Kutny, Matthew A.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) were developed as a result of meetings convened by a multidisciplinary panel of pediatric ALL experts, with the goal of providing recommendations on standard treatment approaches based on current evidence. The NCCN Guidelines for pediatric ALL focus on risk assessment and stratification of risk-adapted therapy; treatment strategies for BCR::ABL1 (Philadelphia chromosome [Ph])-negative and BCR::ABL1-positive B-cell lineage, T-cell lineage, and infant ALL; and supportive care considerations. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for pediatric ALL focuses on the diagnosis of and management of pediatric T-ALL.

AbstractSomatic mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) genes occur frequently in adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and less commonly in pediatric AML. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence, mutational profile, and prognostic significance of IDH mutations in AML across age. Our cohort included 3141 patients aged between <1 month and 88 years treated on Children’s Cancer Group/Children’s Oncology Group (n = 1872), Southwest Oncology Group (n = 359), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (n = 397) trials, and in Beat AML (n = 333) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 180) genomic characterization cohorts. We retrospectively analyzed patients in 4 age groups (age range, n): pediatric (0-17, 1744), adolescent/young adult (18-39, 444), intermediate-age (40-59, 640), older (≥60, 309). IDH mutations (IDHmut) were identified in 9.2% of the total cohort (n = 288; IDH1 [n = 123, 42.7%]; IDH2 [n = 165, 57.3%]) and were strongly correlated with increased age: 3.4% pediatric vs 21% older, P < .001. Outcomes were similar in IDHmut and IDH-wildtype (IDHWT) AML (event-free survival [EFS]: 35.6% vs 40.0%, P = .368; overall survival [OS]: 50.3% vs 55.4%, P = .196). IDH mutations frequently occurred with NPM1 (47.2%), DNMT3A (29.3%), and FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD) (22.4%) mutations. Patients with IDHmut AML with NPM1 mutation (IDHmut/NPM1mut) had significantly improved survival compared with the poor outcomes experienced by patients without (IDHmut/NPM1WT) (EFS: 55.1% vs 17.0%, P < .001; OS: 66.5% vs 35.2%, P < .001). DNTM3A or FLT3-ITD mutations in otherwise favorable IDHmut/NPM1mut AML led to inferior outcomes. Age group analysis demonstrated that IDH mutations did not abrogate the favorable prognostic impact of NPM1mut in patients aged <60 years; older patients had poor outcomes regardless of NPM1 status. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00070174, #NCT00372593, #NCT01371981, #NCT00049517, and #NCT00085709.

Background: Somatic mutations in the IDH genes are common in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Mutations occur at active site arginine residues in IDH1 (R132) and IDH2 (R140, R172). IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2), have shown improved clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory IDH-mutant AML and are approved for use in this setting, while investigations in combination with chemotherapy are underway in de novo AML. The prognostic significance of IDH mutations remains controversial. We hypothesize that refining our understanding of IDH-mutated AML will contribute to risk-adapted treatment strategies, including optimal use of IDH-targeted agents. The objective of our study was to identify characteristics that affect outcome in de novo IDH-mutated AML across the age spectrum utilizing a large cohort of patients enrolled on several pediatric and adult trials. Methods: The total cohort (N=3588) included patients age <1 month - 88 years. Pediatric and young adult (YA) patients were treated on recent CCG/COG AML trials (CCG2961, COG 03P1, 0531, 1031, N=2231) and YA/adult patients were treated on SWOG S0106 (N=396), ECOG E1900 AML trials (N=398), Beat AML (N=363), or included in the TCGA biology study (N=200; outcomes not evaluated for this group). Patients were analyzed according to three defined age groups: "younger" 0-29 years of age (N=2401), "intermediate" 30-59 years of age (N=819) and "older" 60 years of age and above (N=319). Data regarding clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were collected and evaluated according to the standard practices of each cooperative or research groups for the respective studies. Mutational profiling was performed by targeted sequencing for patient samples from COG trials, Beat-AML, ECOG, and SWOG; whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing for the TCGA cohort. Prevalence of IDH mutations, co-occurring mutations, and outcomes (5-year event-free survival [EFS]) were analyzed across the defined age groups. Results: The prevalence of IDH mutations among the entire cohort was 8.6% (N=276). Analysis according to mutation type demonstrated that IDH2 mutations comprised 57% (N=158) and IDH1 mutations 43% (N=118). The prevalence of IDH mutations was strongly correlated with increased age (Fig 1A); according to the age-defined cohorts was 4.0% (N=82) in younger, 15.2% (N=126) in intermediate, and 20.3% (N=65) in older patients (p<0.001). The co-occurring mutational profile demonstrated that IDH mutations commonly co-occurred with NPM1,DNMT3A, and FLT3-ITD mutations (Fig 1B). Among IDH-mutant patients, 48% (N=132) harbored dual mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut); 11.6% (N=32) triple mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut), the latter particularly prevalent in intermediate-aged adults (N=27/32, 85%). Analysis of the cohort with outcome data (N=2824) demonstrated that IDHmut and IDH-WT patients experienced similar EFS of 39% vs. 40%, respectively (p=0.723). Given the favorable prognostic significance of NPM1, we subsequently analyzed outcomes of this dual mutant group and found that NPM1 mutations retained favorable prognostic impact in the context of IDH mutant patients (Fig 2A). Notably, this effect was age-dependent, as those with IDHmut/NPM1mut had a favorable EFS compared to IDHmut/NPM1-WT for younger (76% vs. 24%, p<0.001) and intermediate patients (43% vs. 15%, p=0.001, Fig 2B) but this favorable effect was lost in older patients (29% vs. 34%, p=0.456, Fig 2C). Among intermediate age patients, outcome was further stratified by DNMT3A status, and IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut patients experienced an inferior EFS of 25% vs. 57% in IDHmut/NPMmut (p=0.003, Fig 2D). Conclusion: Analysis of this large patient cohort provides the most comprehensive description of IDH mutations in AML across the age spectrum. We confirm age-associated prevalence of IDH mutations and frequent co-occurrence with NPM1 mutation in all ages and in further combination with DNMT3A mutation in intermediate-aged adults. We definitively demonstrate that IDH mutation status is not an independent prognostic determinant of outcome in any age group. Co-occurrence of NPM1 and IDH mutations favorably impacts outcome in patients < 60 years of age with AML, particularly in the absence of DNMT3A mutation. Our data support that IDH inhibitors may be of particular interest in older adults and in patients <60 according to co-occurring NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations. Disclosures Othus: Marck: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Radich:Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Abdel-Wahab:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Envisagenics Inc.: Current equity holder in private company; H3 Biomedicine Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; BioSight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Rafael: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioline rx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding. Atallah:Jazz: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy. Luger:Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Loxo Oncology: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cooper:Celgene: Other: Spouse was an employee of Celgene (through August 2019).

Abstract Purpose: Clinical trials in APL have generally reported similar outcomes for children and adults. However, sub-group analysis of pediatric patients treated on 2 consecutive trials of the European APL group demonstrated that children <5 years (yr) had an increased risk of relapse (Bally et al., JCO, 2012). Here we report the effect of age < 5 yr on outcome for the North American Intergroup Study C9710. Methods: Outcomes were compared among young children (age <5 yr, n=16) to those of older age (5-12 yr, n=25 and 13-18 yr, n=45) enrolled on C9710. Treatment on C9710 included induction with daunorubicin, cytarabine and ATRA followed by two consolidation cycles with daunorubicin and ATRA and maintenance for one year with ATRA +/- mercaptopurine and methotrexate. Patients of age ≥15 yr were randomized to receive or not receive two 5-week cycles of arsenic trioxide (ATO) before the chemotherapy consolidation. However, analysis in this study of young children compared to those of older age was restricted to patients who did not receive ATO. Results: Clinical remission (CR) rates were similar between the 3 age groups (age <5 yr= 88%, age 5-12 yr= 80%, age 13-18 yr= 82%; P=0.93). Overall survival (OS) Kaplan-Meier estimates were not significantly different (log rank P=0.84), and 5 yr OS rates were 77% (age <5 yr), 80% (age 5-12 yr), and 84% (age 13-18 yr). Similarly, event-free survival (EFS) Kaplan-Meier estimates were not significantly different (log rank P=0.48), and 5 yr EFS rates were 56% (age <5 yr), 47% (age 5-12 yr), and 59% (age 13-18 yr). Young children did not have a higher relapse rate (5-yr cumulative incidence of relapse by age: <5 yr=29%, 5-12 yr=49%, 13-18 yr=29%). Conclusions: Results of this intergroup trial demonstrate that ATRA administration during induction, consolidation and maintenance leads to CR rates >80% and 5 yr OS rates >75%. These results are superior to recently published results of pediatric non-APL acute myeloid leukemia and confirm results from the prior APL intergroup trial (INT0129) that demonstrated that ATRA in induction and/or maintenance significantly improved outcomes for pediatric APL (Gregory et al., Ped Blood and Cancer, 2009). Our sub-group analysis showed no association of age with outcomes in children treated with this regimen. Disclosures Off Label Use: Daunorubicin- labeled for use in AML for adults and for pediatric ALL (not pediatric AML) Arsenic Trioxide- labeled for use in relapsed/refractory APL (not de novo APL) Mercaptopurine and Methotrexate- labeled for use in pediatric ALL (not APL).

Abstract Purpose: Recent studies have demonstrated differential outcomes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) vs. children treated for acute myeloid leukemia. Here we analyze outcomes by age group for APL patients treated on the North American Intergroup Study C9710. Methods: Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between children (<15 yr, n=55) vs. AYAs (15-31 yr, n=42). To control for differences in treatment center, only young adults registered at Children’s Oncology Group (COG) treatment sites were included. Treatment included induction with daunorubicin, cytarabine and ATRA. All patients (pts) received two consolidation cycles with daunorubicin and ATRA and maintenance for one year with ATRA +/- mercaptopurine and methotrexate. Pts ≥15 yr were randomized to an additional two cycles of arsenic trioxide (ATO). Sub-group analysis was also performed to exclude pts ≥15 yr who received ATO and thus compare only patients <15 yr vs. ≥15 yr who had not received ATO. Results: Children and AYAs had similar characteristics of gender, race/ethnicity, Sanz risk grouping and M3v histology. Among all pts enrolled at COG sites on the study, complete response (CR) rates were similar (<15yr =85% vs. ≥15yr =81%, P=0.59). AYAs had improved 5 yr disease-free survival (DFS) from time of CR compared to younger pts (<15 yr =47% vs. ≥15 yr =70%, log rank P=0.05), and there was a trend toward difference in 5 yr event-free survival (EFS) (<15 yr =46% vs. ≥15 yr =63%, log rank P=0.13). Overall survival (OS) at 5 years was not significantly different (<15 yr =82% vs. ≥15 yr =75%, log rank P=0.47). Twenty-three of 42 pts ≥15 yr received ATO consolidation cycles, which may have contributed to their improved DFS and EFS. Thus, we analyzed outcomes by removing from the analysis patients ≥15 yr who received ATO consolidation cycles, and compared pts <15 yr who did not receive ATO (n=55) to pts ≥15 yr who were randomized to no ATO (n=19). CR rates were again similar (<15 yr =85% vs. ≥15 yr no ATO =84%, P=1.0). There was no significant difference in other outcomes including 5-yr DFS from time of CR (<15 yr =47% vs. ≥15 yr no ATO =63%, log rank P=0.31), 5-yr EFS (<15 yr =46% vs. ≥15 yr no ATO=53%, log rank P=0.89), or 5-yr OS (<15 yr =82% vs. ≥15 yr no ATO=79%, log rank P=0.78). Conclusions: The C9710 study demonstrated improved EFS, DFS and OS among adult patients receiving ATO consolidation compared to those who did not receive ATO (Powell et al., Blood, 2010). The current analysis of results for AYAs versus younger pediatric pts showed improved DFS among the whole AYA cohort (of which 55% received ATO consolidation) compared to pts <15 yr (of which 0% received ATO). When the analysis was restricted to AYA pts not receiving ATO, however, the results of this intergroup APL trial showed similar CR, DFS, EFS and OS for AYAs and younger pts. Thus, unlike other subtypes of AML, APL appears to have a consistent response across the pediatric and AYA age groups. The most recent COG clinical trial in APL is now evaluating whether pediatric patients can also benefit from ATO consolidation. Disclosures Off Label Use: Daunorubicin- labeled for use in AML for adults and for pediatric ALL (not pediatric AML) Arsenic Trioxide- labeled for use in relapsed/refractory APL (not de novo APL) Mercaptopurine and Methotrexate- labeled for use in pediatric ALL (not APL).

AbstractBackgroundAcute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is a unique leukemia subtype requiring specialized treatment including all‐trans retinoic acid (ATRA). A prior report demonstrated worse outcome among young children <5 years old compared with older children.MethodsWe evaluated outcomes for pediatric patients (<18 years old; N = 83) with APL treated on North American intergroup study CALGB 9710 at Children's Oncology Group sites. Induction and consolidation included ATRA, cytarabine, and anthracyclines. Patients ≥15 years old were randomized to addition of arsenic trioxide (ATO) consolidation. All patients were randomized to ATRA maintenance with versus without oral chemotherapy.ResultsThe estimated 5‐year overall survival (OS) rate was 82%, and the event‐free survival (EFS) rate was 54%. Seven patients (8.4%) died during induction due to coagulopathy. Maintenance randomization demonstrated that addition of oral chemotherapy to ATRA significantly reduced relapse rate, but difference in EFS did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.12; 5‐year rates [95% CI]: 41% [17%–64%] ATRA only vs 72% [56%–88%] ATRA plus chemotherapy). There was no difference (P = 0.93) in EFS for age <5 years versus 5–12.99 years versus 13–17.99 years (5‐year rates: 56%, 47%, and 45%, respectively). Among adolescents 15–17.99 years old in the ATO randomization, there was a significantly lower relapse risk at 5 years for those receiving ATO (0% ATO vs 44% no ATO; P = 0.02).ConclusionOur data demonstrate that intensified ATRA, cytarabine, and anthracycline chemotherapy is effective for pediatric APL including very young patients, but early deaths and relapses remain barriers to cure. Further improvements are likely with incorporation of ATO into pediatric APL regimens.