Citations

Abstract Background and Significance: Polycythemia vera (PV) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm associated with pathologic erythrocytosis, most often driven by somatic mutations in the JAK2 gene. A key treatment goal is maintaining hematocrit (HCT) below 45% to reduce thromboembolic complications. Current standard of care for patients diagnosed with PV, including phlebotomy (PHL) and cytoreductive therapies (CRT), can be burdensome, may lead to intolerable adverse effects, and often are associated with symptoms of iron deficiency. DISC-3405 is an investigational, novel, humanized immunoglobulin (Ig)G1 monoclonal antibody that targets transmembrane serine protease 6 (TMPRSS6, also known as matriptase 2) to stimulate endogenous production of hepcidin, a peptide hormone secreted by hepatocytes and the key regulator of iron homeostasis. In a randomized, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers (DISC-3405-101), DISC-3405 administered subcutaneously at doses between 37.5-300 mg was well-tolerated, resulted in dose-dependent pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles, significantly increased hepcidin production with corresponding reductions in serum iron levels, and reduced HCT (Liu et al, EHA 2025, PS2207). DISC-3405 is being developed as a potential treatment for patients with PV requiring HCT reduction, regardless of baseline risk or concurrent CRT. Study Design and Methods: This is a multi-center, open-label, 52-week Phase 2 study enrolling up to 20 patients with PV in the United States to assess the safety, tolerability, PK, pharmacodynamics (PD), and therapeutic effect of DISC-3405 on PV disease control as evidenced by HCT reduction and PHL requirements. After an observation period of 4-12 weeks, participants will be treated and followed for 52 weeks and dosed up to 300 mg every 2 weeks. After 52 weeks, participants can continue in an optional 2-year continuation phase where long-term safety and efficacy will continue to be assessed. The main efficacy endpoints of the study include the proportion of participants achieving therapeutic response, defined as absence of PHL eligibility; number of PHLs during the treatment period; and proportion of participants with HCT values <45% throughout the study. PHL eligibility is defined as (1) HCT ≥45% and ≥3% (absolute change) of pre-treatment values or (2) HCT >48%. Eligible participants include adults 18 or older who meet the 2022 World Health Organization diagnostic criteria for PV. Clinically acceptable laboratory values include HCT <45% prior to Day 1 (dosing) or HCT <48% if followed by a PHL within 2 weeks prior to first dose of study drug, white blood cells 4000/μL to 20,000/μL (inclusive), and platelets 100,000/μL to 1,000,000/μL (inclusive). Participants should have at least 3 PHL in 26 weeks or 5 PHL in the 52 weeks prior to screening, and at least 1 PHL within 12 weeks prior to screening. Participants receiving CRT must have been on the therapy for at least 6 months and on a stable PV treatment regimen, including hydroxyurea, interferon, or ruxolitinib, for at least 2 months. Participants treated with only PHL must have stopped CRT 6 months before screening. Key exclusion criteria include participants that require PHL at HCT levels <45%, clinically significant thrombosis within 2 months prior to study treatment, active or chronic bleeding, estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, and history of invasive malignancies within the last 5 years, except localized cured prostate cancer and cervical cancer, or other malignancies deemed acceptable in discussion with the Sponsor. The study will enroll participants from approximately 15-20 sites in the United States. Additional details can be found at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06985147.

Abstract Background: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are critical drivers of cancer care access and outcomes. In multiple myeloma (MM), access to cellular therapies including autologous stem cell transplantation and CAR-T therapy often depends on formal or informal caregiver support. Traditional SDOH measures (e.g., race, income, or education) are often used as proxies for access to care; however, these measures may overlook individual realities pertaining to cellular therapies where a caregiver is generally required. In response to feedback from a HealthTree Patient Advisory Board questioning the practice of inferring caregiver support, this study evaluated a simple survey question by a large cross-sectional survey. Methods: After development of a dedicated single-question (“What best describes your current caregiving support?”) through iterative feedback from the Patient Advisory Board and MM experts, four key answers were settled on: (1) cohabitation with dedicated caregiver(s) to support care (“family support”); (2) presence of non-cohabiting caregiver(s) to provide dedicated support (“external support”); (3) lack of dedicated caregiver, hence support is arranged when needed (“arrangeable support ”); or (4) lack of dedicated caregiver, hence finding any support is a struggle (“inadequate support”). We deployed this new demographic question from February through July 2025 through HealthTree. Responses were analyzed across SDOH variables using Fisher exact or chi square tests, and random forest classifiers were employed for predictive modeling. Results: Of 1231 respondents, 71% had dedicated caregivers (68%, n=839, with family support, and 3%, n=41, with external support). In contrast, 23% (n=287) of patients routinely arranged support while 5% (n=64) had inadequate support (struggle to find support). The inadequate-support group had significant demographic differences from the sample as a whole: a higher proportion were women (78% vs 56%, p = 0.04), Black (9% vs 4%, p < 0.01), lived >50 miles from their treatment center (17% vs 6%, p < 0.01), and had an annual income <$50,000 (17% vs 6%, p = 0.02). This group had a numerically higher proportion of patients whose employment status was disabled (12% vs 5%, p=0.08) as well. No proportion difference in age (67 ± 9 yr), military status, or severity of diagnosis - precursor disease (17%) v. multiple myeloma (81%). Rates of inadequate support were overall low in patients who lived with only their spouse (1%) or lived with their spouse & children (3%). In contrast, rates of inadequate support were higher (than 5%) in patients who lived alone (21%), divorced (20%), lived with adult children (14%), lived with friends (13%), separated (11%), or widowed (9%) (p < 0.001). However, the arrangeable-support group comprised 12% of patients who lived only with their spouse, 19% of patients who lived with their spouse and children, and 61% of patients who lived with their adult children (p < 0.001). Finally, a random forest classifier failed to identify any individual in the inadequate-support category, suggesting that unmeasured or more complex patterns may underlie this classification. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of caregiver support and its relationship with other SDOH in patients with MM to date. Despite the importance of caregiving to transplantation and CAR-T therapy, we found that 5% of patients with MM struggle to find caregiver support; this figure likely underestimates the true prevalence, given potential selection bias among patients who are digitally engaged through the HealthTree platform. Even among patients who lived with their spouses, an additional 10-20% of patients routinely had to arrange caregiving support on a visit-by-visit basis; for patients who lived with their adult children, this proportion was over 60%. The requirement to arrange caregiving support can create time toxicity and financial toxicity for patients, although these factors were not directly queried in our study. Finally, caregiver availability cannot be routinely inferred from traditional SDOH variables. Our data highlight the importance of including caregiver status as a standard demographic question in clinical and research settings. Further interventions are needed to improve caregiver support for vulnerable patients with MM as well as to reduce the duration of caregiver requirements for procedures such as CAR-T therapy.

Abstract Introduction Defining the epidemiology of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) and precursor conditions, such as clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), is challenging due to inconsistent reporting, complex diagnostics, and evolving criteria. The National MDS Natural History Study (NHS) overcomes these challenges through central pathology review, prospective follow-up, and a nationally representative cohort enrolled at the time of suspected MDS, enabling robust analysis across the myeloid disease spectrum. We analyzed clinical, genetic, and pathologic features in NHS participants by race, ethnicity, and sex to characterize disease variation across populations. Methods The NHS (NCT02775383) enrolled individuals undergoing evaluation for suspected MDS from June 2016–July 2024 at 102 US sites. Participants underwent bone marrow assessment with centralized, adjudicated histopathology review. Those meeting WHO 2016 criteria for MDS, MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN), CCUS, idiopathic cytopenia/dysplasia of undetermined significance (ICUS/IDUS), or oligoblastic AML were followed longitudinally. Demographics, comorbidities, exposures, and clinical data were collected at baseline and every 6 months. Deep DNA sequencing was performed on baseline marrow, with pathogenic variants manually curated (53 genes). Statistical analyses assessed associations using chi-squared, Fisher's exact, Kruskal-Wallis, logistic regression, and Cox models. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results Among 2,021 participants, 1,174 (58%) were diagnosed with MDS or precursor conditions. Median age was 74 years (yrs) and 66% were male. Most identified as Non-Hispanic White (NHW, 92%), with 4% Black and 4% Hispanic. The most common diagnoses were MDS (42%) and CCUS (37%). Pathogenic somatic mutations were identified in 84% (774/918) of MDS/CCUS, with TET2 (26% of 918), DNMT3A (21%), and ASXL1 (16%) most frequent. Median follow-up was 1.8yrs and consistent across race, ethnicity, and sex (p≥0.6). Black, compared to NHW, participants were younger (69 vs 74 yrs, p=0.006) and trended toward more females (47% vs 34%, p=0.09) and more MDS diagnoses (51% vs 41%, p=0.07). Black participants showed more advanced disease (e.g., lower hemoglobin, higher peripheral blood blasts, higher variant allele frequencies (VAFs) of pathogenic mutations), yet received less MDS-directed treatment (14% vs 41%, p=0.01). Black, compared to NHW, participants had more mutations in RUNX1, TP53, BCOR, and DNMT3A, but fewer in TET2 and ASXL1. Hispanic, compared to Non-Hispanic, participants had fewer known pathogenic mutations, leading to more ICUS (19% vs 5%, p=0.02). Females, compared to males, were younger at diagnosis (72 vs 75yrs, p<0.001), had more ICUS/IDUS (20% vs 10%, p<0.001), fewer pathogenic mutations, especially in splicing/chromatin modifier genes (U2AF1, SRSF2, ASXL1, ZRSR2), more DNMT3A mutations, and lower VAFs (0.27 vs 0.33, p<0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.4yrs, and shorter in MDS (4.2yrs) than CCUS (not reached). Worse OS was associated with age (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.06), MDS (vs CCUS; aHR 1.89), higher-risk disease by IPSS-R/CCRS (aHR 2.15), and TP53 mutations (aHR 2.17) (all p<0.001). A trend toward improved OS in Black participants was attenuated after adjustment (aHR 0.79, p=0.6). Progression (e.g., worsening of disease, increase in transfusion dependency, death) occurred in 53% of participants. Worse progression-free survival (PFS) was associated with MDS diagnosis (aHR 2.59), higher-risk disease by IPSS-R/CCRS (aHR 2.17), and TP53 mutations (aHR 1.86) (all p<0.001). Despite more advanced disease and less MDS therapy, Black participants trended toward improved PFS (aHR 0.62, p=0.14), while age was borderline significant (aHR 1.01, p=0.05). Conclusions For the first time, we show that among individuals evaluated for suspected MDS at sites across the US, 58% had MDS or precursor conditions. Differences across demographics underscore the heterogeneity of MDS. Black participants presented with more advanced MDS, received less treatment, but trended toward improved outcomes, particularly PFS, even after adjustment, suggesting biological rather than access-to-care differences driving disparities. These findings highlight the complex interplay of sex, race, and genetics in shaping MDS outcomes and reinforce the need for diverse, large-scale studies to improve risk stratification and personalized care.

Abstract Background: Germline predisposition states (GPS), including inherited bone marrow failure syndromes (IBMFS) are seen in 5-10% of individuals with myeloid neoplasms (MN). Given overlap with somatic driver genes, blood, saliva, and buccal swabs are suboptimal specimens for GPS testing in MN; the latter two due to contamination with blood cells(Jerez, 2024). Skin biopsy with fibroblast culture-derived DNA remains the gold standard, but the process is expensive, takes 6-8 weeks to complete, and fibroblast culture failure can occur in some patients with telomere biology disorders. Given the need to rapidly screen donors for HSCT and adjust therapy/conditioning in certain IBMFS, we developed a rapid hematologic germline testing algorithm using hair follicle-derived DNA. Methods The study was conducted after IRB approval through the Mayo Clinic GPS/IBMFS clinic. To perform PCR-based hair follicle testing, we obtained 15-25 hair follicles (bulbs) per patient. The bulbs were placed in a microcentrifuge tube and subjected to a 24-hour digestion and extraction protocol using a modified version of the QIAGEN DNA Purification from Dried Blood Spots protocol. DNA quality was assessed by Nanodrop and Qubit.Testing included either validation of known or suspected germline variants (e.g., RUNX1, DDX41, ETV6), or panel testing (e.g., GPS or IBMFS). Pathogenic variants were validated by repeat testing in a CAP/CLIA certified lab prior to medical decision making. 23 patients underwent whole exome sequencing (WES) in a CAP/CLIA lab, and 13 patients had concurrent germline testing using alternate DNA sources (8 skin biopsies, 1 saliva, 4 buccal swabs). Results Ninety-three patients (49 male, 53%) underwent hair follicle-derived germline DNA testing (median age 63 years). Indications for germline testing included the presence of a suspected variant on somatic testing with variant allele frequency (VAF) between 35%-60% ( n= 66, 71%), patient age <50 years (n=26, 28%), antecedent thrombocytopenia (n=15, 16%), presence of syndromic features (n=4, 4%), patient history of multiple malignancies (n=4, 4%), and positive family history (n=15, 16%). Time to reporting variants after receipt of hair follicle-derived DNA was <14 days. There were zero complications associated with the procedure. DNA quality as assessed by Nanodrop revealed a median nucleic acid concentration of 25.64 ng/μL. The median A260/A280 ratio was 1.86 (range 0.701-2.133) and the median A260/A230 ratio was 1.27 (range -8.193-9.223). DNA quality was insufficient for chromosomal microarray (CMA) assessments. Of 93 patients evaluated, 67 (72%) had ≥1 germline variant, with 3 having >1 germline variant for a total of 72 variants. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified included: DDX41 (30, 41.7%), TP53 (4, 5.6%), ANKRD26 (4, 5.6%), RUNX1 (4, 5.6%), GATA2 (3, 4.2%), TERT (3, 4.2%), JAK3 (2, 2.8%), SAMD9/SAMD9L (2, 2.8%), ATM (2, 2.8%), and 1 each (1.4%) in BCL2, BCOR, BPGM, CDKN2A, CEBPA, CHEK2, CSF3R, CXCR4, DNMT3A, ETV6, GATA1, MPL, MPO, POT1, PTPN11, RPL5, and SH2B3. In the 13 patients that had concurrent germline testing, results were identical in all cases, except for 1 false negative in a buccal specimen (PTPN11) and 1 case of germline mosaicism, where the TP53 variant was identified in the blood and hair follicle DNA but not in skin fibroblast DNA. After testing, 30 (44.7%) patients had a change in their management plan: 8 (27%) with DDX41-GPS were observed due to known latency of DDX41-mutant MN, 6 (20%) were referred for HSCT based on the germline variant (CEBPA, DDX41, GATA1, GATA2, RPL5, TP53), 6 (20%) were placed on an enhanced surveillance plan for cancer screening (1 ANKRD26, 3 TERT, 2 TP53), 4 (13%) patients undergoing HSCT had related donors removed from consideration as they were carriers (2 DDX41, 1 ANKRD26, and 1 SAMD9), 2 (7%) patients with neutropenia and underlying germline variants (1 ATM, 1 DDX41) had G-CSF therapy discontinued due to concerns for clonal stimulation, and 1 (3%) patient with a germline CDKN2A mutation (hematological diagnosis- CMML) was recommended to avoid radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Conclusion In summary, we validate a rapid and simple hair follicle-derived DNA based germline assessment for patients with hematological disorders and demonstrate a positive impact on clinical care in 44% of patients. We are currently optimizing DNA quality so that germline copy number alterations can be better detected using CMA.

Abstract Background: In R/R DLBCL/FL, T-cell engager therapy (TCET) using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) or bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are promising options. Patients (pts) with R/R disease post TCET experience dismal outcomes with overall survival (OS)< 5 months (mos). Lonca, an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) targeting CD19 (FDA approved for R/R DLBCL and beneficial in R/R FL) has been increasingly used post-TCET. RWDA of Lonca is limited, especially regarding: 1) impact of CD19 expression on activity, 2) adverse events (AEs) in non-clinical trial setting, and 3) impact of sequencing Lonca and TCET. Thus, we conducted a RWDA of Lonca efficacy and toxicity in R/R DLBCL and FL pre- and post-TCET. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of R/R DLBCL or FL pts ≥18 years who received Lonca from 2017 to 2025 at 10 US academic sites. Demographic, pathological, treatment, and AEs were collected. Efficacy outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. CD19 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or flow cytometry (FC) prior to Lonca administration was correlated to outcomes. Results: Among 120 pts (DLBCL n= 101, FL n=19), all but 2 pts received Lonca monotherapy. At a median follow-up of 6.1 mos, median PFS and OS were 2.6 mos and 6.7 mos, respectively for the entire cohort. For DLBCL, median age was 66 years (18-89). Median prior lines of therapy (LOT) were 4 (1-11). ORR was 37.7% (CR: 17%, PR: 20.7%), SD: 6%, and PD: 56%. Median PFS was 2.1 mos, and median OS was 5.8 mos. For FL, median age was 62 years (28-88). Median prior LOT was 6 (2-8). ORR was 49.4% (CR: 28%, PR: 21.4%), SD: 14%, and PD: 35.7%. Median PFS was 6.7 mos, and median OS was 6.8 mos. OS by best response (entire cohort) was 11.3 mos and 11.8 mos in those who had CR and PR, respectively, 10.6 mos in SD and 3.5 mos in those with PD. Lonca LOT (2nd-12th line) was not associated with improved OS (p=0.58). Bulky disease (>7.5 cm) was not associated with worse OS (p=0.07). PD to Lonca was associated with PD at 2nd line treatment (OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 1.7–10.9) and 3rd-line treatment (OR: 4.2; 95% CI: 1.5–11.5), elevated lactate dehydrogenase (OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2–2.9), and each subsequent increase of extranodal sites >1 prior to Lonca (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.04–2.1). Among pts with available CD19 status prior to Lonca administration, 28 were FC-positive and 22 were IHC-positive. Of the CD19 FC-positive pts (n=23), 22% (5/23) achieved CR, 26% (6/23) had PR, 8% (2/23) had SD, and 43% (10/23) developed PD. Of the CD19 IHC-positive pts (n=20): 15% (3/20) achieved CR, 20% (4/20) had PR, 5% (1/20) had SD, and 60% (12/20) developed PD. Among all CD19-negative pts (n=7), two achieved CR, one had SD, and four with PD. Any grade AE was seen in 84% of pts. Any grade ≥3 (G3) AE was seen in 62% of pts. Notable G3 AEs included: anemia (35%), lymphopenia (34%), neutropenia (21.6%), thrombocytopenia (20%), infection (17%), fatigue (9%), peripheral edema (5%), pleural effusion (4%), photosensitivity (2.5%), and pruritus (2.5%). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 17% (n=21) of pts. Fifty-five pts (50 DLBCL, 5 FL) received both Lonca and CD19 directed CART (Pre-Lonca n=54; Post-Lonca n=1). There was no significant difference in PFS or OS between pts who received CART and those who did not (PFS: 2.7 mos vs 3 mos; OS: 7.4 mos vs 5 mos). BsAb was used in 41 pts (34 DLBCL, 7 FL) (Pre-Lonca n=30; Post-Lonca n=11). No significant difference in PFS or OS was observed between pts who received BsAb pre- or post-Lonca. There was also no significant difference in PFS between pts who received a BsAb (2.2 mos) and those who did not (2.9 mos), nor in OS.Conclusion: In this large RWDA of Lonca, pts who achieved any form of clinical response experienced a significantly longer OS than previously reported for heavily pre-treated pts. Lonca was predominantly administered after TCET; however, there was no significant difference in efficacy between pts who received CART and BsAbs and those who did not. CD19 positivity and earlier utilization of Lonca did not appear to have an impact on response rates. Our findings support a role for Lonca in the treatment of R/R DLBCL pts not candidates for TCET. This RWDA highlights the need to further investigate the sequencing of Lonca in R/R DLBCL and FL.

Abstract Introduction: Leukemogenesis is driven by nucleophosmin 1 mutations(NPM1-m) or lysine methyltransferase 2A rearrangements(KMT2A-r) in ~35–40% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Nearly half of AML patients will develop relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease within a year, with <20% expected response rate following venetoclax/azacitidine (Ven/Aza) and progressively poorer outcomes with each subsequent line of therapy. Ziftomenib–a potent, highly selective, oral, investigational menin inhibitor–has demonstrated clinical activity as both monotherapy and in combination for adults with R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. KOMET-007 (NCT05735184) is an ongoing, open-label, ph1a/b study of ziftomenib in combination with standard chemotherapies in adults with newly diagnosed and R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. Here we present updated safety and clinical activity in patients with R/R AML treated with the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D) of ziftomenib 600 mg in combination with Ven/Aza across ph1a/b. Methods: Adults (≥18y) with R/R NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML enrolled independently into separate arms; patients in dose escalation (ph1a) and expansion (ph1b) were treated with oral ziftomenib 600 mg once daily (QD; continuously from C1D8 onward) plus standard doses of Ven/Aza. Primary endpoints: AEs, complete remission (CR; ELN 2022), dose limiting toxicities (DLT; ph1a only). Key secondary endpoints: composite CR (CRc; CR with full, partial or incomplete hematologic recovery), overall response, duration of response. Results: As of June 25, 2025, 80 patients (51 NPM1-m, 29 KMT2A-r) with R/R AML were enrolled (20 ph1a; 60 ph1b) and treated with ziftomenib 600 mg QD + Ven/Aza. Median age was 63y (range 19–85), 50% were female, 74% had ECOG PS 0–1; 22 (28%) had FLT3 co-mutations and 7 (9%) had IDH co-mutations. Median number of prior therapies was 1 (range 1–6); 18% (14/80) had prior stem cell transplant; 25 (49%) NPM1-m and 19 (66%) KMT2A-r patients had prior Ven exposure. 71 patients (89%) had Gr ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly (≥20% of patients) febrile neutropenia (31%), decreased platelet count (28%), decreased white blood cell count (26%) and decreased neutrophil count (23%). Gr ≥3 ziftomenib-related AEs occurred in 30 patients (38%), most commonly febrile neutropenia (9%) and anemia (8%). 6% of patients discontinued ziftomenib treatment due to AEs. Differentiation syndrome (DS) occurred in 1 (1%) NPM1-m patient (Gr 3), which lasted 1d and successfully resolved with protocol-specified DS mitigation. No ziftomenib-related QTc prolongation was reported with the combination, and no DLTs were observed in ph1a. 70 patients (43 NPM1-m; 27 KMT2A-r) were response-evaluable (≥1 response assessment or death). Median follow-up was 18.0 wks for NPM1-m and 16.4 wks for KMT2A-r. Overall response rates (ORRs) were 65% (28/43) for NPM1-m and 33% (9/27) for KMT2A-r. CRc rates were 49% (21/43) for NPM1-m and 22% (6/27) for KMT2A-r after median time to first CRc of 4.9 wks (range 2.7–15.6) and 5.5 wks (range 2.6–18.9), respectively; measurable residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates (local) among tested CRc responders were 50% (9/18) for NPM1-m and 60% (3/5) for KMT2A-r after median time to first MRD-negativity of 5.9 wks (range 2.9–15.6) and 8.1 wks (range 7.7–18.9), respectively. During continuous ziftomenib administration in patients who achieved CRc, median time to neutrophil recovery (≥1×109/L) was 43d overall (43d for NPM1-m; 71d for KMT2A-r), and median time to platelet recovery (≥100×109/L) was 27d overall (27d for NPM1-m; 23d for KMT2A-r). As of the data cutoff, overall median duration of CRc was not estimable; median overall survival was not estimable for NPM1-m and 21.1 wks for KMT2A-r. In Ven-naive patients, CRc rates were 71% (15/21) for NPM1-m and 33% (3/9) for KMT2A-r; CR rates were 48% (10/21) and 11% (1/9); and ORRs were 81% (17/21) and 56% (5/9), respectively. The study is ongoing with 44% (19/43) of NPM1-m and 11% (3/27) of KMT2A-r patients still on treatment, with responses continuing to evolve.Updated data to be presented.Conclusions: In the ongoing KOMET-007 study, ziftomenib RP2D of 600 mg QD + Ven/Aza was well tolerated with robust clinical activity in patients with R/R NPM1-mor KMT2A-rAML. No ziftomenib-related QTc prolongation was reported. One case of DS (NPM1-m, Gr 3) successfully resolved with protocol-specified mitigation. These data support further investigation of ziftomenib-based combinations in R/R NPM1-mand KMT2A-rAML.

Abstract Introduction: Nucleophosmin 1 mutations (NPM1-m) drive leukemogenesis in approximately 30% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Ziftomenib is a potent, highly selective, oral, investigational menin inhibitor that has demonstrated clinical activity as both monotherapy and in combination for adults with NPM1-m or lysine methyltransferase 2A-rearranged (KMT2A-r) AML. KOMET-007 (NCT05735184) is an ongoing, open-label, dose-escalation (phase 1a) and expansion (phase 1b) study of ziftomenib in combination with standard chemotherapies in NPM1-m or KMT2A-r AML. Here we present phase 1b safety and clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who received the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ziftomenib 600 mg in combination with venetoclax and azacitidine (Ven/Aza). Methods: Adults (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy were enrolled in phase 1b and received ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus standard doses of Ven/Aza. Ziftomenib was orally administered once daily continuously from Cycle 1 Day 8 onward. Phase 1b primary endpoints were adverse events (AEs) and complete remission (CR) per ELN 2022. Secondary endpoints included composite CR (CRc; defined as CR with full, partial, or incomplete hematologic recovery), overall response, and duration of response. Local measurable residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing, RT-qPCR, and multiparameter flow cytometry. Results: As of June 25, 2025, 39 patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML were enrolled and treated with ziftomenib 600 mg once daily plus Ven/Aza in phase 1b. Median age was 75 years (range 53–93), 54% were female, 46% had ECOG PS 0–1; 12 (31%) had FLT3 co-mutations and 9 (23%) had IDH co-mutations. Median duration of follow-up was 16.3 weeks (range 1.6–41.1). Twenty-nine patients (74%) had grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs, most commonly (≥20% of patients) decreased neutrophil count (31%) and decreased platelet count (23%). Grade ≥3 ziftomenib-related AEs occurred in 14 patients (36%), most commonly decreased neutrophil count (15%) and decreased platelet count (13%). No ziftomenib treatment discontinuations occurred due to AEs. Differentiation syndrome occurred in 1 (3%) patient (grade 2), which successfully resolved with protocol-specified mitigation. One patient (3%) had investigator-assessed ziftomenib-associated QTc prolongation (grade 3); however, there were concomitant significant electrolyte abnormalities and event resolved with electrolyte repletion. At time of data cutoff, 31 NPM1-m patients were response-evaluable (≥1 response assessment or death). CRc rate was 84% (26/31) after a median time to first CRc of 3.5 weeks (range 2.4–9.4), with local MRD-negativity rates among tested CRc responders of 54% (13/24) after a median time to first MRD-negativity of 8.4 weeks (range 2.9–17.4). CR rate was 58% (18/31) and overall response rate was 94% (29/31), with responses and MRD-negativity rates continuing to evolve. During continuous ziftomenib administration in patients who achieved CRc, median time to neutrophil recovery (≥1×109/L) was 36 days, and median time to platelet recovery (≥100×109/L) was 28 days. The median duration of response and median overall survival were not reached as of the data cutoff, at a median follow-up of 16.3 weeks. The study is ongoing, with 81% (25/31) of NPM1-m patients still on-study and 77% (24/31) still on ziftomenib treatment. Updated safety and clinical activity results will be presented.Conclusions: In the ongoing KOMET-007 study, ziftomenib RP2D of 600 mg once daily combined with Ven/Aza was well tolerated and demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML, including 84% CRc after a median of 3.5 weeks and 54% CRc MRD-negativity after a median of 8.4 weeks. Low rates of ziftomenib-related cytopenia and no additional myelosuppression were observed with this combination. One case each of differentiation syndrome (grade 2) and investigator-assessed QTc (grade 3) were successfully resolved. Taken together, these data support the RP2D determination and advancement of this ziftomenib-based combination in the KOMET-017 (NCT07007312) randomized phase 3 study in patients with newly diagnosed NPM1-m AML.

Abstract Introduction: NAVD has become a standard-of-care for frontline (1L) treatment (tx) of advanced stage cHL, based on the results of the S1826 study. S1826 demonstrated a 1-year progression free survival (PFS) of 94% for NAVD compared to 86% for brentuximab vedotin-AVD, which remained durable at 2 years (Herrera et al, NEJM 2024). Adverse events (AEs) and efficacy have not been reported in patients (pts) treated with NAVD outside of a clinical trial. Hence, we sought to evaluate safety profile and efficacy outcomes of pts with cHL treated with 1L NAVD in a real-world setting (RWS). Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we included pts ≥18 years with cHL treated with 1L standard of care NAVD between 2023 and 2025 at 20 US academic sites. The safety evaluable cohort received at least 1 cycle of NAVD and included pts who have not completed tx. The efficacy evaluable cohort had completed 6 cycles of tx including end of treatment (EOT) PET-CT and included pts who intended to complete tx but died or discontinued due to progressive disease or AEs. The primary endpoint was EOT overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included EOT complete response rate (CRR), PFS and overall survival (OS). PFS and OS were calculated from the start date of tx and analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results: A total of 311 pts with cHL were treated with NAVD with 26% of pts with tx ongoing (n=83) and 73% with tx completed (n=228). Baseline demographics included 55% male pts, 60% with stage IV disease (stage IIB, n=4) and 84% with nodular sclerosis subtype. Median age was 37 years (range 18-88), 29% had bulky disease (>7.5 cm), 28% were EBV positive (n=74/268), 8% had history of an autoimmune disease, and 31% had an IPS 4-7. G-CSF was given in 64% of pts. All patients were safety evaluable. Tx was interrupted (any length) in 24%, reduced in 12%, and discontinued in 14%. The most common reason for dose reduction was neuropathy in 4%. Nivolumab was discontinued in 10% and all therapy in 3.7% due to toxicity. Any AE and any grade 3 or higher AE (>G3) were observed in 92% and 62%, respectively. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 68% (48% >G3), infection in 25% (10% >G3), and neuropathy in 30% (2.8% >G3). Hospitalization for an AE occurred in 20% (4.5% febrile neutropenia). Among pts with complete data (n=305), any immune related AE (irAE) occurred in 78 pts (25.6%) with any >G3 irAE in 23 pts (7.5%). The most common irAEs included hypothyroidism (7.9%, all grade 1-2), hepatotoxicity (1.6% G1/G2, 3.3% >G3), inflammatory arthritis (3% G1/G2, 0.6% >G3), rash (2.6%, all grade 1-2), and colitis (1% G1/G2, 1% >G3). Other notable >G3 irAEs included adrenal insufficiency (n=2), AKI/ATN (n=1), myocarditis (n=1), diabetes (n=1) and pancreatitis (n=1). Of 84 irAE events, 47 (56%) have had complete resolution. Among all pts, 14.4% (n=45) required systemic steroids at any time (intravenous in 4.1%), 3.2% (n=10) require ongoing steroids/immunosuppression and 8.3% other therapy for an irAE (n=23 levothyroxine, n=1 hemodialysis, n=1 heart failure tx, n=1 insulin). Among all pts, 265 (85%) had an interim PET-CT after 2-4 cycles. The ORR and CRR at interim PET-CT were 97% and 78%, respectively. In the efficacy evaluable population (n=228), the EOT ORR and CRR were 96% and 90%. The median follow up was 10.2 mo (range 0.27-28.52). The 1-year PFS and OS estimates were 93.8% (95% CI: 90.8-98.4%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 97.9-100%), respectively. In multivariable analysis (MVA), only IPS score (OR 0.6, 95%CI: 0.59-0.60) was associated with lower CRR. In Cox univariable analysis, EBV+ status (HR=14.8, 95% CI: 3.2-69.2), IPS score (HR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.2), and ESR (HR=1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.04) were associated with worse PFS. Among the 11 pts with progression/relapse, 9 were primary refractory. 10 pts were started on second line (2L) therapy, and all pts are alive (1 pt pending 2L tx initiation). There were 2 deaths: one related to infectious complications and other unknown and both occurred after the first cycle of therapy. Conclusions: Pts treated with NAVD in a large RWS showed comparable response rates and 1-year survival outcomes to those in the pivotal S1826 trial. Most AEs were similar and grade 1-2, but close monitoring of irAEs is necessary given the potential long-term toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors and potential for ≥G3 irAEs (7.5%) in this young patient population. Our data supports the use of NAVD for 1L advanced stage cHL.

Abstract Introduction: Epcoritamab (epco) and glofitamab (glofit) are bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) approved for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs). Their use is associated with relatively high response rates, with some patients experiencing prolonged remission. It is unclear whether continuous treatment beyond 12 months for pts in remission is beneficial, as continued immunosuppression may result in additional toxicity. We sought to report the outcomes of pts with prolonged remission and survival following BsAb administration. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective study including 21 US centers evaluating pts with r/r LBCLs receiving commercially available epco or glofit between 2023 and 2025. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Efficacy and survival outcomes were assessed by site investigators and included overall response rate (ORR), complete and partial response (CR, PR) rates. Pts who responded to BsAbs and had ≥365 days of follow-up from initiation of BsAb treatment were included in the analysis. Results: As of May 15, 2025, a total of 312 pts with r/r LBCLs were treated with BsAbs (epco n=193, glofit n=119) with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range [IQR] 59-73) at BsAb start. Most were male (64.5%), had advanced stage disease (77.4%) and had ECOG performance status of ≤1 (93.3%) at BsAb start. Of 207 pts who had initiated treatment with BsAb ≥12 months prior to data cutoff, we identified 31 pts (15.0%) who had a response to BsAbs (19 epco, 12 glofit) and were alive without progression at 12-months post-BsAb initiation and included them in this landmark analysis. Of the cohort of 19 pts treated with epco, 6 discontinued due to reasons other than disease progression including CAR-T cell therapy (n=2), secondary malignancy (n=2), allogeneic transplant (n=1), or other reasons (n=1). Thirteen of 19 pts received ≥12 months of epco treatment, and, with a median follow-up of 16 months from the start of BsAb, 12 of 13 pts continued receiving epco beyond 12 months with one pt discontinuing after 12 months (observed for an additional 41 days prior to censoring). Of the cohort of 12 pts treated with glofit, 8 pts were observed after completing all planned therapy and 4 patients underwent allogeneic transplant. Among all 31 BsAb-treated patients alive and in remission at 12 months, at the time of data cutoff, 5 pts (12.9%) had progressed (2 previously treated with epco and 3 with glofit). Three of the 4 pts who underwent allogeneic transplant after prior glofit treatment experienced disease relapse. A total of 24 pts (77.4%) were alive at the time of last follow-up, with the causes of death being disease progression (n=1), secondary malignancy (n=1), infection (n=1), and unknown cause (n=4). Conclusions: In this large cohort of r/r LBCL pts treated with BsAbs monotherapy in the standard of care setting, a relatively small proportion of pts (15%) achieve the 12 month PFS landmark. In the absence of robust evidence for what constitutes best practice, different strategies are employed, including continuation of BsAb, observation as well as consolidation with allogeneic transplant or CAR T-cell therapy. Additional follow-up will be reported to help guide clinical decision making regarding the optimal management strategy for this high risk pt population.