Citations

5004 Background: Patients (pts) with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treated continuously with testosterone suppression (TS) plus an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) can experience cumulative toxicity. We conducted this single-arm phase 2 trial (NCT05241860) to test the hypothesis that pts who achieve favorable response to TS + ARPI can have prolonged treatment-free interval with testosterone recovery after treatment interruption (TI). Here we report on the primary endpoint. Methods: Eligible pts had mHSPC by conventional imaging with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 5 ng/ml and testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dl prior to starting TS+ARPI, with PSA < 0.2 ng/ml and testosterone < 50 ng/dl at the time of enrollment after having received TS for 540-750 days and ARPI for ≥ 360 days. Prior local therapy, radiation to metastases and docetaxel were permitted. After enrollment, pts discontinued TS and ARPI and were followed with PSA and testosterone levels every 3 months (mo), CT/MRI and bone scan at least every 6 mo, and FACT-P questionnaire for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) every 6 mo. Treatment was resumed for PSA ≥ 5 ng/ml, radiographic change (progressive disease [PD] per RECIST 1.1 on CT/MRI or unconfirmed PD per PCWG3 on bone scan), or prostate cancer-related symptoms. The primary endpoint was proportion of men remaining treatment-free 18 mo after TI with eugonadal testosterone ( > 150 ng/dl). Target enrollment was 75 pts to differentiate 18-mo treatment-free rates of 0.30 (H 0 ) and 0.45 (H a ). Results: Of 79 pts enrolled between 07/2022 and 03/2024, 78 were eligible and underwent TI. Among these 78, median PSA prior to starting TS+ARPI was 19 (range 5-6759), 27 (35%) had high volume disease, 31 (40%) never received local therapy, and 55 (71%) did not receive radiation to metastases. By 18 mo after TI, 67% (52/78) recovered testosterone and 58% (45/78) remained treatment-free; 41% (32/78) remained treatment-free with testosterone recovery (80% CI 33.5-48.9%, one-sided p 0.0249). At median follow-up of 21.2 mo, 35% (27/78) resumed initial TS+ARPI after meeting re-initiation criteria (of whom 1 required treatment switch for PD 9 mo later); 5% (4/78) resumed prior to meeting criteria; 9% (7/78) pursued alternative therapy instead of resuming TS+ARPI per protocol; 5% (4/78) withdrew; 1 died of myocardial infarction prior to resuming treatment. 4 pts died, 1 of prostate cancer. Conclusions: The primary objective was achieved with 41% of favorable responders to TS+ARPI remaining treatment-free with testosterone recovery at 18 mo after TI. Analyses of biomarkers and PROs are in progress, and pts will be followed for long-term outcomes. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Veracyte Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT05241860 .

Abstract Introduction Venetoclax combined with hypomethylating agents (VEN/HMA) is an approved frontline induction therapy for older or unfit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, data comparing its efficacy and safety to intensive chemotherapy (IC) in intermediate-risk AML—characterized by molecular and cytogenetic heterogeneity—remain limited. Methods This multicenter, real-world retrospective study analyzed newly diagnosed intermediate-risk AML patients who received either VEN/HMA or IC. We evaluated composite complete remission (CRc) rates, transfusion and infection rates, long-term outcomes including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and performed subgroup analyses to identify mutation-specific predictors of treatment response. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify independent prognostic factors. Results A total of 229 intermediate-risk AML patients were included. VEN/HMA achieved a comparable CRc rate to IC (75.3% vs. 63.4%) with lower transfusion needs and fewer infections. Patients harboring FLT3-ITD, DNMT3A, or TET2 mutations showed greater benefit from VEN/HMA, while KIT-mutated patients responded more favorably to IC. Among patients who did not undergo allo-HSCT, VEN/HMA significantly improved 3-year OS (P = 0.001) and PFS (P = 0.008). No significant OS or PFS difference was observed in the allo-HSCT subgroup. In MRD-negative patients without transplant, those treated with VEN/HMA had superior OS compared to IC. Multivariable analysis identified VEN/HMA (HR = 0.613, P = 0.038) and allo-HSCT (HR = 0.11, P = 0.001) as independent predictors of better survival. Conclusions VEN/HMA is a safe and effective induction strategy for intermediate-risk AML, particularly in patients with BCL-2 inhibitor–sensitive mutations (FLT3-ITD, DNMT3A, TET2). These findings support a genotype-guided treatment approach in AML, complementing current risk stratification frameworks and informing individualized induction therapy decisions.

BACKGROUND: Small, randomized trials of patients with cervical artery dissection showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with cervical artery dissection treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation. METHODS: This is a multicenter observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included patients with cervical artery dissection without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets), and outcomes were subsequent ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial or extracranial hemorrhage). We used adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an as-treated crossover approach and only included outcomes occurring with the above treatments. RESULTS: The study included 3636 patients (402 [11.1%] received exclusively anticoagulation and 2453 [67.5%] received exclusively antiplatelets). By day 180, there were 162 new ischemic strokes (4.4%) and 28 major hemorrhages (0.8%); 87.0% of ischemic strokes occurred by day 30. In adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting, compared with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45–1.12]; P =0.145) and by day 180 (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.28–2.24]; P =0.670). Anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage by day 30 (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.35–5.45]; P =0.637) but was by day 180 (adjusted HR, 5.56 [95% CI, 1.53–20.13]; P =0.009). In interaction analyses, patients with occlusive dissection had significantly lower ischemic stroke risk with anticoagulation (adjusted HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18–0.88]; P interaction =0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not rule out the benefit of anticoagulation in reducing ischemic stroke risk, particularly in patients with occlusive dissection. If anticoagulation is chosen, it seems reasonable to switch to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days to lower the risk of major bleeding. Large prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants are more effective in preventing early recurrent stroke in patients with cervical artery dissection. Following the publication of the observational Antithrombotic for STOP-CAD (Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection) study, which has more than doubled available data, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing antiplatelets versus anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection. METHODS: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023468063). We searched 5 databases using a combination of keywords that encompass different antiplatelets and anticoagulants, as well as cervical artery dissection. We included relevant randomized trials and included observational studies of dissection unrelated to major trauma. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy (ischemic stroke) and safety (major hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and death) outcomes using relative risks. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies (2 randomized trials and 9 observational studies) that met the inclusion criteria. These included 5039 patients (30% [1512] treated with anticoagulation and 70% [3527]) treated with antiplatelets]. In meta-analysis, anticoagulation was associated with a lower ischemic stroke risk (relative risk, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.94]; P =0.02; I 2 =0%) but higher major bleeding risk (relative risk, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.72]; P =0.03, I 2 =0%). The risks of death and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were similar between the 2 treatments. Effect sizes were larger in randomized trials. There are insufficient data on the efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy or direct oral anticoagulants. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with cervical artery dissection, anticoagulation was superior to antiplatelet therapy in reducing ischemic stroke but carried a higher major bleeding risk. This argues for an individualized therapeutic approach incorporating the net clinical benefit of ischemic stroke reduction and bleeding risks. Large randomized clinical trials are required to clarify optimal antithrombotic strategies for management of cervical artery dissection.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with cervical artery dissection (CAD) are at risk for subsequent ischemic events. We aimed to identify characteristics that are associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke after initial presentation of CAD and to evaluate the differential impact of anticoagulant versus antiplatelet therapy in these high-risk individuals. METHODS: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of the STOP-CAD study (Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection), a multicenter international retrospective observational study (63 sites from 16 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa) that included patients with CAD predominantly between January 2015 and June 2022. The primary outcome was subsequent ischemic stroke by day 180 after diagnosis. Clinical and imaging variables were compared between those with versus without subsequent ischemic stroke. Significant factors associated with subsequent stroke risk were identified using stepwise Cox regression. Associations between subsequent ischemic stroke risk and antithrombotic therapy type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets) among patients with identified risk factors were explored using adjusted Cox regression. RESULTS: In all, 4023 patients (mean age was 47.4 years; 44.5% were women) were included. By day 180, subsequent ischemic stroke occurred in 5.3% of the cohort. In adjusted Cox regression, factors associated with increased risk of subsequent ischemic stroke were prior history of ischemic stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 7.31 [95% CI, 1.61–33.13]; P =0.010), presentation within 7 days from first symptoms (aHR, 3.04 [95% CI, 1.04–8.91]; P =0.043), infarct on baseline imaging (aHR, 9.85 [95% CI, 3.65–26.58]; P <0.001), and occlusive dissection (aHR, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.03–5.34]; P =0.043). Only patients with occlusive dissection demonstrated a reduced risk of subsequent ischemic stroke when treated with anticoagulation versus antiplatelets (aHR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.16–0.80]; P =0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of the STOP-CAD study, several factors associated with subsequent ischemic stroke were identified among patients with CAD. Furthermore, we identified a potential benefit of anticoagulation in patients with CAD with occlusive dissection. These findings require validation by meta-analyses of prior studies to formulate optimal treatment strategies for specific high-risk CAD subgroups.

Background : Rituximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets CD20 and can significantly improve the prognosis of patients with CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Nonetheless, a significant number of patients experience disease progression or relapse post-rituximab therapy. CD19-chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in B-NHL treatment. However, few studies have focused on the efficacy and safety of CD20 CAR-T cells in rituximab-refractory/relapsed (R/R) B-NHL patients, particularly those treated with rituximab for a short time. Here, we conducted a prospective study, aimed to assess the long-term remission and survival in patients with rituximab-R/R B-NHL after treatment with U16 (CD20 CAR-T cells). Methods : This first-in-human study is an open-label, single center investigator-initiated trial (IIT) to determine the safety and efficacy of CD20 CAR-T in R/R B-NHL after previous rituximab treatment failure (no. ChiCTR2000036350). CD20 CAR-T was administered at a target dose of 1.0×107 CAR-T cells/kg after a 3-day conditioning chemotherapy with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of CD20 CAR-T. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were graded according to ASTCT 2019 criteria. The secondary objectives were to evaluate efficacy and pharmacokinetics (PK). Response was assessed per Lugano 2014 criteria. Results:A total of 16 patients with R/R B-NHL were enrolled.The median age was 49 years (range, 28-66). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2-5). All patients had received rituximab therapy; of these, 9 had done so within the 3 months before CAR-T infusion. CRS occurred in all patients, with 11 patients (68.75%) experiencing grade 1 or 2 CRS and 5 patients (31.25%) experiencing grade 3 CRS. No patient developed grade 4 CRS , and only one patient had ICANS.The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events observed after infusion included leukopenia (93.3%), anemia (40%) and thrombocytopenia (60%). An overall response rate of 100% was observed among enrolled patients, with 11 patients (68.75%) achieving complete remission(CR) and 5 patients (32.25%) achieving partial remission(PR) within 3 months. The median follow-up time was 11.7 months(range 0.69-47.47). The median overall survival was not reached, and the median progression-free survival was 14.5 months. 9 patients remained CR or PR for 12 months, with 7 of them continuing in CR for up to 24 months. The pharmacokinetics of CD20 CAR-T cells were assessed using quantitative PCR to determine the expansion and persistence ability. Peak CAR amplification were detected 7-14 days after infusin. Patients 1, 2 and 4 achieved long-term remission, and persistent positive CAR-T cell copy numbers were detected for 15 months, 30 months and 26 months, respectively. However, patients 7, 8 and 12 relapsed within 3 months, and the CAR-T cell copies of all three patients were reduced to fewer than 1×103 copies/μg of DNA within 3 months. The qPCR results indicated that the maintenance of efficacy was closely related to the persistence of CAR-T cells. Notably, patients who received rituximab less than 3 months before CAR-T infusion had a poorer prognosis, with higher relapse rates (77.8% vs. 28.6%) and shorter progression-free survival, regardless of the degree of response. Conclusion : Long-term follow-up demonstrated that CD20 CAR-T therapy can produce a deep and durable response with a favorable safety profile in patients with rituximab-refractory/relapsed B-NHL. Notably, patients who had received rituximab within 3 months had a poorer prognosis.

5006 Background: The PRESTO trial (NCT03009981) showed that in patients with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy with a PSA doubling time of ≤ 9 months and without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, intensified androgen receptor blockade for 52 weeks (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] plus apalutamide [Apa], or ADT plus Apa and abiraterone acetate [Abi] plus prednisone) prolonged PSA progression-free survival compared to ADT alone (Aggarwal et al, JCO 2024). Here we report the HRQOL results. Methods: HRQOL measures included the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS), Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 Sexual domain, PROMIS Fatigue Short Form and EQ-5D-5L, which assesses overall HRQOL in the 504 randomized patients. Published minimally important difference thresholds for these HRQOL measures are: HFRDIS 1.66 points, EPIC Sexual 10-12, PROMIS Fatigue 3-5, and EQ-5D-5L 0.06. General linear mixed modeling was used to estimate between-arm mean differences in HRQOL according to an intent-to-treat approach. Results: Mean changes from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) for each arm and for each HRQOL measure are summarized in Table. No statistically significant mean difference was reported between intensified androgen receptor blockade (Arm B, Arm C) vs ADT alone (Arm A) in any HRQOL measure. Further, numerical differences across arms for all HRQOL measures are below published minimally clinically important difference thresholds. Conclusions: Intensified androgen receptor blockade with Apa or Apa/Abi added to 52 weeks of ADT improves PSA progression-free survival without negatively affecting HRQOL. These HRQOL results add further support to intensification of androgen blockade in patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03009981 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) after radical prostatectomy and a short PSA doubling time are at risk for distant metastases. Apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) prolong survival in the metastatic setting. We evaluated whether intensification of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in BRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS PRESTO is a randomized phase III, open-label trial in patients with BRPC and PSA doubling time ≤9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03009981 ). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT control, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + apalutamide + AAP. The primary end point was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), defined as serum PSA >0.2 ng/mL after treatment completion. RESULTS Five hundred three patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 1.8 ng/mL (IQR, 1.0-3.6). At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA-PFS compared with the control arm (median, 24.9 months for ADT + apalutamide v 20.3 months for ADT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.77]; P = .00047; median, 26.0 months for ADT + apalutamide + AAP v 20.0 months for ADT; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71]; P = .00008). Median time to testosterone recovery did not differ across treatment arms. The most common grade ≥3 adverse event was hypertension (7.5%, 7.4%, and 18% in ADT, ADT + apalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide + AAP arms, respectively). CONCLUSION Intensified AR blockade for a finite duration prolongs PSA-PFS with a manageable safety profile, without adversely affecting time to testosterone recovery. The addition of apalutamide to ADT should be considered in patients with high-risk BRPC.

5077 Background: In the phase 3 PRESTO study, intensified androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with apalutamide (Apa) with or without abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP), administered for a finite treatment period of 52 weeks, prolonged prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA PFS) in pts with high-risk biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (BRPC). We evaluated the association between PSA nadir within 3 months of treatment initiation with subsequent PSA PFS in this study. Methods: PRESTO is a randomized phase 3, open-label trial in pts with BRPC following radical prostatectomy (RP) and PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 9 months, without distant metastases on conventional imaging (NCT03009981). Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT, ADT + Apa, or ADT + Apa + AAP, stratified by PSADT (< 3 vs 3–9 months), with post-treatment follow-up. The association between PSA nadir within the first three months on treatment with subsequent PSA PFS was analyzed in a post hoc fashion. Results: 504 pts were randomized to ADT alone (N = 167), ADT + Apa (N = 168) or ADT + Apa + AAP (N = 169). 463 pts were evaluable for PSA nadir at 3 months. Across the three treatment arms, a PSA nadir of less than 0.1, between 0.1 – 0.2, and ≥ 0.2 ng/mL within the first three months of treatment was observed in 86.3%, 4.4%, and 9.3% of patients, respectively. A PSA nadir of < 0.2 ng/mL was reached within 3 months of treatment initiation in 79.8%, 96.9%, and 95.0% of pts randomized to the ADT, ADT + Apa, and ADT + Apa + AAP arms, respectively. The association between time to PSA nadir and subsequent PSA PFS was -0.30 (standard error = 0.03, Kendall’s tau modified for bivariate censoring), and median time to PSA nadir was 2.0 months (interquartile range 1.12 – 4.76 months). Failure to reach a PSA nadir < 0.2 ng/mL within the first three months of treatment was associated with a significantly shorter PSA PFS compared to pts with a PSA nadir ≤ 0.1 ng/mL (median PSA PFS of 13.9 vs. 22.8 months from 3 months post-treatment initiation; hazard ratio = 5.60, 95% CI: 3.58 – 8.75, p < 0.0001). There was also a significant difference in PSA PFS in those with a three-month PSA nadir between 0.1 – 0.2 vs ≤ 0.1 ng/mL (median PSA PFS 17.4 vs 22.8 months, HR = 2.63, 95:CI: 1.49 – 4.63, p = 0.0008). Conclusions: Using a landmark analysis at 3 months, a failure to reach PSA nadir less than 0.1 ng/mL within three months following initiation of ADT in BRPC is associated with shorter time to subsequent progression following treatment discontinuation. Follow-up is ongoing to integrate genomic profiling of primary prostate cancer tissues and whole blood RNA in pts with suboptimal PSA nadir to identify potential markers of relative androgen pathway inhibitor resistance. Clinical trial information: NCT03009981 .