Oh, Timothy S.

Background Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with TP53 mutation (m) has poor outcomes even in the contemporary era with median overall survival (OS) of 6-9 months. The only factor that has been shown to improve outcomes is allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) (Badar et al AJH 2022; Leukemia 2023). However, the role of allo-HCT for TP53-m AML continues to be a matter of debate given high rates of relapse after allo-HCT particularly in TP53-m AML with complex cytogenetics (CG). We used the COMMAND consortium database to investigate the factors that influenced physician's decision for allo-HCT in TP53-m AML. Method We conducted a multicenter observational study in collaboration with 7 U.S. academic centers under COMMAND consortium. We reviewed electronic medical records of 369 TP53-m AML patients to analyze reasons for not pursuing allo-HCT including refractory disease, donor availability, advanced age/co-morbidities, physician perspective on ineffectiveness of allo-HCT in improving outcome and patient's decision. Diagnostic criteria for TP53 allelic state were according to the International Consensus Classification (ICC) (Blood 2022; 140:1200). Next-generation sequencing and cytogenetic studies were performed according to institutional standard protocols. Results The median age at diagnosis was 68 years, with 222 (60.5%) patients being male. The majority of patients were diagnosed with de novo AML 179 (48.8%), followed by secondary AML (sAML) in 103 (28%) patients, and therapy-related (t)AML in 85 (23.2%) patients. Ninety-four percent of evaluable patients had complex cytogenetics (CG) and 192 (52%) had multi-hit TP53-m. One-hundred forty-seven (42%) patients received intensive chemotherapy (CPX 351 [66 (44%)], 7+3 [78 (53%)]), while 205 (58%) patients received low-intensity regimens including hypomethylating agents (HMA) plus venetoclax (137 [66%]) and HMA +/- investigational agents (68 [33%]). The rate of complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) was 34.4% and overall response rate (CR/CRi + partial remission [PR] + morphologic leukemia free state [MLFS]) was 52%. Forty-seven (13%) patients received allo-HCT in CR1 and 17 (5%) patients received allo-HCT in CR2. Of the 294 patients for whom data on allo-HCT decision-making was available, the most common reason for not proceeding to allo-HCT was refractory disease in 126 (43%) patients. Other significant reasons included advanced age/comorbidities (n=78 [30.6%]), physician recommendation (n=7 [2%]), patient's decision (n=24 [9.4%]), and patient relocation or changing healthcare providers (n= 9 [3.5%]). Two (0.4%) patients had no suitable donor available for allo-HCT. Amongst the 7 patients for whom allo-HCT was not pursued due to physician's decision, the median age of the patients was 69 years (R, 59-70), 3 (25%) patients had sAML, and all of them had multi-hit TP53-m associated with complex CG. Six out of seven (86%) patients received HMA plus venetoclax and 1 (14%) patient received HMA-based induction. Six patients achieved CR/CRi after induction and 1 patient had partial remission. The median survival of these patients was 11 months (R, 10.7-11.3), eventually all patients died from progressive AML. Conclusion Our survey suggests that the primary reason for not proceeding with allo-HCT was refractory disease, underlying the difficulty in achieving the disease control needed for allo-HCT. There is an urgent need for better frontline therapies tailored specifically for TP53-m AML, along with refined patient selection criteria to better identify candidates who would benefit most from allo-HCT to potentially improve their long-term outcomes.

Introduction: MDS are primarily diseases of the elderly, with median age at diagnosis of 72 years. Focused data on clinical and molecular characteristics, as well as outcomes, in younger pts under age 60 years are limited. We conducted this multicenter retrospective study to describe pt characteristics, cytogenetic and molecular profiles, treatment modalities, and outcomes in younger pts with MDS, including adolescent and young adults (AYA). Methods: The study included pts diagnosed with MDS between 2002-2023 at 7 academic centers. We compared baseline characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of AYA (18-39 years) and younger adult (YA) pts (40-59 years). Responses were assessed using the modified IWG 2006 response criteria which included complete remission (CR), marrow CR (mCR), and hematologic improvement (HI). Wilcoxon rank sum test and Fisher's exact (and Chi-square) test were used to compare pt and disease characteristics for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. Results: A total of 173 pts were identified (AYA, N=50; YA, N=123). Median age at diagnosis was 50 years (range, 18-59), with 51% females. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Therapy-related MDS (t-MDS) was observed in 40 pts (23%) with the remaining classified as de novo MDS (N=133; 77%). Inherited bone marrow failure syndromes were documented in 15 pts (9%), with Shwachman-Diamond Syndrome (N=4) and Fanconi anemia (N=4) being the most frequent. Using the WHO 2016 classification, the most common subtypes of MDS in both the AYA and YA cohorts were MDS with multilineage dysplasia (38% vs 19%), MDS with excess blasts-2 (MDS-EB) (24% vs 29%), and MDS-EB-1 (16% vs 20%). Similarly, using the WHO 2022 classification, the most common subtypes were MDS with low blasts (50% vs 21%), MDS with increased blasts-2 (MDS-IB-2) (24% vs 24%), and MDS-IB-1 (16% vs 18%). Stratifying pts using the IPSS-R cytogenetic (CG) risk group, the most common CG risk category identified was good CG (34% vs 52%, p=0.012). Poor/very poor CG were present in 34% and 37% of the AYA and YA groups, respectively. STAG2 and NRAS mutations occurred more frequently in the AYA pts compared to the YA group, while the YA cohort was enriched for the following mutations: TP53, DNMT3A, SF3B1, SRSF2, and TET2 (Figure 1). In the AYA population, 18 pts (38%) had very low/low, 10 (21%) intermediate, and 20 pts (42%) had high/very high risk MDS using IPSS-R. In the YA population, 32 pts (26%) had very low/low, 32 (26%) intermediate, and 57 pts (47%) had high/very high risk MDS using IPSS-R. Twenty-seven percent of pts with very low to intermediate-risk MDS using IPSS-R were upstaged to moderate high to very high-risk MDS using IPSS-M. The majority of pts (AYA: 75%; YA: 63%, p=0.5) were transfusion independent at baseline. Single-agent hypomethylating agents were the most frequently used frontline therapy, used in 17 AYA pts (34%) and 58 YA pts (48%), with more AYA pts receiving upfront allogeneic stem cell transplantation (Allo-SCT) compared to YA pts (28% vs 5%). After frontline therapy (Table 1), an additional 14 AYA (28%) and 52 YA (42%) pts received Allo-SCT. In pts with IPSS-R intermediate to very high-risk, response rates (HI+CR+mCR+mCR with HI) to frontline therapies were 46% and 54.5% in the AYA and YA groups, respectively. After median follow-up of 24 months [range, 1-218], median OS was numerically longer in the AYA versus YA group (155 vs 53 months, p=0.2). AML transformation occurred in 24% and 20% of the pts in the AYA and YA groups, respectively. Median OS was significantly longer in de novo compared to t-MDS pts (56 vs 27 months, p=0.03). Median OS among Allo-SCT compared to non-SCT pts were not reached vs 155 months ( p=0.9) in the AYA group and 53 vs 54 months ( p=0.4) in the YA group. IPSS-R (very low+low vs intermediate vs high+very high) was able to distinguish differences in OS in the YA (133 vs 53 vs 17 months, p=0.0002) and AYA (155 vs not reached vs 18 months, p=0.006) pts, with the exception of the intermediate-risk group in the AYA cohort. Conclusions: In this study, d e novoMDS was seen in the majority of younger pts with MDS (both AYA and YA). Mutations in STAG2 and NRAS were more common in the AYA pts, while YA pts had MDS more enriched for TP53, DNMT3A, TET2 and splicing mutations. This study is still ongoing with a plan to compare the abovementioned groups to older pts (≥60 years) with MDS.

Abstract In this multi-institutional retrospective study, we examined the characteristics and outcomes of 160 patients with high-grade B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBL-NOS)—a rare category defined by high-grade morphologic features and lack of MYC rearrangements with BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements ("double hit"). Our results show that HGBL-NOS tumors are heterogeneous: 83% of patients had a germinal center B-cell immunophenotype, 37% a dual-expressor immunophenotype (MYC and BCL2 expression), 28% MYC rearrangement, 13% BCL2 rearrangement, and 11% BCL6 rearrangement. Most patients presented with stage IV disease, a high serum lactate dehydrogenase, and other high-risk clinical factors. Most frequent first-line regimens included dose-adjusted cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and etoposide, with rituximab and prednisone (DA-EPOCH-R; 43%); rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; 33%); or other intensive chemotherapy programs. We found no significant differences in the rates of complete response (CR), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) between these chemotherapy regimens. CR was attained by 69% of patients. PFS at 2 years was 55.2% and OS was 68.1%. In a multivariable model, the main prognostic factors for PFS and OS were poor performance status, lactate dehydrogenase >3 × upper limit of normal, and a dual-expressor immunophenotype. Age >60 years or presence of MYC rearrangement were not prognostic, but patients with TP53 alterations had a dismal PFS. Presence of MYC rearrangement was not predictive of better PFS in patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R vs R-CHOP. Improvements in the diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approaches beyond dose-intense chemotherapy are needed to overcome the unfavorable prognosis of patients with HGBL-NOS.

Abstract Background Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is relatively rare, accounting for 3-15% of extranodal NHL and less than 1% of all NHL. Patients often present with pain and swelling or pathologic fracture of the affected area of the skeleton, and B symptoms are often less prevalent. Many cases are limited stage at presentation. Patients are usually treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or similar induction therapy. Based on older studies showing improved outcomes associated with the addition of radiation (many completed prior to the rituximab era), patients often still receive combined-modality therapy today. However, it remains unknown whether consolidative radiation therapy (RT) confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction. We sought to address this question in a multicenter retrospective study. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes in a modern cohort of patients who underwent treatment for primary bone DLBCL using chemotherapy regimens in the rituximab era either with or without consolidative RT. Data was collected from 13 academic medical centers in the U.S., with patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Patients were identified using each institution's hematologic malignancy registries. Analysis was limited to patients with primary bone DLBCL, with stage I-II disease (primary site +/- locoregional lymph nodes) that could be encompassed in a radiation field. Patients who received CIT alone or CIT followed by RT were included. Treatment selection was at the treating physician's discretion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for: demographics, chemotherapy regimens, radiation treatments, and PET scan data. Local IRB approval was obtained at sites. All data was distributed in a de-identified fashion. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included: response after induction CIT induction and the need for additional therapies. Chi-square test analysis was used to compare categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous and ordinal measures. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups via the log-rank test. Multi-variable analysis (MVA) for OS and RFS was performed using RT vs no RT, PET status post CIT (negative vs positive) and rituximab in induction (Y/N) as variables. Results A total of 127 patients were included: 91 who received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 36 who received CIT alone (no RT group). The median age of patients at diagnosis in the RT group and no RT group was 58.5 and 57.0, respectively. For CIT, the majority of patients received R-CHOP (84%). Despite focusing on 2005-2019, a small percentage of patients (5 - 14%) in each group (RT and no RT) did not receive rituximab with their induction therapy. The OS at 10 years was 74.5% in the RT group and 86.5% in the no RT group (p = 0.29). The RFS at 10 years was 70.9% in the RT group and 78.2% in the no RT group (p = 0.85). Among the 91 patients who received RT, 67 (77.0%) received a dose of 36 Gy or higher. There was no difference in OS (p = 0.63) or RFS (p = 0.90) in patients who received > 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy of radiation. On MVA for OS, RT was not associated with improved OS, although rituximab as part of induction was (p = 0.048). On MVA for RFS, neither RT nor rituximab were associated with improved RFS. For rituximab the trend was in the direction of rituximab benefit (p = 0.11). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that, in the rituximab era, patients with limited stage primary bone DLBCL have excellent outcomes overall. In this study, neither RFS or OS appeared to be improved with the addition of consolidative RT. Rituximab, however, was associated with improved OS on MVA. Outcomes do not appear to differ based on the dose of RT (> 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy). Our data suggests that RT may have less benefit for primary bone DLBCL in the rituximab era, although it is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from consolidative radiation therapy. A larger data set would likely be needed to evaluate this. We plan to present data regarding PET responses at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Caimi: XaTek: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from patents (wife); Amgen Therapeutics.: Consultancy; ADC Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Epperla: Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Genzyme: Honoraria. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; SeaGen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Fenske: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

AbstractBackgroundEnterococcal cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are not well characterized.MethodsData from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort, a prospective study of CIED infections, were used for descriptive analysis of adults with enterococcal CIED infections.ResultsOf 433 patients, 21 (4.8%) had enterococcal CIED infection. Median age was 71 years. Twelve patients (57%) had permanent pacemakers, five (24%) implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and four (19%) biventricular devices. Median time from last procedure to infection was 570 days. CIED‐related bloodstream infections occurred in three patients (14%) and 18 (86%) had infective endocarditis (IE), 14 (78%) of which were definite by the modified Duke criteria. IE cases were classified as follows: valvular IE, four; lead IE, eight; both valve and lead IE, six. Vegetations were demonstrated by transesophageal echocardiography in 17 patients (81%). Blood cultures were positive in 19/19 patients with confirmed results. The most common antimicrobial regimen was penicillin plus an aminoglycoside (33%). Antibiotics were given for a median of 43 days. Only 14 patients (67%) underwent device removal. There was one death during the index hospitalization with four additional deaths within 6 months (overall mortality 24%). There were no relapses.ConclusionsEnterococci caused 4.8% of CIED infections in our cohort. Based on the late onset after device placement or manipulation, most infections were likely hematogenous in origin. IE was the most common infection syndrome. Only 67% of patients underwent device removal. At 6 months follow‐up, no CIED infection relapses had occurred, but overall mortality was 24%.

Abstract Background Unlike enterococcal native and prosthetic valve infective endocarditis (IE), enterococcal CIED infections are not well described. Methods Data from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Collaboration (MEDIC), a prospective, observational, multinational cohort study of CIED infections, were used to provide a descriptive analysis of adult patients with CIED infections due to enterococcal species. Results Of 433 patients, 21 (4.8%) were diagnosed with enterococcal CIED infection. Specific data on enterococcal species and antimicrobial susceptibilities were not recorded. The mean age was 70.8 years. No patient had previous CIED infection. Twelve patients (57%) had permanent pacemakers, 5 (24%) had implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and 4 (19%) had biventricular devices. Among the 21 infections, 3 (14%) were categorized as CIED-related bloodstream infections and 18 (86%) as IE; no patient had isolated pocket infection. Of the IE cases, four were valvular IE, eight were lead IE, and six were both. Fourteen cases of IE (78%) were definite by the modified Duke criteria. Median time from last device procedure to infection was 510 days (range 37–2,952 days). The most common presenting symptom was fever (48%); five patients (24%) exhibited local signs of pocket infection. All 21 patients underwent TEE with vegetations demonstrated in 17 (81%). Blood cultures grew enterococci from all patients. The most common antimicrobial regimen was a penicillin plus aminoglycoside (38%); two patients (9.5%) received ampicillin + ceftriaxone. Antibiotics were given for a median of 43 days. Only 14 patients (67%) had complete device removal; the seven patients retaining their device were judged to be at high risk for extraction. There was one death during the index hospital stay with four additional patients dying over the 6 months after therapy (overall mortality 24%); two of the seven patients retaining their CIED died. Conclusion Enterococci caused 4.8% of all CIED infections in our cohort. Most infections appeared to be hematogenous in origin with late onset. IE was the most common infectious syndrome. A penicillin plus aminoglycoside, given for 6 weeks, was the most frequent therapy. Only 67% of patients underwent device removal. At 6 months follow-up, no relapses had occurred but overall mortality was 24%. Disclosures J. E. Peacock Jr., Pfizer, Inc.: Shareholder, Owns common stock in Pfizer which was inherited and held in a trust. M. R. Sohail, TyRx Inc.: Investigator, Research support. Medtronic Inc.: Investigator, Research support. Medtronic Inc.: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. Spectranetics: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. Boston Scientific Corp: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. L. M. Baddour, UpToDate: Collaborator, Royalty payment. J. M. Miro, Abbvie: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Genentech: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Medtronic: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Novartis: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Gilead Sciences: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. Pfizer: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. ViiV Healthcare: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting honoraria and Research grant. A. J. Greenspon, Medtronic: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. Boston Scientific: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. St. Jude: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. R. G. Carrillo, St. Jude Medical Group: Speaker’s Bureau, Research support. Spectranetics: Consultant, Speaker honorarium. Sorin Group: Speaker’s Bureau, None. Boston Scientific Corp: Speaker’s Bureau, None. D. Z. Uslan, Medtronic: Investigator, Research support. Boston Scientific: Consultant, Speaker honorarium.