Citations

Introduction. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) and idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), two anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T therapies, have demonstrated remarkable responses and improved survival among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the clinical trials and standard of care (SOC) setting. Here, we compare safety, efficacy, and survival for patients treated with SOC ide-cel and cilta-cel. Methods. Data were from a retrospective chart review of RRMM patients leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with the intent to receive SOC ide- or cilta-cel at 19 institutions in the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type (cilta- vs. ide-cel), balancing on age, sex, race and ethnicity, performance status, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, prior BCMA therapy, bone marrow plasma cells, penta-refractory status, lymphodepleting chemotherapy, baseline ferritin, low cell dose, and bridging therapy response. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of treatment type with safety, efficacy, and survival accordingly, while adjusting for IPTW weights. We employed propensity score matching utilizing the same covariates to identify the association of treatment type with progression-free survival (PFS) within relevant patient sub-groups. Results. A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with ide-cel (n=386) and cilta-cel (n=255). 586 patients were infused (n=350 for ide-cel; n=236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 13.0 and 12.6 months, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well-balanced. Patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (OR=5.52, 95% CI=1.76-17.30, p=0.004), infections (OR=2.07, 95% CI=1.44-2.97, p<0.001), and delayed neurotoxicity (NT) (OR=20.97, 95% CI=4.75-92.42, p<0.001) compared to patients treated with ide-cel. In the cilta-cel cohort, 24 patients (10%) experienced delayed NT compared to 2 patients (1%) in the ide-cel cohort. Although not statistically significant, patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have any second primary malignancies (SPMs) (OR=1.87, 95% CI=0.94-3.71, p=0.08) and any SPMs excluding non-melanoma skin cancers (OR=1.78, 95% CI=0.78-4.10, p=0.2) but no association was observed for odds of hematologic SPMs (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.26-3.61). No association was observed for therapy type with any or severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenias, and non-relapse mortality. Compared to ide-cel, cilta-cel was associated with better treatment responses of ≥ complete response (OR=2.38, 95% CI=1.61-3.51, p<0.001) and ≥ partial response (OR=1.74, 95% CI=0.99-3.05, p=0.06). Patients treated with cilta-cel had a longer PFS and overall survival (OS) than ide-cel (HR=0.47, 95% CI=0.35-0.62, p<0.001 and HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.42-0.93, p=0.02, respectively), and these findings were similar in the intention to treat cohort (PFS: HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.34-0.55, p<0.001; OS: HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.41-0.73, p<0.001, respectively). We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time-period as FDA approval for cilta-cel (≥ March 2022), restricting to patients with data on all covariates, and restricting to sites that contributed data for both products. In a propensity matched population, (n=380; n=190 for cilta-cel and n=190 for ide-cel), patients treated with cilta-cel had superior PFS compared to those treated with ide-cel in most subgroups with respect to age and disease characteristics including extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, and elevated baseline ferritin (p<0.05). Conclusion. Our results suggest superior efficacy of cilta-cel with a higher incidence of certain toxicities compared to ide-cel in the SOC setting. This study provides valuable information for patient counseling and guiding the selection of CAR T-cell therapy for specific patient populations. Further validation through similar large-scale real-world experiences or prospective studies is needed to confirm our results and enhance applicability in the clinical setting. *DH, LP, & DD are co-first authors * YL, KP, & SS are co-last authors

Background: Tec is a BCMA-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for RRMM after ≥4 prior lines of therapy (LOT) based on the MajesTEC-1 trial. However, patients who had previously received a BCMA-DT were excluded from MajesTEC-1. Herein, we evaluated outcomes of RRMM patients with prior exposure to BCMA-DT treated with standard-of-care Tec. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. We compared variables between different groups using Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. We used the maximally selected rank statistics method to determine the optimal cut-off point for continuous variables to find the most significant difference in PFS among different groups. Results: A total of 385 patients were included in this study. 193 patients had received a prior BCMA-DT, of whom 77%, 22%, and 1% had received 1, 2, and 3 prior anti-BCMA agents, respectively. In patients who had received a prior BCMA-DT, 35% were aged ≥70 years, 24% had ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, 61% had high-risk FISH, 32% had extramedullary disease (EMD) at Tec initiation, and 42% were penta-refractory. Compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-DT (n=192), patients who were treated with prior BCMA-DT were more likely to have high risk FISH (61% vs 49%, p=0.02), and higher median number of prior LOT (7 vs 5, p <0.001). The specific types of prior BCMA-DTs with the respective overall response rate (ORR) to the most recent prior BCMA-DT were: antibody drug conjugate only (ADC, n=47, ORR 43%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy only (CAR T, n=99, ORR 86%), BsAb only (n=6, ORR 100%), ADC + CAR T (n=36, ORR 56%), and other ADC/CAR T/BsAb combinations (n=5, ORR 60%). Median follow up was 9.9 (95% CI:9.5-10.6) months. Patients with prior receipt of BCMA-DT had a lower ORR (51.4% vs 61.5%; p=0.012) and ≥very good partial response rate (39.4% vs 52.6%, p=0.009), but similar ≥complete response rate (22.3% vs 24%; p=0.78) to Tec compared to those without prior BCMA-DT. Moreover, patients with prior BCMA-DT had worse median PFS compared to patients without prior BCMA-DT (prior BCMA-DT: 4.6 months, 95% CI: 2.7-7.5; without prior BCMA-DT: 8.2 months, 95% CI: 5.7-12.2; p=0.017). On multivariable analysis incorporating prior BCMA-DT, age, cytogenetics, EMD, and ECOG PS, receipt of prior BCMA-DT was not independently associated with PFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95-1.64, p=0.1). The estimated 1-year OS rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 51.64-67.2) for the prior BCMA-DT group vs 65.1% (95% CI: 58.1-73.1) for the group without prior BCMA-DT, p=0.16. For the prior BCMA-DT cohort, response rates to Tec were numerically higher in patients who received CAR T (ORR 51.2%) followed by ADC (ORR 45.5%), and bispecific (ORR 30%) as their most recent prior BCMA-DT (p=0.39). No significant difference in PFS was noted when stratifying patients by number of prior BCMA-DTs, types of all prior BCMA-DTs received, type of most recent prior BCMA-DT, or depth of response to most recent BCMA-DT. Patients who responded to Tec had a numerically longer median time from most recent BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation compared to non-responders: 10.5 vs 7.5 months, p=0.48. We found that the optimal cut-off for time from last BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation was 8.7 months. Patients with > 8.7 months between last exposure to prior BCMA-DT and Tec initiation had a superior median PFS with Tec (8.1 months, 95% CI: 4.6-11.7) compared to patients with < 8.7 months from last exposure to prior BCMA-DT (2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7), p=0.001. The toxicity profile for patients with prior BCMA-DT was similar to those who had not received a prior BCMA-DT. Grade ≥2 CRS occurred in 8.7% vs 13% (p=0.18), and grade ≥2 ICANS in 7.7% vs 6.7%, (p=0.85) of patients with and without prior BCMA-DT, respectively. Patients in the prior BCMA-DT cohort were more likely to have grade 3 thrombocytopenia in the first 30 days after Tec initiation (10.7% vs 6.6%; p=0.08). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of any BCMA-directed BsAb among BCMA-exposed patients. Receipt of prior BCMA-DT was associated with a trend toward worse PFS, although not statistically significant, and lower likelihood of attaining an overall response. Waiting >9 months between sequencing BCMA therapies may be associated with improved PFS. D.D., M.A.V.M., J.A.D: co first authors; F.A., C.F., L.S.: co senior authors

Introduction: Health disparities negatively impact outcomes of patients (pts) with hematologic malignancies. Limited retrospective data correlating health disparities with lymphoma outcomes prohibit proper identification of reversible causes and elaboration of potential interventions. We present data from a coordinated effort between the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) cooperative groups (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology [Alliance], Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG], and the Southwest Oncology Group [SWOG]) to catalog the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic characteristics of pts with lymphoma to better understand the quality of data collected, analyze selected health disparity indicators, and develop a prospective data collection tool. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of demographic data from pts with lymphoma enrolled on 32 cooperative group therapeutic trials between 2005 and 2020. Special focus was placed on data regarding race, ethnicity, and proxies that help identify socioeconomic status (health insurance, residential zip code, Social Deprivation Index [SDI]). These were evaluated in relation to histology-based metrics from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) Program with reported data through 2022. Here, our focus is to characterize baseline demographic and disparities data on the collection of these 32 NCTN lymphoma trials. Results: A total of 3,897 pts were included, with 3,406 non-Hodgkin lymphoma (87.4%) - 1,644 diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL, 48.3%), 905 follicular (26.6%), 669 mantle cell (19.6%), 113 primary central nervous system (3.3%), 75 T-cell (2.2%) - and 491 Hodgkin lymphoma (12.6%). Age at registration was available for 3,891 pts with median age 57.1 years (range: 18-92). The majority of patients were male (58.8%; one pt missing biological sex data). Race data were available for all but one patient, where most pts were white (W, 86.6%), followed by 246 African American (AA, 6.3%), 99 Asian (A, 2.5%), 13 American Indian or Alaska Native (AI, 0.3%), 8 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (PI, 0.2%), 11 with more than 1 race reported (0.3%), and 145 with unknown/not reported race. Ethnicity data were unknown for 327 pts (8.4%) with 179 Hispanic or Latino (Hisp, 4.6%). Combined race/ethnicity data showed 3,010 non-Hisp white (NHW, 77.2%) and 219 non-Hisp black (NHB, 5.6%). For comparison, in the SEER database, 84.7% of all lymphoma cases were W, with 8.6% AA, 5.2% A/PI, 0.4% AI, and 1.1% unknown race, and with 13.9% of pts reported as Hisp. When focusing on the 804 pts enrolled on Alliance CALGB 50303 and ECOG-ACRIN 1412 studies, two randomized DLBCL studies, there was a more proportional representation of W and AA pts with DLBCL - 82.1% and 9.8% compared 84.6% and 7.7%, respectively, at SEER database, with 5.3% Hisp (with another 5.3% unknown) compared to 14.9% at SEER. Insurance information was missing in 113 pts. Of the remainder, 2,102 pts had private insurance only (55.6%), 549 with a mix of private and public (14.5%), 701 public only (18.5%, including 11.4% Medicare, 4.5% Medicaid, 0.8% both), and 166 self-pay (4.4%). Year-matched SDI score was available in 2,885 pts, where higher SDI scores = higher social deprivation. The total mean SDI score for the overall cohort was 42.5 with significant differences observed based on race/ethnicity and insurance type. Specifically, NHW were from less deprived areas (mean SDI=38.8) than NHB (66.4) or Hisp (65.5) (p<0.0001). Those without insurance (mean SDI=52.6) or only public insurance (48.9) were located in areas associated with greater deprivation compared to pts with private (40.1) or public+private (38.8) insurance (p<0.0001). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective catalog of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic characteristics of pts with lymphoma enrolled on cooperative group therapeutic trials. The scope of NCTN cooperative group lymphoma studies provides a unique opportunity to assess novel therapeutic outcomes for patients representing racial, ethnic and socioeconomic subgroups with both common and rare lymphoma subtypes. From this resource, additional analyses on relationships between SDI, race/ethnicity, insurance coverage, disease subtype, and temporal trends will be presented. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823

Introduction: The BMT CTN 1704 study developed and validated the CHARM that stratified risk for non-relapse mortality and overall mortality among older adults, performing better than the HCT-CI alone (Artz A et al, Blood. 2023;142:109) and equally to two machine learning models. CHARM assigns a total score for 7 health variables: increasing age, higher HCT-CI scores, lower albumin, higher C-reactive protein, higher percent of weight loss over the preceding year, lower patient-reported performance status scores, and lower cognitive score per Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA). A CHARM calculator is available at:https://cibmtr.org/CIBMTR/OffNav/DevSandbox/CHARM-Risk-NRM-Calculator No multi-institutional prospective data exist on functional trajectories and morbidity after HCT in older patients. We now report on the association of CHARM to trajectories of secondary morbidity outcomes among allo-HCT survivors of this large, prospective study. Patients and Methods: Allo-HCT candidates, aged ≥60 years (yrs), were enrolled (n=1226) from 49 centers in the US between 2019 - 2021. The primary analysis includes 1105 patients proceeding to allo-HCT on study and secondary endpoints were assessed at day (D) 100, 180 and 365 except MoCA and organ toxicity were restricted to D100 and frailty had inadequate data for D100. A sequential multiple imputation strategy was implemented to impute endpoints for survivors at each time point with missing data. Analyses on multiply imputed datasets were conducted and the results combined using Rubin's rule. Associations between CHARM scores and secondary outcomes were analyzed using a multivariable Cox, Fine-Gray, Generalized Estimating Equations, and logistic regression model for survival, competing risks, continuous, and binary outcomes, respectively, with latter two focused on surviving patients. Models were adjusted for other variables including conditioning intensity, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimen, disease-risk index, donor-recipient gender match, ethnicity, baseline value of the dependent variable, and visit timepoints. Results: Higher CHARM scores were associated with development of serious organ toxicities by D100 (OR: 2.05, [1.52-2.78], p<0.0001) and ≥2 worsening score on the MoCA (odds ratio (OR) 1.55 [1.16-2.1], p=0.003). Among survivors at all timepoints, higher CHARM scores were associated with greater disability by instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) (Slope -0.640 [-0.433-0.846], p<0.001) and worsening Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Reporting System (PROMIS) physical function (Slope -0.981 [-0.057 - -1.904], p=0.037), depression (Slope 0.763 [0.042-1.484], p=0.038) and in a lesser magnitude anxiety (Slope 0.659, p=0.076). Among survivors at D180 and D365, higher CHARM scores were associated with worse frailty (Slope 0.193 [0.081-0.305], p<0.001). CHARM scores were not associated with development of acute GVHD grades 2-4 or 3-4 but were associated with post-GVHD increased mortality (HR: 1.61, [1.25-2.08], p=0.0002). Higher CHARM scores are associated with a lower incidence of chronic GVHD (HR: 0.83, p=0.026), likely due to the effect of CHARM on the competing risk of death leaving fewer patients at risk for chronic GVHD. Conclusions: The novel primary CHARM, originally developed to predict risks of NRM, also predicts worse frailty, disability, cognitive decline, and serious organ toxicities; outcomes that are critically important to older recipients of allo-HCT. CHARM therefore informs risks of transplant morbidity, separate from risks of developing acute GVHD. Results further support adopting CHARM in practice to counsel patients, expedite HCT referrals for lower risk CHARM, and design trials for high CHARM score patients.

Introduction: Scant data exist on prognostic factors, survival and treatment (Tx)-related outcomes in SCNSL. We conducted a multicenter international analysis to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in SCNSL at diagnosis (de novo), or after frontline Tx (1L) either with (concomitant) or without (isolated) systemic (syst) relapse. Methods: This study collected data from patients (pts) treated between 2001-2023 at 35 centers. Overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated from SCNSL diagnosis to first event (death for OS, relapse/death for PFS) or last follow-up. Uni- (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) Cox analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors; Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Results: 1173 (US: 863, UK: 273, Canada: 37) pts with SCNSL were included. Baseline characteristics were median age: 62 years (interquartile range 52.5-69), male sex: 58.7%, elevated LDH: 71.1%, stage III/IV: 88.6%, HIV: 3%, transformed LBCL (tLBCL): 13.8%, non-germinal center B-cell like (non-GCB) subtype: 52.3%, double expressor (DE): 40%, MYC rearrangement (MYC-R): 28.3%, MYC/BCL2 double hit: 16.6%, MYC/BCL2/BCL6 triple hit (TH): 6.1%. Among 522 pts with de novo SCNSL, 84.2% had involvement of a single CNS compartment (44.7% brain parenchyma; 40.4% leptomeningeal [lepto]). 1L regimens included 36.2% R-CHOP with high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), 12.5% MARIETTA-type, and 9.8% R-CODOX-M/IVAC; 54.6% received intrathecal chemotherapy. Consolidation Thiotepa-based autologous stem cell transplant (TT-ASCT) occurred in 15.3%. The majority of pts who underwent TT-ASCT had previously achieved CR or PR in syst (92.5%) and CNS (72.5%) compartments. At median follow-up 25.7 months (mos), subsequent relapse was observed in 27.5% TT-ASCT recipients: 36.3% had isolated CNS, 27.4% syst, and 36.3% concomitant. 588 pts presented with SCNS after 1L (66.2% isolated, 33.8% concomitant). Brain parenchyma involvement was observed in 56.8%, lepto in 22.6%. Tx included 31.6% HD-MTX combination (eg, R-MPV, MTR); 18.4% HD-MTX +/- rituximab; 16.2% MARIETTA-type; and 9.4% platinum-based regimen. Consolidation TT-ASCT occurred in 22.4% (n=132), and 13.8% (n=81) received CAR-T cell therapy (excluding subsequent relapses in de novo group). Syst (65.1%) & CNS (69.1%) responses (CR/PR) were higher before TT-ASCT compared to CAR-T cell (49.5% & 54.5%, respectively). After TT-ASCT, 52 pts (39.3%) relapsed, mainly in the CNS (n=30, 57.7%), with only 4 (7.7%) concomitant. After CAR-T, 48 pts (59.3%) relapsed: 15 (31.2%) isolated in CNS and 15 (31.2%) concomitant. 12-month cumulative incidence of relapse (with death as competing risk) was 21.1% after TT-ASCT and 55.8% after CAR-T. In 63 pts (5.4%), the first CNS event occurred >2 lines of Tx. With median follow-up of the entire cohort of 24.6 mos, median PFS and OS were 11 and 21 mos, respectively. mPFS and mOS were significantly better in pts with de novo SCNSL (13.4 & 47.4 mos) compared to SCNSL after 1L (10.4 & 14.2 mos) and >2 lines of Tx (6.5 & 9.7 mos); P<0.0001. Factors associated with significantly shorter OS in UVA across all presentations were age >60, male sex, GCB subtype, MYC-R, tLBCL, DE, TH, elevated LDH, ECOG PS ≥2, SCNSL after 1L (vs. de novo), and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L. Of these, age >60, male sex, MYC-R, ECOG PS ≥2, and failure to achieve response to 1L remained significant in MVA. In de novo cases, age >60, DE, ECOG PS≥2, and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L were associated with poorer OS; for pts with SCNSL after 1L, age >60, GCB subtype, and ECOG PS ≥2 were significant. Pts treated with HD-MTX-based regimens after 1L experienced longer OS than those treated with platinum regimens or high-dose cytarabine. In de novo cases, TT-ASCT was significantly associated with longer OS (HR=0.58; P=0.025) in MVA after adjusting for significant factors, 1L type, and response. For SCNSL at relapse, TT-ASCT (HR=0.34; P<.0001) and isolated SCNSL presentation (vs. concomitant HR=0.70, P=0.007) were associated with longer OS, adjusting for significant factors, type of second-line Tx, & site of CNS relapse. Conclusions: This study represents the largest analysis of SCNSL inclusive of all modes of presentation. Concomitant SCNSL at relapse was associated with poor outcomes, while TT-ASCT consolidation was associated with improved OS in de novo & relapsed disease. Despite advances in LBCL SCNSL remains an unmet therapeutic need.

Background: The majority of patients respond to steroid treatment for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD), but the typically high doses and prolonged courses can cause substantial morbidity. GVHD can be classified at onset into two groups with significant differences in treatment response and non-relapse mortality (NRM) by clinical criteria (Minnesota risk) but the more favorable standard risk group still experiences high rates of treatment failure and NRM [MacMillan, BBMT 2015]. We previously validated a serum biomarker-based (ST2+REG3α) risk stratification system, MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs), that can stratify patients both at initiation and during treatment into risk groups for treatment response and NRM [Hartwell, JCI Insight 2017, Srinagesh, Blood Adv 2019]. GVHD that is Minnesota standard risk and has a low MAP (i.e., Ann Arbor 1) at start of treatment represents a low risk group with >80% response rate to steroids and ~10% NRM [Etra, Blood 2023]. We hypothesized that serial monitoring of GVHD symptom severity and MAPs twice (days (d) 7 and 14) in patients with clinical and biomarker defined low risk GVHD could further stratify patients into clinically meaningful groups. Methods: We retrospectively determined MAPs at d7 and 14 in 450 patients with low risk GVHD who participated in a prospective, multi-center, observational trial and were treated with systemic steroids between 2015-2023. MAPs <0.291 at days 7 and 14 were defined as low risk based on a previously validated threshold [Major-Monfried Blood 2018]. Clinical responses were scored as complete (CR), partial (PR), or non-response (NR) by standard criteria. Initiation of second line therapy was considered NR. Patients were categorized into three groups (A-C) based on clinical responses and MAPs at days d7 and 14. A: CR/PR by d14 and low MAP at both d7+14; B: stable or worse GVHD (NR) by d14 with low MAP at both d7 and 14; C: any response with a high MAP at d7 or 14. The endpoints were clinical response at day 28 (overall response rate, ORR=CR or PR), regardless of earlier response status, and 6-month NRM. Results: The median age of the study population was 54 years (range: 0-79); 19% of patients received PT-Cy for GVHD prophylaxis. Target organ involvement was skin ± upper GI (66%), lower GI (23%), isolated UGI (11%), and skin+liver (1%), and GVHD severity was grade I (35%), II (61%), and III (4%) at start of treatment. Patients in group A (n=310, 69%), clinical responders with low MAPs through day 14, had excellent d28 ORR (93%) and very low NRM (4%). GVHD in this group was considered ultra-low risk (ULR) and subset analyses revealed highly consistent d28 ORR and NRM, regardless of target organ severity, age (<18, 18-59, >60), HCT-CI score, conditioning intensity, and GVHD prophylaxis. Group B patients comprised clinical non-responders with low MAPs through day 14 (n=112, 25%); half of them responded by d28 and their NRM was low (8%), albeit double that of group A (p=0.079). Group C was small (n=28, 6%) and included both clinical responders (n=20, 4%) and clinical non-responders (n=8, 2%) who had at least one high MAP through day 14. Their d28 ORR was 54% but NRM increased four-fold (32%) and was significantly worse than patients who maintained low MAPs regardless of clinical response (p<0.001). Conclusion: Serial monitoring by clinical response and biomarkers during the first two weeks of treatment identifies a small number of high risk patients whose GVHD is initially low risk (group C). This group experiences high NRM regardless of clinical response to steroid treatment and may benefit from treatment escalation. Patients with low risk GVHD who do not have an early clinical response to steroids but maintain low MAPs, (group B) have reasonably good long-term outcomes with standard treatment. Finally, serial monitoring identifies a very large subset of patients with ULR GVHD (group A) who respond exceptionally well to standard treatment and experience very low rates of 6-month NRM regardless of pre-transplant characteristics and GVHD prophylaxis. Such patients may benefit from treatment de-escalation strategies such as shorter courses of lower dose steroids, a strategy we are currently testing in a clinical trial (NCT05090384).

Background Endpoints for GVHD treatment trials use early response (i.e, day (D)28 of treatment) as a surrogate for long term survival. Overall response (OR) that combines complete (CR) and partial responses (PR) at day (D) 28 is the conventional endpoint for primary acute GVHD trials because of similar survival outcomes between CR and PR. D28 OR ignores symptom severity at baseline and D28, however, and the PR category encompasses a wide range of responses from minimal improvement to near complete resolution of symptoms. D28 OR is the only endpoint currently approved by the FDA for efficacy, but it has not been re-evaluated as an endpoint for primary treatment (1L) in fifteen years and little is known regarding the prognostic value of D28 OR as an endpoint for second line treatment (2L) of GVHD. We hypothesized that refinement of the current D28 OR criteria, particularly through recategorization of PR in the GI tract, the main driver of nonrelapse mortality (NRM), would more accurately reflect disease control and better predict survival outcomes than current D28 response. Methods The Japanese Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (JSTCT) collaborated with the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) to develop and validate D28 refined response (RR) criteria for 1L and 2L treatment (tx) in patients with Grades II-IV acute GVHD. To maximize the correlation between treatment success (i.e, response) with long term survival, our primary measured metric was the negative predictive value (NPV). We first randomly divided the 1L tx cohort of JSTCT into the training (n=2341) and validation sets (n=1156). In the training set we used a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm to generate RR criteria that predicted 6-month (mo) NRM based on symptoms both at tx onset and D28. We then compared the two D28 response endpoints (RR vs OR) as surrogates for 6-mo NRM in two validation sets of both 1L tx (JSTCT: n=1156; MAGIC: n=1141) and 2L tx (JSTCT: n=510; MAGIC: n=196). Results The CART algorithm defined a RR as GVHD Grades 0/I at D28 without additional tx; all other D28 grades were considered refined nonresponses. As expected, RR successfully stratified the risk of 6-mo NRM in both 1L tx validation sets (JSTCT: 8% vs 38%, p<0.01; MAGIC: 9% vs 37%, p<0.01). We defined a discordant nonresponse as a nonresponse by RR criteria but a response by OR criteria, which accounted for the majority (~75%) of differences between RR and OR. 6-mo NRM in discordant nonresponders was four fold higher than in responders (JSTCT: 35%; MAGIC: 30%). The large majority (>80%) of discordant nonresponders had persistent GI GVHD at D28. Because the proportion of discordant nonresponders was small (<7% of the total population) in the 1L setting, the improvements of an already high NPV were small (JSTCT: 93% vs 91%; MAGIC: 91% vs 90%). In the 2L tx validation sets, RR also stratified the risk of 6-mo NRM (JSTCT: 26% vs 56%, p<0.01; MAGIC: 13% vs 55%, p<0.01). At the time of 2L tx, the discordant nonresponders are more common and half of the discordant nonresponders experienced 6-mo NRM (JSTCT: 45%; MAGIC: 59%); as a result, RR achieved much higher NPVs than OR (JSTCT: 75% vs 66%; MAGIC: 87% vs 76%). Deaths in responders from acute GVHD (vs. other causes such as infection) were more frequent in OR than RR in both 2L tx validation sets (JSTCT: 41% vs 20%; MAGIC: 41% vs 13%) and 1L tx validation sets (JSTCT: 25% vs 18%; MAGIC: 32% vs 29%). D28 RR is superior to OR because it more accurately reflects control of serious GVHD in four independent validation cohorts, particularly in patients with GI disease. Conclusion We conclude that RR is a more accurate endpoint than OR in patients with grade II-IV GVHD primarily because it classifies persistent GI GVHD at D28 as a non-response instead of a response, which correlates with 6-mo NRM and achieves a higher NPV. This validated RR metric can serve as a better endpoint than OR in assessing treatment efficacy in both primary treatment trials that enrich for high risk GVHD, e.g. GI involvement, and second line treatment trials.

Background: Chromosomal rearrangements involving the KMT2A gene and mutations involving the nucleophosmin (NPM1) gene have been associated with response to menin inhibitors in multiple studies of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients characterized by these genetic alterations. Both alterations are more common in younger AML patients and those with NPM1 mutations historically perform better. However, the prevalence and outcomes of older (≥60 years) AML patients with these alterations who are treated with current therapies is less well understood. We present results from the Beat AML Master Trial (BAMT) that analyze the outcomes of this large, but less common subset of patients in an older AML population. Methods: Patients were consented and enrolled on this precision medicine-based Beat AML Master Trial (NCT03013998) from November 2016 to June 2024. Patients were included in this analysis if they harbor either the classic NPM1 mutation or a KMT2A rearrangement (over 10 different gene partners). Additionally, 2 patients with a NUP98 rearrangement were included with the KMT2A cohort as they are known to have similar biology in terms of menin dependence. These patients were treated with the following therapies: a sub-study specific targeted therapy for the dominant clone, venetoclax + hypomethylating agent (Ven/HMA), intensive chemotherapy (IC), alternative non-intensive therapy (NIT), or no therapy. Clinical/genetic characteristics and median overall survival (OS) were analyzed in each group separately. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from master consent and estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 1096 AML patients enrolled on the BAMT, 246 patients had either an NPM1 (N=207, 18.9%) or KMT2A (N=39, 3.6%) genetic alteration. The baseline characteristics for the NPM1 cohort were median age 72 years (range: 60-92), 50% female, and ECOG performance status: 0-16%, 1-58%, 2-25% and 3-1%. Additional disease characteristics include treatment related AML at 11% and complex karyotype (≥3 abnormalities) at 3%. Median OS for the entire NPM1 cohort was 18.4 months (95% CI: 14.2-24.7). Patients were treated on a sub-study (35%), Ven/HMA (19%), IC (26%), NIT (8%) or no treatment (9%). Between treatment groups, median OS was 21 months (95% CI: 12.8-31.7) for those treated on a sub-study, 22 months (95% CI: 12.6-not reached (NR)) for Ven/HMA, 41.6 months (95% CI: 18.2-NR) for IC, and 6.3 months (95% CI: 1.3-23) for NIT, which was significantly different (p<0.0001). The baseline characteristics for the KMT2A cohort were median age 69 years (range: 60-88), 44% female, and ECOG performance status: 0-19%, 1-45%, 2-35% and 3-0%. Treatment related AML occurred in 23% of patients and complex karyotype in 31%. Median OS for the KMT2A cohort was 6.5 months (95% CI: 3.6-31.6). Patients were treated on a sub-study (38%), Ven/HMA (15%), IC (15%), NIT (15%), or no treatment (5%). Between treatment groups, median OS was 31.6 months (95% CI: 3.2-NR) for sub-study, 5.0 months (95% CI: 3.0-NR) for Ven/HMA, 12.7 months (95% CI: 4.9-NR) for IC, and 2.9 months (95% CI: 1.5-NR) for NIT, which was also significantly different (p<0.0001). Conclusions: In this cohort of older AML patients who possess NPM1 or KMT2A mutations, initial demographics and clinical characteristics upon presentation are as expected. Within each cohort and depending on the type of therapy received, there were interesting differences in survival. Median OS was the highest for the NPM1 cohort that received IC while the KMT2A cohort had the highest median OS when enrolled on a KMT2A targeted sub-study; a finding that supports precision-based medicine for this high-risk KMT2A group characterized by poor outcomes. As menin inhibitor combinations with induction chemotherapy or Ven/HMA move to the frontline setting, we anticipate seeing significant improvement in outcomes for AML patients in both of these genomic subsets. Further multivariable analysis will be performed to validate treatment effect on OS. Our analyses for these two cohorts also provide valuable outcome benchmarks for the design of future precision oncology studies that seek to improve survival in these subsets of older AML patients.

Background: Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is considered the standard front-line treatment for acquired severe aplastic anemia (SAA) for pts >40 years. For pts aged <40 years who have a suitable human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched sibling donor (MSD), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is recommended. This recommendation is based on the toxicity associated with alternative donors; haploidentical (HAPLO) and unrelated donor (URD) HSCT for patients who lack a MSD. However, the hematopoietic response after IST is ~ 70-80%, even after augmentation with eltrombopag in the front-line setting, and failure-free survival (FFS, defined as patients alive and in remission without clonal disease more than 10 years after IST) remains < 40%. HSCT is often employed as a second line salvage therapy for those who do not respond to IST or have disease recurrence. However, outcomes after HSCT are often compromised because of IST-related complications such as clonal evolution, development of donor specific antibodies, infectious adverse events and organ dysfunction. In contrast, a successful allogeneic HSCT leads to relatively prompt hematopoietic and immune reconstitution and mitigates the risk of secondary clonal disease. Innovations in recent decades, such as improved graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis and supportive care, have steadily reduced the morbidity and mortality of adults undergoing HSCT from unrelated or mismatched donors and expanded the donor pool such that almost all pts with SAA have a potential donor available. The use of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is now a well-established approach to facilitate engraftment and mitigate the risk of GVHD. It was successfully used in relapsed/refractory SAA pts using HAPLO donors in the multi-center BMT CTN #1502 trial (NCT02918292). Similar PTCy based approaches have been effective in the upfront setting with HAPLO and URD in small single center studies. Opened in July 2024, the CureAA trial (NCT06517641), seeks to increase donor options for SAA pts who have not yet received IST by using PTCy based GVHD prophylaxis for HSCT using HAPLO or URD. Study Design and Methods: This BMT CTN study (#2207) is a prospective multi-center phase II trial to assess efficacy of HSCT using HAPLO or URD bone marrow with a reduced intensity, thymoglobulin (ATG)-containing preparative regimen and PTCy GVHD prophylaxis in previously untreated SAA pts. This trial has two parallel cohorts for each donor type, HAPLO and URD, with an accrual goal of 30 participants in each cohort. All will receive ATG (0.5mg/kg on day -9 and 2mg/kg on days -8 and -7), cyclophosphamide (14.5mg/kg on days -6 and -5), fludarabine (30mg/m2 on days -6 to -2), 400 cGy total body irradiation (day -1 in a single fraction), a marrow graft (goal >2.5 x 108 nucleated cells per kg of recipient) on day 0 and PTCy (50mg/kg on days +3 and +4). Additionally, participants receive tacrolimus (until day +180) and mycophenolate mofetil days +5-35. The primary objective of the trial is to estimate the GVHD-free failure-free survival (GFFS) rate at 1 year after initiation of conditioning. GFFS is a composite endpoint of survival without grade III-IV acute GVHD, chronic GVHD requiring immunosuppression, or primary or secondary graft failure requiring second definitive therapy within 1 year after initiation of conditioning. Secondary objectives will evaluate patient survival, engraftment, transfusion dependence, cumulative incidence of GVHD and hematologic response. Health related quality of life, healthcare utilization and financial toxicity data will also be collected. These endpoints will allow clinical comparison with current results achieved with upfront IST in other studies. We hypothesize that this HSCT approach will improve survival without significant transplant-associated morbidity by using a low toxicity regimen that reduces rates of GVHD and provides rapid hematologic recovery without graft failure, thereby making HAPLO and URD HSCT a viable option for initial upfront treatment of SAA. The ability to use mismatched donors will also ensure that a HSCT option is more widely available to all racial/ethnic groups. This collaborative study was funded by grants U10HL069294, U24HL138660 to the BMT CTN from the NHLBI/ NCI, along with funding from Sanofi. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Introduction: Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) epcoritamab (Epco) and glofitamab (Glofit) are approved in the US for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs) based upon high response rates and manageable toxicity profiles reported in pivotal trials. However, data on outcomes for pts treated with BsAbs outside of clinical trials are limited. As such, we sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of Epco and Glofit for the treatment of pts with r/r LBCLs in real-world settings. Methods: We performed a retrospective study including 19 US centers evaluating pts with r/r LBCLs receiving commercially available Epco or Glofit between 2023 and 2024. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Efficacy outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), complete and partial response (CR, PR) rates, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Key safety outcomes included cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Results: As of May 31, 2024, a total of 209 pts with r/r LBCLs were treated with Epco (n=139) or Glofit (n=70). Median age at BsAb start was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 58-76). Most were male (62.2%), and the most common histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=155 [74.2%]). Of pts with molecular testing (n=168), 34 (20.2%) had double/triple hit lymphoma. Most (78.9%) had Ann Arbor stage III-IV disease and 91% had an ECOG performance status of ≤1. Median number of lines of treatment before BsAb was 3 (range 1-12). Of pts with known response assessment following front-line therapy, 54 (32.1%) had primary refractory disease, defined as failure to achieve PR or CR to front-line therapy. Most pts (n=126 [60.3%]) received prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and 21 (10.0%) received prior autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant. CD20 expression was assessed in 106 biopsies (50.7%) prior to BsAb and was positive in 90 (84.9%). A total of 172 pts were response-evaluable. The best ORR was 50.6%, with CR in 41 (23.8%), PR in 46 (26.7%), stable disease in 10 (5.8%), and progressive disease in 75 (43.6%). The ORR and CR rates were 49% and 23% for Epco, and 53% and 25% for Glofit, respectively. With a median follow-up of 5 months, the median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.0, 3.9) and median OS was 7.2 months (95% CI 6.1, not reached [NR]). The estimated PFS and OS at six months were 35% (95% CI 29%-43%) and 59% (95% CI 52%-67%), respectively. For pts who relapsed after CAR T-cell therapy, the median PFS and OS were 2.5 (95% CI 1.8, 4.7) and 7.8 (95% CI 6.2, NR) months, respectively. Pts without detectable CD20 expression via immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry prior to BsAb therapy had significantly inferior outcomes (PFS 1.1 vs 3.4 months, P < 0.001 and OS 1.3 vs 13 months, P < 0.001) compared to pts with detectable CD20. CRS of any grade occurred in 82 pts (39.2%), corresponding to 51.1% and 28.6% of pts treated with Epco and Glofit, respectively. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 9 (4.3%), all of whom received Epco. CRS was treated with tocilizumab in 43 pts (53.1%). ICANS occurred in 24 (11.5%) pts; any grade ICANS occurred in 13.7% and 7.1% of pts treated with Epco and Glofit, respectively. Grade ≥3 ICANS occurred in 6 pts (2.9%), 5 of which received Epco (3.6%). Of those experiencing ICANS, 66.0% were treated with corticosteroids. Two pts had deaths attributed to ICANS and one to CRS. A total of 122 (58.4%) pts discontinued therapy after a median of 3 cycles (range 0-48), 91 (74.6%) due to disease progression and 31 (25.4%) due to adverse events (15 due to infection, 3 due to ICANS, 2 due to CRS, and 11 for other reasons). Conclusions: In this heavily pretreated group with adverse disease features and high rate of CAR T exposure, the response rates, PFS, and OS following BsAb therapy were lower compared to pivotal trials. Poor outcomes were observed for those without detectable CD20. Rates of ICANS and grade ≥3 CRS were higher than reported in pivotal trials, as was the rate of discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events. Future efforts to improve outcomes may include intensified dose escalation protocols to more rapidly achieve disease control, combination therapies, and characterization of clinicopathologic factors that predict response to BsAb to identify subgroups of pts who can derive maximal benefit from these agents.