Citations

Introduction: Epcoritamab, a novel subcutaneously administered CD3xCD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) being developed as a core therapy across several lymphoma subtypes, is currently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL after ≥2 systemic therapies. The combination of epcoritamab with standard treatments has been shown to be safe and efficacious; epcoritamab in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Epcor+GemOx) has provided deep and durable responses with favorable survival benefits in a transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL study population, of which 99% was from the United States and Europe (EPCORE NHL-2; NCT04663347). The rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) regimen has been a widely used treatment for patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for transplant, albeit with suboptimal efficacy outcomes. In the absence of direct comparisons of these regimens, this study assessed the comparative efficacy of Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx in patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for transplant. Methods: Individual patient-level data (IPD) from EPCORE NHL-2 arm 5 were compared to 2 sources of clinical practice data for patients with R/R DLBCL treated with R-GemOx: published data from Cazalles et al (2021) and IPD from the US-based COTA electronic health record database. The Cazalles study reports the results of a large retrospective analysis of patients with R/R DLBCL treated in 2 academic centers in France. The COTA database includes de-identified IPD with demographic and clinical information from numerous academic and community clinical sites in the US. For the comparison to Cazalles, logistic propensity score models were used to weight the Epcor+GemOx cohort to create match-adjusted distributions of baseline characteristics with the R-GemOx cohort in Cazalles. For the comparison to COTA, inverse probability of treatment weighting was employed to balance covariates between the Epcor+GemOx and R-GemOx cohorts. Analyses were restricted to chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T)-naive patients from EPCORE NHL-2, as the comparator cohorts did not include patients treated with CAR T. Overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx. Results: A total of 74 patients treated with Epcor+GemOx (median follow-up: 13.2 months) were compared to 196 R-GemOx-treated patients from Cazalles et al (median follow-up: 22 months). After match-adjustment, Epcor+GemOx (ORR 86.8%) demonstrated significantly higher ORR, corresponding to a 48.5% advantage over R-GemOx (ORR 38.3%) with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.3 (95% CI 1.8-2.9; P<0.0001). Adjusted CR rate was also significantly higher with Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx (71.2% vs 32.7%; 38.6% difference; OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.6-3.0]; P<0.0001). Median PFS was significantly longer with Epcor+GemOx (26.7 months) vs R-GemOx (4.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.38 [95% CI 0.22-0.67]; P<0.001). Median OS was not reached (NR) for Epcor+GemOx vs 10.0 months with R-GemOx (HR 0.54 [95% CI 0.29-1.0]; P=0.05), corresponding overall to a 62% reduction in the risk of a progression event and a 46% reduction in the risk of mortality with Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx. A total of 72 patients were treated with R-GemOx in COTA (median follow-up: 7.5 months) and compared to 74 Epcor+GemOx patients. After adjustment, ORR was significantly higher with Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx (88.5% vs 35.6%; OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.8-3.4]; P<0.0001). Adjusted CR rate was also significantly higher with Epcor+GemOx (63.9% vs 10.2%; OR 6.3 [95% CI 3.1-12.7]; P<0.0001). Adjusted median PFS was significantly longer with Epcor+GemOx (11.2 months) vs R-GemOx (2.4 months; HR 0.23 [95% CI 0.15-0.36]; P<0.0001). Adjusted median OS was also significantly longer with Epcor+GemOx (21.6 vs 8.3 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.30-0.74]; P=0.002), corresponding overall to a 77% reduction in the risk of a progression event and a 53% reduction in the risk of mortality with Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx. Conclusions: In this indirect treatment comparison analysis,Epcor+GemOx provided significantly superior efficacy benefits in terms of ORR, CR, PFS, and OS vs standard-of-care R-GemOx. While subject to the limitations of comparisons outside of controlled trials, findings indicate the compelling efficacy of Epcor+GemOx as a novel therapeutic option for transplant-ineligible patients with R/R DLBCL.

Background New therapies for myelofibrosis (MF) are being developed but how these compare with current therapies is limited to analyzing single outcome measures such as spleen volume reduction or quality-of-life (QoL). However, these outcome trajectories might diverge and some endpoints may not be clinically relevant. To remedy this an ELN (European LeukemiaNet) taskforce developed a composite endpoint using the Desirability-Of-Outcome-Ranking (DOOR) method which allows multiple outcomes to be simultaneously considered and therapies achieving diverging endpoints compared. Methods An Expert Panel used DOOR to divide outcome relevancy into 8 dimensions: clinical meaningfulness, modifiability, reliability, feasibility, decisional value, acceptability, frequency, and cost. Next, a weight was assigned to each dimension using the mean Likert score assigned by the panelists. Next, the panel validated which dimensions were met by each of 30 outcomes most frequently listed by clinical trials. A weighted score (WS) for each outcome was calculated based on weights assigned to a dimension and accomplishment rates assigned to outcomes. Outcomes were then distributed into quartiles. Next, operational definitions of outcomes were tested in Delphi consensus method requiring > 75% agreement. Last, a literature review indicated correlations of the outcomes ranked in the 1st 2 quartiles with survival. Results Three composite endpoints were developed and named DEMYOs (DEsirability-of-MYelofibrosis-Outcomes). DEMYO-1, the proportion of people alive and free of severe vascular events, blast transformation, severe anaemia and thrombocytopenia and very-severe symptom burden, encompassed outcomes in the 1st quartile (WS > 29.5) and is the proposed composite endpoint for trials of people with advanced JAK-inhibitor refractory MF. DEMYO-2, defined as the proportion of people alive and free of accelerated or blast phase, severe or worsening anaemia, severe and major vascular events, severe or symptomatic splenomegaly, severe or worsening symptoms and any emergent adverse genetic abnormality, included the outcomes ranked in the 1st 2 quartiles (WS > 26.5) and is proposed for trials of people with a sub-optimal response to JAK-inhibitors. DEMYO-3, defined as the proportion of people alive and free of blast transformation, vascular events, severe, symptomatic or worsening clinical features and of worsening prognostic co-variates, included outcomes in the 1st 3 quartiles (WS > 23.5) and is proposed for trials of people not yet receiving JAK-inhibitors. Interpretation DEMYO composite endpoints capture relevant clinical features of MF and represent endpoints important to patients, physicians and other stakeholders. DEMYO validation is feasible by available trial data and, once validated, the composite endpoints can be endorsed by medicines regulatory agencies. DOOR proved feasible and robust in this 1st-in-haematology application and we encourage further use. No funding

Background: SETBP1 gene, located on 18q12.3, is a major oncogene in myeloid neoplasms. GATA2 gene, located on 3q21, is one of the six GATA transcription factors regulating gene expression via two conserved zinc finger domains (ZF). Previous data suggested that in patients with germline GATA2 mutation (m), acquisition of a somatic SETBP1 mutation (m) was associated with leukemic transformation among patients with excess blast MDS and CMML. Aim: To study the characteristics of patients with somatic SETBP1-GATA2 mutated myeloid neoplasms. Methods: This study is a retrospective study at Mayo Clinic. After obtaining IRB approval, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who had myeloid NGS panel results between 2016-2023. All data were recorded at time of first NGS. Cohort 1 was defined as patients with SETBP1m and GATA2m, cohort 2; patients with SETBP1m and GATA2wt, and cohort 3; patients with SETBP1wt and GATA2m. Germline work-up was not performed in the majority of GATA2 cases. We stratified risk based on the European LeukemiaNet 2022 guidelines for AML, IPSS-M for MDS and MDS/MPN, and CPSS-M for CMML. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of NGS to date of last follow-up based on Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression analysis. For statistical analysis, we used BlueSky Statistics V10.3.1. Results: General characteristics: 114 patients had SETBP1m (median VAF= 39%), and 63 patients had GATA2m (median VAF= 35%). Nine patients had co-occurring SETBP1m/GATA2m mutations (cohort 1). 4/9 patients in cohort 1 had MDS/MPN (44.4%), while only 13/105 in cohort 2 (12.4%) had MDS/MPN (P=0.02). AML was seen in 2 patients in cohort 1 (22.2%) compared to18 in cohort 2 (17.1%) (p=0.6). The median WBC count was 22.9 x 109 cells/L among cohort 1 compared to 9 x 109 cells/L among cohort 2 cases (p=0.09). BM blasts were higher in cohort 3 (7%) compared to cohort 1 (5%) and cohort 2 (3%) (p=0.09), while peripheral blasts tended to be lower in cohort 2 (1%) in comparison to cohort 1 (6%) and cohort 3 (4%) (p=0.48). Genetic characteristics: In cohort 1,7 GATA2m clustered in zinc finger 2 (ZF2) (77.8%), while the other two mutations were outside the ZF domains (22.2%). This was higher than the ZF2 mutated cases in cohort 3 (46.3%, p=0.1). Abnormal cytogenetics were seen in 66.7% of cohort 1 patients and 45% of cohort 2 (p= 0.3). Two cases with trisomy 8 were seen among patients in cohort 1 (22.2%), compared to only 4.9% in cohort 2 (p=0.09). Two incidences of isochromosome 17q [i(17q)] were seen in cohort 1 (22.2%), versus 5 cases in cohort 2 (4.8%) and 1 case in cohort 3 (1.9%) (p= 0.068). Co-mutations: The median number of co-mutationswas 3 in both cohort 1 and cohort 2 (p= 0.6). In cohort 1, ASXL1 and SRSF2 mutations were the most common (7/9, 77.8%) followed by NRAS (22.2%) and TET2 (22.2%). 77.8% of cohort 1 patients had SRSF2 co-mutation, compared to 44.8% in cohort 2 (p=0.08), and 27.8% in cohort 3 (p= 0.006). No isolated SETBP1m/GATA2m cases were found. Survival: Patients in cohort 1 had a numerically higher median OS compared to those in cohort 2 (19.4 vs 15.4 months, p= 0.3). When comparing with the cohort 3, patients in cohort 1 tended to have better outcomes (median OS= 19.4 vs 13.8 months, p=0.8). Among cohort 1, SRSF2 co-mutation was associated with worse survival outcomes compared to patients with SRSF2wt (median OS= 5.3 vs 19.4 months, p= 0.02); this association was not found in cohort 2 (12.5 vs 18.4 months, p= 0.3) and cohort 3 (13.2 vs 17.1 months, p= 0.4). Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation was associated with favorable survival outcomes in all cohorts (cohort 1: 22.6 vs 7.8 months, p= 0.1; cohort 2: 20.9 vs 12.5 months, p= 0.04; cohort 3: 25.6 vs 13.1 months, p= 0.03). Conclusion: SETBP1m/GATA2m myeloid neoplasms included a significantly higher proportion of MDS/MPN overlap cases in comparison with the SETBP1m/GATA2wt group. The SETBP1m/GATA2m group had a higher proportion of ZF2 GATA2m and SRSF2 co-mutation compared to patients with SETBP1wt/GATA2m. Survival of SETBP1m/GATA2m patients was not worse compared to SETBP1wt/GATA2m or SETBP1m/GATA2wt.

Background and Methods: IEC-HS is a hyperinflammatory state with high morbidity and mortality. Effective interventions to reverse the process early in the clinical course may be critical to improve outcomes. We previously examined cytokine differences between IEC-HS and other secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and found significant differences in the patterns and outcomes.(1) This study examines cytokine profiles (CP) of patients treated with CAR-T from 9/2019 to 3/2024 who developed CRS, MAS-L and IEC-HS. Demographics and lab results were compared among the three groups and correlated with outcomes. Results: CP was tested in 113 of 366 CAR-T patients: 74 with CRS, 19 with MAS-L, and 20 with IEC-HS. The racial distribution was 93% White/Caucasian, 2% Black or African American, 1% Asian, 1% Native American and 3% other or unavailable. No differences were seen in demographics between groups except a higher percentage of patients with ECOG performance status ≥2 in IEC-HS (p=0.037). Incidence of IEC-HS by disease: 3.6% (7/193) in lymphoma, 5% (8/159) myeloma and 28.5% (4/14) B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (p=0.0002). Incidence of IEC-HS by CAR-T product: 3% (4/150) in Axi-cel, 23% (6/26) in Brexu-cel, 8% (1/13) in Tisa-cel, 5% each (3/60) in Cilta-cel and Ide-cel, and 0/17 in Liso-cel (p=0.001). Prior to lymphodepletion, labs were already different among the CRS, MAS-L, and IEC-HS groups: hemoglobin (g/dL: 11.1, 9.6, 8.45); platelets (x109/L: 168, 116, 52.5); ferritin (µg/L: 115, 946, 1944). CP was started when patients needed a second dose of tocilizumab or concern for developing MAS-L/IEC-HS, and continued daily until clinical improvement or resolution of inflammatory state. Tocilizumab and dexamethasone use were similar across groups. Other therapies used were vasopressors (3%, 10.5%, 45%; p<0.0001), Methylprednisolone (20%, 31.6%, 50%; p=0.027), Anakinra (12%, 63%, 85%; p<0.0001), Siltuximab (9.5%, 16%, 30%; p=0.06), Basiliximab (30% of IEC-HS), and continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (30% of IEC-HS). Among the first CP, the CRS group had lower levels of cytokines (in pg/mL) compared to MAS-L and IEC-HS groups: TNF (31, 62.9, 47.7), IL-10 (29.3, 97.7, 169), IL-18 (794, 1353, 2011), IFN-gamma (74, 281, 250), MCP-1 (689, 2722, 2485.5), MIP-1 alpha (220, 234, 247.5), IL-6 (>315: 45%, 79%, 70%), soluble IL-2R alpha (>4000: 45%, 84%, 70%). The percentage of patients who received anakinra before CP1 were 4% (CRS), 21% (MAS-L) and 25% (IEC-HS) (p=0.007). IL-1 beta was below threshold among all patients who received anakinra in CRS and MAS-L and 75% in IEC-HS, suggesting rapid and effective IL-1 suppression by anakinra except in IEC-HS. Cytokines trends 24 hours and 48 hours after the first CP differed between MAS-L and IEC-HS. MAS-L had decreased TNF (62.9, 40.4, 18.5) and MCP-1 (2722, 355, 104) while these cytokines remained elevated or increased in IEC-HS (TNF: 47.7, 105.5, 62.6; MCP-1: 2486, 2276, 1585). IL-18 was minimally elevated in MAS-L (1353, 1955, 3068) and significantly increased in IEC-HS (2011, 2420, 4048). Notably, CP2 and CP3 levels of these cytokines in IEC-HS were statistically significantly higher than corresponding CPs among CRS and MAS-L. In addition, patients who died with persistent E. faecium bacteremia had higher IL-18 on CP3. Infections occurred in 43%, 58%, and 85% respectively (p=0.002), including E. faecium bacteremia (3%, 5%, 35%; p=0.0004), CMV viremia (30% of IEC-HS patients vs. 11% of non-IEC-HS; p=0.025), and invasive fungal infections (15% of IEC-HS patients; p=0.0001). Between the IEC-HS and non-IEC-HS groups, day 100 non-relapse mortality was 35% vs. 0 (p<0.0001), day 100 all-cause mortality was 45% vs. 3% (p<0.0001), and E. faecium bacteremia-related deaths were 50% vs. 1% (p<0.0001). Conclusions: CRS, MAS-L andIEC-HS are known complications of CAR-T. Cytokine-directed therapy can modify the cytokine milieu and control the inflammatory process. However, excess immunosuppression may result in life-threatening infections. Further studies are needed to identify optimal biomarker-guided immunosuppressive strategies to control the inflammatory cascade, while avoiding excess immunosuppression. References: 1. Leung, Nelson, et al. “Outcomes of patients who received CAR T cell therapy and developed IEC-HS treated with cytokine directed therapy.” (2024): 7516-7516.

CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T (CART19) cell therapy has shown outstanding clinical success. However, patients can develop CART-induced toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity. Studies have found that activation of myeloid cells by granulocyte monocyte-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) can contribute to toxicity development. GM-CSF depletion leads to reduced myeloid activation, prevention of CART-induced toxicities, and improved CART efficacy. CART cells upregulate cytokine receptors upon activation, and our results indicate that CART19 cells significantly upregulate GMCSFR upon antigen-specific stimulation (<10% vs >30%, p<0.01). This led us to hypothesize that GMCSFR signaling contributes to CART cell activity. To understand the role of GM-CSFR upregulation on CART cell functions, we compared the impacts of neutralizing GM-CSF or blocking GM-CSF receptor alpha (GM-CSFRα) on CART19. First, 4-1BB-costimulated CART19 cells generated from healthy donors were stimulated with CD3/CD28 beads at a 1:3 ratio for 6 days. CART cells were maintained at 1 x 106/mL throughout the culture and supplemented with IgG isotype control, GM-CSF neutralizing antibody, or GM-CSFRα blockade at 10 μg/mL, 20 μg/mL, or 100 μg/mL. On day 6, cells were debeaded and rested for 2 days. Then, CART cells were cocultured with NALM6, a CD19+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia cell line, at a ratio of 1:1 for 3 days. The cocultures were supplemented with the same doses of antibodies listed above. Antigen-specific proliferation of CART cells was measured by flow cytometry. Our data suggested that CART19 proliferated is not impacted by GM-CSF neutralization but is inhibited by GM-CSFRα blockade (IgG isotype vs 10 μg/mL GM-CSFRα blockade, p<0.0001; IgG isotype vs 20 μg/mL GM-CSFRα blockade, p<0.0001; IgG isotype vs 100 μg/mL GM-CSFRα blockade, p=0.009). CART cells were assessed in a cytotoxicity assay with NALM6 luciferase+ cells as well, which did not show significant impacts from GM-CSF neutralization or GM-CSFRα blockade. To evaluate the impacts of GM-CSF neutralization and GM-CSFRα blockade in a mouse model, we engrafted NSG mice with 1 million NALM6 luciferase+ cells intravenously. Mice were then treated with 1.4 million CART19 plus 10 mg/kg IgG isotype control, GM-CSF neutralizing antibody, or GM-CSFRα blockade intraperitoneally. GM-CSFRα blockade drastically suppressed antitumor activities of CART (CART19+GM-CSFRα blockade vs CART19+IgG isotype control, p<0.0001; CART19+GM-CSFRα blockade vs CART19+GM-CSF neutralizing antibody, p<0.0001; CART19+ GM-CSFRα blockade vs untransduced T cell, n.s.). Serum cytokines were analyzed 2 days after CART treatment, showing that mice with GM-CSFRα blockade had significantly lower levels of human IFNγ (p=0.0189) and IL-2 (p=0.0121) compared to IgG isotype control group, while GM-CSF neutralization did not show significant impacts. Mice treated with CART plus IgG isotype control or GM-CSF neutralizing antibody showed prolonged survival compared to mice treated with GM-CSFRα blockade or untransduced T cells (p=0.0285). To unravel the mechanisms behind functional differences between GM-CSFRα blockade and GM-CSF neutralization, CART cells (n = 3 biological replicates) were cocultured with NALM6 at a 1:1 ratio supplemented with 10 μg/mL GM-CSF neutralizing antibody, GM-CSFRα blockade, or IgG isotype control overnight, followed by T cell isolation, bulk RNA isolation, and RNA sequencing (RNAseq) analysis. Our RNAseq data indicated significant upregulation (Log2FC>0.5, padj. <0.05) of T cell exhaustion- and dysfunction-associated genes (RGS16, PDCD1, CTLA4, NR4A3, CD101, LAG3) as well as negative regulators of T cell functions (G0S2, PIK3IP1, LGALS3) in the GM-CSFRα blockade group compared to GM-CSF neutralizing antibody or IgG isotype control groups. T cell activation-associated pathways were enriched in the GM-CSFRα blockade group. Overall, our data show that GM-CSFRα blockade impacts CART functions differently from GM-CSF neutralization. Specifically, GM-CSFRα blockade inhibits CART proliferation in vitro and antitumor activity in vivo. Interestingly, GM-CSFRα blockade leads to enrichment of T cell exhaustion- and dysfunction-associated genes in CART19, which is worth further investigation. These findings may be applicable to other cytokine receptors upregulated on activated CART cells.

Abstract The vision of the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation is to promote innovation and research discovery to improve nutrition care and health. The Foundation was launched in 1993, incorporated in 2002, and established as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization in 2007. On the occasion of American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN)'s 50th anniversary, this article examines the creation of the Foundation, the state of clinical nutrition research funding, the Foundation's philanthropic mission, and the return on investment of Foundation grant support. To date, 114 investigators have received 2.78 million dollars in funding. The article examines the success of ASPEN research programs and Foundation grant support in career development, leadership, and mentorship. It is important to document a historical account of the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation and encourage innovation and discovery and ongoing financial support.

Introduction Clinical trials are the avenue whereby the effects of interventions on health-related outcomes are evaluated. It is imperative that these trials are diverse and inclusive to reduce disparities in overall health outcomes as individuals can experience the same disease differently. When populations are not underrepresented in clinical trials, the results are not generalizable. Despite efforts to facilitate diverse representation across clinical trials, including guidance from the United States Food and Drug Administration, gaps persist in regard to understanding approaches to achieve this goal. With this in mind, we designed an international survey-based research study with the primary objectives to understand current tools and tactics investigators are employing in their clinical research and to identify gaps to ensure diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Methods This study was approved through the Institutional Review Board at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The survey was developed using QuestionPro software (Austin, TX, USA). The target population for this study was the members of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) along with individuals who attended or were presenting authors at the 2023 ASH Annual Meeting, and individuals on the “This Week in Blood email list.” Surveys were distributed via email to potential participants between April and July 2024. Reminder emails were sent on 2 occasions. The survey was also advertised via various social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn). No incentives were provided for completion of the survey. In the introductory email, participants were assured of the anonymous nature of the survey and were instructed to proceed only if they consented to participate voluntarily in this research study. Results The survey was viewed by 5171 individuals. There were 774 total responses, for a response rate of 15%. Complete responses were provided by 502 respondents. Fifty-seven percent of survey respondents were based in the United States and 56% were ASH members. Seventy-one percent of respondents were clinicians, of which the majority (74%) were primarily adult providers and 86% reported hematology as their clinical specialty, a large proportion of whom were malignant hematologists. Regarding clinical research involvement over the last 5 years, 29% identified as sub investigators, 23% were site principal investigators (PI) in multicenter studies, and 19% reported roles as overall PI for studies. Respondents reported employing tactics to enhance DEI in all phases of prospective clinical research studies. Nineteen percent stated that they engage patients in the research planning phase, in protocol design, review and revision. During the implementation phase, 21% reported outreach to community providers to increase trial awareness and encourage patient referrals. Patient groups were engaged to disseminate study findings in language that patients can understand by 22% of respondents. Among the tools that were used, the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Guidance on Clinical Practice was the most frequently reported tool in the planning phase (24%). Respondents reported no consistent use of any tool or tactic during the implementation and dissemination phases of clinical research and a large proportion reported using no tools to enhance DEI in their studies. Seventy-four percent of respondents reported that they had received no formal training or guidance on how to incorporate DEI principles and enhance DEI in clinical research. There were mixed opinions on the importance of incorporating DEI principles into clinical research, ranging from acknowledging the significance to dismissal of the concept. The majority of survey respondents (79%) indicated willingness to participate in a learning community developed by ASH. Conclusions The findings from this survey not only shed light on what resources and strategies investigators are employing most and at what stages of their clinical research, but also highlight a critical need for more training on and awareness of resources for incorporating DEI principles into clinical research. Results of this study will empower ASH to develop comprehensive resources that resonate with the dynamic needs of trialists in the pursuit of a more equitable and effective approach to clinical research.

Introduction In ELM-2 (NCT03888105), a Phase 2, open-label, multicohort study, odronextamab monotherapy demonstrated encouraging clinical efficacy, generally manageable safety, and maintenance of patient-reported outcomes in R/R FL (Chong et al. AACR 2024; Tessoulin et al. ASH 2023). In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials comparing CD20×CD3 bispecific antibodies in R/R FL, two unanchored MAICs were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of odronextamab versus mosunetuzumab and epcoritamab in patients with R/R FL in the third-line or later (3L+) setting. Methods Patient-level data from the ELM-2 R/R FL cohort receiving odronextamab (N=128; data cutoff: October 2023) were compared with published data from similar cohorts in the GO29781 trial of mosunetuzumab (N=90; Budde et al. Lancet Oncol 2022) and EPCORE NHL-1 trial of epcoritamab (N=128; Linton et al. Lancet Haematol 2024). To adjust for baseline differences in the trial populations, a priori-identified prognostic variables (progression of disease within 2 years, primary refractory, refractory to last line of therapy [LOT], number of prior LOTs, serum lactate dehydrogenase level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, age at start of LOT, and Ann Arbor disease stage) were included in the base-case MAICs. Two additional variables (double refractory and prior autologous stem cell transplant), reported in ELM-2 and the comparator studies, were included in a sensitivity analysis. The MAICs reported here were focused on response outcomes as assessed by independent central review, which were reported across trials. Relative treatment effects before and after matching were presented as odds ratios (ORs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The effective sample size for odronextamab was 102.0 after matching with mosunetuzumab and 90.6 after matching with epcoritamab in the base-case MAICs. All key prognostic variables were balanced between ELM-2 and both comparator trials in each analysis. Before and after matching, odronextamab demonstrated comparable objective response rates (ORRs) and significantly higher complete response (CR) rates versus mosunetuzumab (before matching: ORR 80.5% vs 80.0%, OR 1.03 [95% CI 0.52-2.03], p=0.93; CR rate 73.4% vs 60.0%, OR 1.84 [95% CI 1.04-3.28], p=0.04; after matching: ORR 83.5% vs 80.0%, OR 1.27 [95% CI 0.61-2.65], p=0.53; CR rate 75.7% vs 60.0%, OR 2.08 [95% CI 1.12-3.86], p=0.02). Odronextamab demonstrated numerically higher CR rates versus epcoritamab before and after matching (before matching: CR rate 73.4% vs 62.5%, OR 1.66 [95% CI 0.98-2.82], p=0.06; after matching: CR rate 69.4% vs 62.5%, OR 1.36 [95% CI 0.77-2.41], p=0.29). The ORRs of odronextamab and epcoritamab were comparable before matching (ORR 80.5% vs 82.0%, OR 0.90 [95% CI 0.48-1.69], p=0.75) and after matching (ORR 78.1% vs 82.0%, OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.40-1.53], p=0.47). Consistent results were observed in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials comparing bispecific antibodies in the setting of 3L+ FL, MAICs demonstrate that odronextamab was associated with higher CR rates compared with mosunetuzumab and epcoritamab. Since achieving a CR in the R/R FL setting is an important treatment goal, our results highlight the potential of odronextamab as an effective treatment option in R/R FL.

Background: Disseminated marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is an indolent disease often observable at diagnosis with treatment indications similar to other indolent lymphomas. First-line therapy is typically rituximab alone or in combination with chemotherapy (e.g. bendamustine). Due to the long-life expectancy, avoiding alkylating agents to reduce bone marrow damage could be beneficial. In addition, a “chemotherapy free” option could have fewer and less severe complications. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) are active and approved or NCCN-recommended beyond first line therapy in MZL. Moreover, BTKi are approved for first line therapy in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia, a disease with both diagnostic and pathophysiologic overlap with MZL. We conducted a multicenter randomized trial of rituximab induction plus ibrutinib/placebo (RI vs RP) for patients with MZL in need of first line systemic therapy. Complete response (CR) rate at 30 months was the primary endpoint and progression free survival (PFS) was secondary. The target sample size was 63 in each arm. The study was closed after 22 eligible patients enrolled due to low accrual. Methods: Patients (pts) with either nodal, splenic or extranodal MZL were eligible. Prior surgery, radiation, antibiotic or antiviral therapy for MZL were allowed if followed by disease progression requiring treatment. Documented evidence of need for treatment included, but was not limited to, threatened end-organ function, bulky disease (>5 cm), symptoms, requirement for transfusion or growth factor support, or significant need for intervention. Transformation to DLBCL was excluded prior to entry including bone marrow assessment. Randomization occurred prior to rituximab weekly x 4 to either daily placebo (RP) or ibrutinib (RI) 560 mg starting on day 1 and continued until disease progression (PD), intolerance or CR at 30 months. Those with partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) at 30 months could continue placebo or ibrutinib. CR assessment required both a negative FDG-PET and bone marrow biopsy. RESULTS: 22 pts enrolled (Feb 2020-March 2023) with baseline characteristics including: median age 67 years (35-78) and White race 17. Stage II (3), III/IV (17). Subtype: splenic 16, nodal 4, extranodal 2. Prior therapy: splenectomy 1, radiation 0, other surgery 0, antiviral/antibiotic 0. Median maximal tumor dimension was 3.7 cm (range 1.6-23.6); with >5 cm in 9 pts. Median time from diagnosis to treatment was 32 days (5-4712 with only 3 > 1 year). 11 pts were randomized to each arm. Responses: RP: 3 CR, 4 PR, 3 SD, 1 inevaluable; RI: 7 CR, 4 PR. No patient achieved CR30, but 3 had CR at 29 months: 2 RP, 1 RI. With a median follow up of 35 months (13-50), the median PFS by Log Rank was 14 mo (RP) vs 29 (RI), though this difference was not statistically significant in the setting of small numbers. Treatment was well tolerated. Only 1 pt experienced grade 3 events at least possibly related: hypoxia and dyspnea. This was attributed to COVID-19 and occurred on the RP arm. 1 CR patient with baseline clonal hematopoiesis developed myelodysplasia. Treatment improved baseline activities in 4/5 pts (1 RP, 3 RI). Baseline pain improved in 8 pt: 4 RP, 4 RI. All pts were alive at the data cuff off. Conclusions: This study is a chemotherapy free frontline trial in MZL and the first to utilize ibrutinib in frontline MZL. All pts received rituximab induction and were randomized at entry to RP vs RI. The COVID-19 pandemic affected site activation and accrual, ultimately contributing to low accrual and early study termination. Nonetheless, the results suggest a marked difference in median PFS favoring the RI arm, although small numbers preclude a statistically significant result. Notably, our results are qualitatively similar to those of Dimopoulos (NEJM, 2018) in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia, a disease with similar characteristics to MZL. In that study, the median PFS by Log Rank was 20 months (RP) vs not reached (RI); and 30-month PFS 28% (RP) vs 82% (RI). (Hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.20; P<0.001). Further, our trial supports pursing a chemotherapy free first line approach in MZL.

Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is characterized by the accumulation of malignant lymphocytes in the lymph nodes, spleen, blood, and bone marrow. Although current clinical treatment approaches targeting Bruton Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) and Bcl-2, either as monotherapy or in combination are highly effective with high overall response, complete responses, and achievement of undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD), most patients eventually experience disease relapse. In this study, we utilized our unique mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) system, which mimics the in vivo stromal environment in CLL, to explore the combination interaction effect of the first-in-class BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib, with novel tumor microenvironment (TME)-directed drugs in CLL. Methods: Since 1999, patients with CLL seen at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN have been offered participation in a longitudinal study of CLL B-cell Biology (CLL Tissue Bank). This Tissue Bank is seamlessly integrated into the Mayo Clinic CLL Database where the clinical characteristics of all patients are prospectively maintained. Using this resource, we identified previously untreated CLL patients (n=10) for our experiments. Individuals with high risk CLL (defined as those with both unmutated IGHV gene mutations and either del17p- or del11q- by FISH) (n=5) and with low risk CLL (defined as those with both mutated IGHV genes and no del17p- or del11q- by FISH) (n=5) were studied. Annexin-V/PI apoptotic cell death assays were employed to evaluate the effects of TME-directed drugs including everolimus (mTOR inhibitor), MI-2 (MALT1 inhibitor), ruxolitinib (JAK1/2 inhibitor), S63845 (MCL-1 inhibitor), and venetoclax (Bcl-2 inhibitor) either as single agent, or in combination with ibrutinib on CLL B cells in direct contact with MSCs. Dose response curves and IC50 levels were generated for single agent killing effect in CLL. The combination interaction effects were determined by Combination Index (CI) values generated by CalcuSyn software indicating synergistic (CI < 0.9), additive (CI between 0.9 - 1.1), or antagonistic (CI > 1.1) interactions. Among drug combinations with synergistic CI values, the following indicated different levels: below 0.1 very strong, 0.1 - 0.3 strong, 0.3 - 0.7 good, and 0.7 - 0.9 moderate synergism. Results: All tested drugs exhibited different IC50 levels in CLL cells co-cultured with MSCs: MI-2 IC50 of 3.5uM, ruxolitinib IC50 of 18.5uM, S63845 IC50 of 0.115uM, venetoclax IC50 of 0.006uM, and both everolimus and ibrutinib did not reach IC50 levels at maximum tested doses. Of interest we observed more killing in high versus low-risk cohort when treated with everolimus (19uM vs. undetectable), MI-2 (2.5 vs. 4uM) and S63845 (0.09 vs. 0.14uM) as single agents (IC50, high vs. low, respectively), while ruxolitinib and venetoclax showed no differences. Combination interaction effect results showed highly synergistic interactions for all patients (good to strong synergism) when ibrutinib was combined with S63845 or venetoclax, moderate to strong synergism for ibrutinib and everolimus, moderate synergism to additive levels for ibrutinib and MI-2, and moderate synergism to antagonism for ibrutinib and ruxolitinib. We also observed more synergism in the low-risk cohort when treated with ibrutinib and MI-2/ruxolitinib combinations, but no difference with ibrutinib and everolimus/S63845/venetoclax combinations between low and high-risk cohort. Conclusions: In summary, we evaluated the pre-clinical combination effects of ibrutinib when used together with other novel agents on CLL B cells in the presence of TME, where patients were assigned to low or high-risk cohorts. Our study showed that ibrutinib exhibits highly synergistic effects with venetoclax, S63845 and everolimus in both cohorts. The observed difference in effectiveness between high and low-risk cohorts when treated with ibrutinib plus MI-2 or ruxolitinib suggests these combinations would be beneficial for a subset of patients with high risk CLL. These preclinical data offer preliminary insights that support the evaluation of therapeutic combinations in patient with high-risk CLL: a population with significant unmet medical needs. Funding Statement: This study was funded and supported by Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company.