts (n=182 each Arm) were evaluable in this planned analysis. Evaluating CMiD during Cycle 1 induction, pts in Arm B were less likely to experience ‘Worse’ TOI score (32% vs. 40.7%, Arm A), more likely to maintain stable TOI scores (49.1% vs. 39%, Arm A), and had a similar proportion of ‘Better’ TOI scores (20.3%, A vs. 18.9%, B) although differences were not significant (p=0.1389). Conversely in cycle 1 consolidation, more patients in Arm A experienced Better TOI (45.1% vs. 29.2%, Arm B), fewer had stable TOI (45.1% vs. 58.3%, Arm B), and rates of ‘Worse’ TOI were similar (9.8%, A vs 12.5%, Arm B), again differences were not significant (p=0.2616). There was no difference in Fatigue scores between Arms (p=0.49). We evaluated whether TOI and Fatigue scores could predict the ability to complete protocol therapy. In univariate analysis baseline TOI (p=0.0059) and Fatigue (p=0.0057) were associated with Step 1 completion, however on multivariate analysis (adjusting for age, sex, and Arm) were no longer significant [TOI, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 (0.98-1.08, p=0.27); Fatigue, OR 1.03 (0.96-1.11, p=0.42)]. There was a borderline association of TOI with Step 2 completion [TOI OR 1.10 (1.00-1.23, p=0.06)]. Using a multivariable linear mixed effects model, we observed similar and significant changes in TOI scores in both Arms, demonstrating the effect of IC & CLO on HRQoL (Figure). Comparing to baseline, TOI scores decreased significantly at C1 induction nadir (-4.0873, p<0.0001), and increased by 5.0762 (p=0.0004) at end Step 1, by 6.9047 at cycle 1 consolidation (p<0.0001), and by 11.4601 (p<0.0001) at end Step 2. Differences were mainly apparent in those who achieved CCR, and there was significant attrition in PRO responses in non-CCR pts. Conclusions Older adults experienced significant improvement in HRQoL after nadir regardless of therapy, and those achieving CCR report significantly higher scores. We did not observe differences in leukemia specific HRQoL or fatigue between treatment Arms (7&3 vs. CLO). Patient-reported HRQoL & Fatigue was not predictive of completion of protocol therapy. These results serve as a benchmark for expectations with IC in older adults.

Background In unfit patients (pts) with newly diagnosed (ND) AML, long-term survival remains short (mOS 14.7 months) despite improved responses (CR 37% and CR/CRi 66%) with azacitidine (AZA) and venetoclax (VEN) (VIALE-A, DiNardo NEJM 2020). In a pooled analysis of AZA-VEN in ND AML pts with poor risk cytogenetics the response rates were higher in TP53wt pts (CR/CRi 70%) compared with TP53mut pts (CR/CRi 41%) (Pollyea Clin Cancer Res 2022). The measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative rate was 41% in AZA-VEN treated pts in VIALE-A which was associated with improved survival (Pratz JCO 2022). Pivekimab sunirine (PVEK, IMGN632) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising a high-affinity CD123 antibody, cleavable linker, and an indolinobenzodiazepine pseudodimer (IGN) payload. The novel IGN payload alkylates DNA and causes single strand breaks without crosslinking (Kovtun Blood Adv 2018). Methods This is an ongoing, open-label, multicenter, Phase 1b/2 study of PVEK in combination with AZA +VEN in adults with ND CD123-positive AML (any CD123+ expression by local flow cytometry or IHC). Pts received the recommended phase 2 dose of PVEK 0.045 mg/kg IV on D7 + AZA 75 mg/m 2 SC or IV daily on D1-7 + VEN up to 400 mg PO daily for 14 to 28 days (based on cohort assignment) in a 28-day cycle. Bone marrow assessment was performed at D14 (cohort 1) or D21 (cohort 2) of cycle 1 to determine VEN duration. The primary endpoints are composite CR rate (CCR [CR+CRh+CRp+CRi]), MRD rate (assessed centrally [Hematologics, Inc.] by flow cytometry; <0.1% defined as negative) and duration of remission. Key secondary endpoints are safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. Responses were determined using ELN 2017 criteria (with the addition of CRh) and a 14-day post-marrow count recovery window. Results As of July 17, 2023, data is available for 50 ND pts (n=25 per cohort) treated with PVEK+AZA+VEN and are aggregately reported here. The median age was 74 years (range, 46-83), 42% were ≥ 75 years old, 26% had secondary AML, 64% were ELN 2017 adverse risk, and 38% had a TP53mut. The most common non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) (all grades [grade 3+]) seen in > 20% of all pts were febrile neutropenia (44% [38%]), constipation (42% [2%]), peripheral edema (36% [4%]), diarrhea (36% [2%]), hypophosphatemia (32% [0%], nausea (28% [4%]), and hypokalemia (24% [2%]). No veno-occlusive disease (VOD) events were reported. In responders, the median time to achieve absolute neutrophil count ≥500/µL and platelet count ≥50,000/µL was 35.5 days (range, 20-55) and 22 days (range, 20-55), respectively. The median post-remission cycle delay (beyond cycle day 28) was 14 days. Two pts discontinued PVEK due to a TEAE (edema; marrow aplasia). The 60-day mortality was 4%. In the ITT population (N=50) the CR rate was 52% (26/50), and the CCR rate was 66% (33/50). In pts ≥ 75 years old, the CCR rate was 76% (16/21). In pts known to be TP53wt, both the CR and CCR rate was 88% (22/25). Additional response subsets in Table 1. Twenty-one pts received 9-14 days of VEN, 9 pts received 15-21 days of VEN and 20 pts received ≥ 22 days of VEN in cycle 1; of those who received ≤ 14 days of VEN the CR rate was 71% (15/21) and the CCR rate was 76% (16/21). Of the 26 pts who achieved CCR and had an MRD-evaluable sample, 73% (19/26) achieved MRD negativity (CCR MRD-, <0.1% residual blasts); notably all had undetectable MRD levels (lower level of detection is 0.02%). MRD-negativity was achieved rapidly with a median of 1.7 months (range, 0.8-4.5). CCR MRD- rates were high across major molecular subsets, including FLT3 (ITD/TKD) at 100% (7/7), IDH1/2 at 89% (8/9), and NPM1 at 89% (8/9), as well as ELN risk groups (intermediate 80% [8/10]; adverse 64% [9/14]). Conclusion With a manageable safety profile in pts with ND AML, the PVEK+AZA+VEN triplet demonstrated anti-leukemia activity with robust CR rates and early MRD negative responses in a cohort enriched for adverse disease characteristics (64% ELN adverse risk; 38% TP53mut). Encouraging CCR MRD- rates were observed across cytogenetic/molecular subsets, and the majority of responding pts achieved early and deep remissions, which may translate to improved clinical outcomes. The regimen was well tolerated with no new safety signals, and the addition of PVEK to the AZA-VEN backbone did not appear to meaningfully prolong count recovery.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

TPS7073 Background: Despite improved outcomes with azacitidine (AZA) and venetoclax (VEN) in frontline unfit AML (CR 37% and CR/CRi 66%), long-term survival for these patients remains inadequate (mOS < 15m, DiNardo NEJM 2020). CD123 is expressed on the majority of AML blasts and leukemic stem cells while minimally expressed on normal hematopoietic stem cells (Kovtun Blood Adv 2018). Pivekimab sunirine (PVEK, IMGN632) is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising a high-affinity CD123 antibody, cleavable linker, and an indolinobenzodiazepine pseudodimer (IGN) payload. The IGN payload alkylates DNA and causes single strand breaks without crosslinking. IGNs are designed to have high potency against tumor cells, while demonstrating less toxicity to normal marrow progenitors than other DNA-targeting payloads. Clinical data in relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML (Daver ASH 2022) supported the continued clinical exploration of the PVEK+AZA+VEN triplet. The current enrolling dose expansion cohorts (Regimen C; Cohorts 1 and 2) in frontline AML will evaluate antileukemia activity and MRD levels in the combination of PVEK+AZA+VEN. Regimen E will enroll patients with R/R AML to evaluate the safety and antileukemia activity of PVEK in combination with magrolimab. Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter, Phase 1b/2 study of PVEK administered in combination regimens in patients with frontline and R/R CD123-positive AML. Patients will receive the established recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PVEK 0.045 mg/kg IV, as a < 30-minute outpatient infusion. In Regimen C, patients will receive PVEK 0.045 mg/kg IV on D7 + azacitidine 75 mg/m 2 SC or IV daily on days 1 to 7, and venetoclax up to 400 mg PO daily for at least 14 days (Cohort 1) or for up to 28 days (Cohort 2) in a 28-day cycle. In Regimen E, R/R AML patients will receive PVEK 0.045 mg/kg IV on D1 of the 28-day cycle in combination with magrolimab at 30 mg/kg Q2W, after the standard ramp up schedule. Regimen C will enroll adults with untreated AML, CD123+ by flow cytometry or IHC and no prior HMA treatments. The primary endpoints for Regimen C are composite CR rate, overall response rate (ORR), duration of remission (DOR), MRD levels and key secondary endpoints are safety, PK and immunogenicity. Regimen E will enroll adult patients with relapsed or refractory CD123+ AML with up to 2 prior lines of therapy. The primary endpoint for Regimen E is dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and key secondary endpoints are safety, antileukemic activity, PK and immunogenicity. The PVEK+AZA+VEN triplet (Regimen C) is currently enrolling frontline unfit patients across sites in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and USA. The PVEK+Magro doublet (Regimen E) is planned to be open for enrollment mid-2023 at sites in the USA. Clinical trial information: NCT04086264 .

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous hematologic malignancy characterized by the clonal expansion of myeloid blasts in the peripheral blood, bone marrow, and/or other tissues. It is the most common form of acute leukemia among adults and accounts for the largest number of annual deaths from leukemias in the United States. Like AML, blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is a myeloid malignancy. It is a rare malignancy characterized by the aggressive proliferation of precursors of plasmacytoid dendritic cells that frequently involves the bone marrow, skin, central nervous system, and other organs and tissues. This discussion section focuses on the diagnosis and management of BPDCN as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for AML.