Citations

Abstract E1910 evaluated the addition of blinatumomab to chemotherapy in adults with B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The addition of blinatumomab in patients (pts) with measurable residual disease (MRD) negative (neg) B-ALL significantly improved both relapse-free and overall survival (NEJM 2024; 391: 320-33)1. Given the increasing use of blinatumomab and the E1910 backbone chemotherapy regimen, we evaluated > Grade 3 toxicities on this trial in further detail. We assessed toxicity among the MRD-neg pts by age, gender, body mass index (BMI), combined cytogenetic-molecular risk, and number of cycles of blinatumomab received. We also evaluated toxicities during induction since this trial used a modified chemotherapy backbone. Methods: The eligibility, combined cytogenetic-molecular risk, and treatment have been previously described.1 All toxicities were > Grade 3 by CTCAE version 4 with at least a possible relationship to treatment. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the occurrence and rates of toxicities and Fisher's exact test was used to compare differences in proportions between groups. Analysis of induction included all pts who started treatment. Analysis of Step 3 toxicities included MRD-neg pts who started treatment on the blinatumomab (n=111) or chemotherapy only arm (n=112). Results: Pt characteristics: For induction (n=488), median age was 51 years (yrs) (range 30-70); 48.6% female. Combined cytogenetic-molecular risk: favorable (13.5%); intermediate (12.9%); no risk assigned (16.2%); unfavorable (57.4%). For induction, we compared toxicities for E1910 (n=488) to pts treated on a prior young adult study (n=289) (C10403) (Blood Adv 2021; 5(2): 504-12). The incidence of hyperglycemia (8% vs. 31.1%, p< 0.001), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) increase (6.1% vs. 12.8%, p=0.002), alanine aminotransferase increase (ALT) (11.7% vs. 28.7%, p< 0.001), and hyperbilirubinemia (11% vs. 19%, p=0.002) were significantly lower in E1910 pts. The incidence of pancreatitis (1.8%), thromboembolic events (4.5%), and febrile neutropenia (25.4%) in E1910 was similar to C10403. Toxicities in the MRD-neg pts in the blinatumomab arm (n=111): Despite a high incidence of neutropenia (74.8%) and thrombocytopenia (55.9%) in Step 3, there was a relatively low incidence of sepsis (7.2%), bacteremia (1.8%), cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (3.6%) and neurologic adverse events (0-6.3%). There was a higher incidence of neurological or psychiatric events in the blinatumomab arm (23%) versus chemotherapy arm (5%) (p < 0.001) when all events were combined. There was a numerically higher incidence of ataxia (4.4% vs. %, p=0.16) and dysphasia (11.1% vs. 3%, p=0.12) in pts > 55 yrs and a higher incidence of neutropenia (80.3% vs. 66.7%, p=0.12) and thrombocytopenia (62.1% vs. 46.7%, p=0.12) in the younger pts (age < 55 yrs). In pts with a BMI < 30 kg/m2 (vs. > 30 kg/m2), there was a significantly higher incidence of leukopenia (51.7% vs. 26.4%, p=0.007) and thrombocytopenia (65.5% vs. 45.3%, p=0.037). However, this did not translate into an increased incidence of bleeding or infectious complications. By gender, females had a higher numerical incidence of AST increase (8.8% vs. 0%, p=0.057) and CRS (7% vs. 0% p=0.12); whereas males had a higher incidence of catheter- related infections (7.4% vs. 0%, p=0.05) and hyperglycemia (11.1% vs. 3.5%, p=0.16). A little more than half (56.8%) of pts received 4 cycles of blinatumomab with the remainder of pts receiving 1 (10.8%), 2 (28.8%), or 3 cycles (3.6%). Pts receiving 3-4 cycles of blinatumomab vs. 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab had a statistically higher incidence of anemia (38.8% vs. 6.8%, p< 0.001), neutropenia (98.5% vs. 38.6%, p< 0.001), and thrombocytopenia (83.6% vs. 13.6%, p< 0.001), likely related to being on treatment for a longer period of time. Conclusions: Blinatumomab was well tolerated with no significant toxicity differences noted by age, gender, or number of cycles of blinatumomab received. Pts with a lower BMI did have an increased incidence of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia, possibly related to flat dosing of the drug. However, this did not translate into increased complications. Toxicites during induction were notably few, which suggests that this backbone with age adjustments may serve as a good backbone for future trials. Blinatumomab is being evaluated with low dose chemotherapy and other targeted agents in ongoing trials.

Abstract Introduction The International Prognostic Index (IPI) is widely used to stratify risk in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) across all ages, with age-adjusted (aa)IPI applied to younger patients. While there have been efforts to develop prognostic indices (PIs) tailored to older patients, few are adopted in clinical practice due to their complexity and reliance on functional assessments, which are not routinely collected in real-world registry datasets. Recently proposed SENIOR-IPI (Dubois, ASH 2024) was developed for older patients with LBCL receiving anthracycline (A)-based therapy. We assessed the performance of standard and novel PIs in patients aged 80+ years and externally validated the SENIOR-IPI. Methods We harmonized and pooled data of patients aged 80+ years with newly diagnosed LBCL from a national registry and two prospective cohorts: NiHiL (Czech Republic, enrolled 2010–2023), LEO (USA; n=222, 2015–2020), and MER (USA; n=77, 2010–2015), forming a cohort of 819 individuals. We included 536 individuals with complete data on IPI components and albumin, including 485 treated with chemotherapy and 397 with A-based regimens (primary cohort). Following PIs were evaluated: IPI, NCCN-IPI, (aa)IPI, and SENIOR-IPI (age per year, aaIPI components, LDH >3x ULN as extra point, and albumin, all weighted six-fold; extranodal involvement excluded due to lack of prognostic significance). Multivariable hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models; discriminative ability was assessed using C-index and calibration plots. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); event-free survival results were consistent (230/357 events were deaths) and are not reported here. Results Among the 397 A-treated patients (median age 82 years, range 80–99), ECOG performance status (PS) 2–4 was observed in 35% of patients, clinical stage III–IV in 67%, elevated LDH in 65% (8% with >3x ULN), >1 extranodal (EN) site in 32%, and albumin levels < 3.5 g/dL in 27%. In multivariable modeling, only age per year (HR=1.07, P<0.01), and clinical stage (HR=1.36, P=0.048) were independent predictors of OS, whereas ECOG PS (HR=1.27, P=0.12), trichotomized LDH by ULN (HR=1.23, P=0.08) and albumin (HR=1.17, P=0.35) were not significant. SENIOR-IPI had the highest discrimination (C-index 0.631) in A-treated patients, outperforming IPI (0.617), NCCN-IPI (0.591), and aaIPI (0.620), with consistent results across cohorts: NiHiL (0.633), LEO (0.619), and MER (0.621). SENIOR-IPI stratified patients into low- (L-Risk, 0–9 points, 28%), low-intermediate (L-Int, 10–19 points, 42%), high-intermediate (H-Int, 20–29 points, 23%), and high-risk (H-Risk, 30–40 points, 7%) categories, with OS medians of 6.3, 3.8, 2.4, and 1.4 years, respectively (P<0.01), and significant separation between L-Int and H-Int (HR=1.47, P=0.02). By comparison, IPI categorized patients as L-Risk (12%), L-Int (24%), H-Int (27%), and H-Risk (37%), with median OS of 8.7, 4.6, 4.8, and 1.9 years, resp. (P<0.01). aaIPI yielded following distributions: 13%, 29%, 37%, and 21%; and median OS: 8.7, 5.3, 3.4, and 1.5 years; P<0.01. NCCN-IPI stratified patients into three groups: L-Int (13%), H-Int (49%), and H-Risk (39%), with respective OS medians of 8.7, 4.1, and 2.5 years (P<0.01). All PIs showed modest overestimation of mortality (calibration slopes: SENIOR-IPI 1.36; IPI 1.24; aaIPI 1.30; NCCN-IPI 1.26; intercept: -0.97, -0.87, -0.92, -0.87, resp.). In the entire cohort (n=536), SENIOR-IPI showed highest C-index (0.651 vs IPI 0.622, aaIPI 0.631, NCCN-IPI 0.606), and stratified patients into L-Risk (26%, 2-year OS: 6.4 years), L-Int (40%, 3.2 years), H-Int (24%, 1.5 years), and H-Risk (10%, 0.6 years). Calibration slope was 1.18 (intercept -0.33). Among patients not receiving chemotherapy, SENIOR-IPI also performed best (C-index 0.759 vs IPI 0.738, aaIPI 0.757, NCCN-IPI 0.728). Conclusion SENIOR-IPI enables effective risk stratification of patients aged 80+ years with LBCL into four prognostically distinct groups, outperforming traditional indices (IPI, NCCN-IPI, aaIPI) in patients receiving A-based therapy, as well as in the entire cohort and in patients not receiving chemotherapy. While its discrimination is superior, modest miscalibration suggests that future recalibration may improve precision. These findings support SENIOR-IPI as a clinically relevant prognostic tool for the elderly LBCL patient population. Funding: NU21-03-00411, P50 CA97274, U01 CA195568.

Abstract Introduction: THRLBCL is a rare disease accounting for less than 10% of all diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) subtypes. THRLBCL was associated with poor outcomes in the pre-rituximab era, with limited contemporaneous data. Optimal frontline treatment remains unclear with some studies advocating for intensive regimens. The goal of this international study is to analyze the survival and treatment-related outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed THRLBCL treated with rituximab-containing chemotherapy and to compare with a DLBCL, not otherwise specified (NOS) cohort. Methods: THRLBCL and DLBCL patients prospectively enrolled in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) (NCT02736357) (7/2015 to 5/2020), Molecular Epidemiology Resource (1/2010 to 6/2015), and Czech Lymphoma Study Group project (NiHiL) (NCT03199066) (2/2010 to 11/2023) were analyzed. Diagnosis was made in dedicated hematopathology centers in both registries. We excluded patients with prior nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma, central nervous system involvement, and not treated with rituximab-containing therapy. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier.Univariate associations were derived via Cox model and multivariate models were constructed by forward selection of significant variables with P≤0.05. Propensity score matching (1:5, caliper 0.2) between THRLBCL and DLBCL NOS patients was performed using IPI score components and treatment as covariates. Results: We identified 158 patients (LEO: 67 and NiHiL: 91) with THRLBCL. Among them, 140 patients received rituximab-containing regimens and were included in this analysis. Median age was 58 years (range, 19-89) with 57% aged ≤60 years. Most patients were male (n= 88; 63%) and had ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-1 (n= 111; 79%), stage III-IV (n= 111; 79%), elevated LDH (n= 92; 66%), and B symptoms (n= 84; 60%). Fifty (36%) patients had ≥2 extranodal (EN) sites, mostly liver (n= 39; 28%) and lung (n= 16; 11%), bone marrow (BM) involvement was observed in 26% (n= 37). Bulky disease (≥7.5cm) was present in 50 (36%) and IPI score ≥3 in 68 (48%) patients. The median diagnosis-to-treatment interval was 23 days (IQ range, 13-38.5). Frequent regimens were R-CHOP (n= 106; 75.7%), followed by intensive regimens such as R-MegaCHOP/ESHAP, R-HyperCVAD/MA, and R-CODOX-M/IVAC (n= 15; 10.7%), and R-CHOEP/EPOCH-R (n= 10; 7.14%). With a median follow-up of 3.92 years, the 4-year EFS & OS were 71% and 80%, respectively. Lymphoma was the main cause of death (n= 15; 11%) among 30 events. No difference in 4-year EFS (70% vs. 76%; P= 0.55) & OS (80% vs 82%; P= 0.96) were observed between R-CHOP and intensive regimens. Factors associated with shorter EFS and OS in univariate analysis for THRLBCL were ECOG PS 2-4: (HR= 3.3; P<.001 & HR= 5.97, P<.001, respectively); ≥2 EN sites (HR= 1.85, P= 0.043 & HR= 2.54, P= 0.014, respectively); B symptoms (HR= 2.35, P= 0.014 & HR= 2.84, P= 0.023) and IPI score (HR= 1.5, P= 0.002 & HR= 2.16, P<.001). Stage III-IV and BM involvement were associated with shorter OS only (HR= 7.36, P= 0.05 & HR= 2.18, P= 0.036, respectively). Among them, only ECOG PS 2-4 (OS: HR= 3.6, P= 0.003) and B symptoms (EFS: HR= 2.3, P= 0.046) were independent predictors of survival in multivariate analysis. Finally, we compared baseline characteristics and survival between THRLBCL (n= 140) and DLBCL NOS (n= 6099; LEO/MER: 2069 & NiHiL: 4030) treated with rituximab-containing regimens. Patients with THRLBCL were younger (≤60 years: 57% vs. 38%; P<.001), more frequently had ECOG PS 0-1 (79% vs 76%; P= 0.012), stage III-IV (79% vs 63%; P<.001), B symptoms (60% vs 38%; P<.001), and liver involvement (28% vs 7%; P<.001), compared to DLBCL NOS. Subtype was not associated with survival (OS HR= 0.79, P= 0.262 & EFS HR= 0.93, P= 0.662) when adjusted for IPI score. With a median follow-up of 4.89 years in the DLBCL NOS cohort, we observed similar 4-year EFS (71% vs 67%; P= 0.197) & OS between histologies (80% vs 77%; P= 0.125). These results were confirmed in propensity matching for EFS (HR= 0.98, P= 0.897) and OS (HR= 1.07, P= 0.732). Conclusions: In this large international analysis of patients with newly diagnosed THRLBCL contemporaneously treated, we observed similar survival rates compared to DLBCL NOS treated with R-CHOP and intensive regimens. ECOG PS and the presence of B symptoms were independent factors associated with survival.

Abstract Introduction: Despite advent of multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and newer treatment methods for AML and ALL, the outcomes of patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in blast phase (CML-BP) remain poor. Consensus guidelines on treatment of CML-BP are scarce. A recent study from the European leukemia network blast phase registry on 240 pts reported marked heterogeneity in treatment patterns and lack of an accepted standard. Hence, we undertook this study through the H Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium (HJKC3) to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of pts with CML-BP in the US. Methods: This is a multi-institution, retrospective study. IRB approval was obtained at each institution and data sharing agreements were executed. All pts diagnosed with CML-BP based on modified MD Anderson Criteria (≥30% blasts in the blood or bone marrow or extramedullary (EM) disease) from 2010 to 2025 were included. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of diagnosis of CML BP to death from any cause. Event free survival (EFS) was calculated from date of best response to event (death or relapse). Results: Of the 283 pts with CML-BP, 96 (33.9%) were female and 187 (66.1%) were males. At the time of diagnosis, 183 (64.6%) had CML-CP, 21 (7.4%) pts had CML-AP and 79 (27.9%) pts had de-novo CML-BP. For the 204 pts that were initially diagnosed with CML-CP or CML-AP, the median time to progression to CML-BP was 22.5 months (1-207 months). Median age at diagnosis of CML-BP was 50 years (range 16-86 years). EM disease was present in 78 (27.6%) pts (38 myeloid sarcoma, 30 central nervous system and 10 skin). Blasts were of myeloid phenotype in 168 (59.4%), lymphoid in 103 (36.4%) and mixed in 9 (3.2%) pts. The bcr-abl protein was p210 in 229 (80.9%), p190 in 8 (2.8%) and p230 in 2 (0.7%) pts. ABL kinase domain mutation was seen in 42.1% (80/190) pts, with T315I being the most common (n=32), followed by E255K (n=16). Next generation sequencing was performed in 117 pts. The most common mutations were ASXL1 (n=27), RUNX1 (n=14), BCOR (n=4), DNMT3A (n=4) and BCORL1 (n=3). Of the 283 pts, 269 underwent CML-BP directed therapy. 63 (23.4%) pts were treated with TKI monotherapy, 184 (68.4%) pts were treated with a combination of chemotherapy (chemo) and TKI and 22 (8.2%) pts were treated with chemo alone. Response rate after CML-BP directed therapy was 75.3% (n=213). Best response was return to CML-CP in 49 pts, CHR with PCyR in 18 pts, CCyR in 31 pts, MMR in 31 pts, MR4 in 18 pts, MR4.5 in 19 pts and MR5 in 47 pts. Rate of response with 2G and ponatinib was significantly better than imatinib (85.3% and 77.3% vs 63.6%; p=0.04). 149 (55.4%) pts proceeded to alloSCT. Of the 213 pts that responded, 59 (27.7%) relapsed. At a median follow-up of 47 months, the median OS for all pts was 19.7 months (95% CI: 16.3-40.2 months), with 5-year OS rate of 38% (95% CI: 32-45%). Pts with myeloid phenotype had a significantly lower OS compared to lymphoid and mixed phenotype (Median OS 14.9 vs 45.9 and 31.1 months respectively; p=0.02). OS of pts that were treated with a combination of TKI and chemo was significantly longer compared to pts treated with TKI or chemo alone (52.9 vs 16.1 or 7.5 months; p<0.0001). Dasatinib (n=99; 34.9%) and ponatinib (n=97; 34.3%) were the most used TKIs followed by imatinib (n=23; 8.1%), nilotinib (n=21; 7.4%), bosutinib (n=8; 2.8%) and asciminib (n=3; 1.1%). Pts treated with ponatinib had a numerically longer OS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib, however this was not statistically significant (40.1 vs 30.6 and 20.3 months; p=0.52). EFS for pts treated with ponatinib was significantly longer compared to 2G-TKI or imatinib (25.9 vs 17.6 and 15.9 months; p=0.03). In a landmark analysis, pts that underwent alloSCT within 6 months of diagnosis had a significantly longer OS compared to those who did not (69.3 vs 16.0 months; p=0.006). Conclusion: CML-BP continues to have poor prognosis. Treatment is heterogenous involving various combinations of TKI and chemo. In our analysis, treatment with 2G-TKI or ponatinib led to better responses. CML-BP with myeloid phenotype had worse OS. Treatment with ponatinib was associated with a numerically longer OS and significantly longer EFS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib. In addition, treatment with chemo in combination with TKI and alloSCT led to improved OS.

Abstract Introduction: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations are observed in ~20% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In the U.S., ivosidenib (ivo) is approved with or without azacitidine (aza) in the frontline (FL) and as monotherapy in relapsed/refractory (R/R) IDH1-mutated (mut) AML. Olutasidenib (oluta) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH1-mut AML. Enasidenib (ena) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH2-mut AML. This study describes real-world IDH inhibitor (IDHi) administration patterns and evaluates their outcomes in on-label settings. Methods: A retrospective review of patients with IDH1/2-mut AML who received ivosidenib, olutasidenib, or enasidenib was conducted at 12 academic institutions in the U.S. Best response at any time during treatment, including complete response (CR) and complete response with partial hematologic recovery (CRh), were graded using European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2022 criteria. Results: A total of 387 patients with IDH1- and IDH2-mut AML were treated with an IDHi in the FL or R/R setting. Median follow-up was 9.6 months (range, 0.03-90.7). Demographics include 79% White, 14% Black, 3% Asian, and 4% other/unknown race; 5% were Hispanic ethnicity; 46% were female; the median age was 70 years (range, 28-95). 70% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, 26% had secondary AML, and 10% had therapy-related AML. Per the ELN 2024 less-Intensive risk classification, 58% were favorable risk, 29% intermediate, 7% adverse, and 6% unknown. Overall, 209 of 387 patients (54%) received IDHi regimens on-label. In FL IDH1-mut AML (n=45), 11 received ivo monotherapy, 25 aza/ivo, and 9 used off-label combinations: 3 hypomethylating agent (HMA) + venetoclax (ven) + ivo, 5 decitabine/ivo, 1 intensive chemotherapy (IC)/ivo. Among R/R IDH1-mut AML (n=109), 47 received ivo monotherapy, 7 oluta monotherapy, and 55 off-label (31 HMA/ivo, 16 HMA/ven/ivo, 3 IC/ivo, and 5 other). 44 received off-label ena for FL treatment of IDH2-mut AML (25 ena monotherapy, 9 HMA/ena, 8 HMA/ven/ena, and 2 IC/ena). In R/R IDH2-mut AML (n=189), 119 patients received ena monotherapy and 70 received off-label combinations (25 HMA/ena, 30 HMA/ven/ena, 7 IC/ena, 6 ena/gilteritinib, and 2 other). In on-label treatment of FL IDH1-mut AML, one of four patients with response assessment of FL ivo monotherapy had a CR/CRh. Of 19 patients with response assessment on FL aza/ivo, 13 patients (68.4%) had a CR as best response (95% CI, 46.0-84.6%). Median OS was 14.9 mo (95% CI, 4.17-NR) for ivo monotherapy (n=11) and 31.9 mo (95% CI, 9.1-NR) for aza/ivo (n=25), with 0 and 2 patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT), respectively. In R/R IDH1-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh was 35.5% (95% CI, 21.1-53.1) for on-label ivo monotherapy. All 4 patients with response assessment for on-label oluta monotherapy had a CR. Median OS was 14.0 mo (95% CI, 10.1-22.4) for ivo monotherapy and NR for oluta monotherapy (95% CI, 10.1-NR), with 10 and 0 receiving allo-SCT, respectively. The CR/CRh rate for ivo was 38.1% (8 of 21 assessed; 95% CI, 20.8-59.1) in age < 70, and 30.0% (3 of 10 assessed; 95% CI, 10.8-60.3) in age ≥ 70. Median OS was 15.2 mo (95% CI 9.3-NR) in age < 70 (n=27) and 10.4 mo (95% CI 8.0-18) in age ≥ 70 (n=20). In R/R IDH2-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh for on-label ena monotherapy was 38.2% (95% CI, 27.6-50.1). Median OS was 12.1 mo (95% CI, 8.2-16.6), with 5 having received allo-SCT. In demographic subgroups for ena monotherapy, 52 non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with response assessment had a CR/CRh rate of 42.3% (95% CI, 0.30-0.56). Only 1 of 13 non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients with response assessment had a CRh (7.7%; 95% CI, 1.4-33.0) as best response, with none attaining CR. Median OS was 13.7 mo (95% CI 10.3-26.3) in NHW (n=82), 11.2 mo (95% CI, 6.1-NR) in NHB (n=18), and 69.1 mo (95% CI, 52.6-NR) in Hispanic patients (n=8). The CR/CRh rate was 48.6% (17 of 35 assessed; 95% CI, 33.0-64.4) for age < 70, and 27.3% (9 of 33 assessed; 95% CI, 15.1-44.2) for age ≥ 70. Median OS was 12.0 mo (95% CI, 9.9-22.1) in age < 70 (n=48) and 5.8 mo (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in age ≥ 70 (n=69). Conclusion: Practice patterns for IDH inhibitors in AML vary considerably, with high amounts of off-label use. Response rates for ivosidenib and enasidenib in the real-world setting are comparable to those of clinical trials. Descriptive analyses of demographic subgroups highlight areas in need of further research.

Abstract Introduction:A comprehensive integration of significantly mutated genes and pathways with molecular subgroups is lacking in adult B-ALL. Furthermore, the genomic drivers underlying each subgroup remain to be identified.We aimed to perform genomic analysis on a large cohort of patients with adult B-ALL, and to correlate genomic markers with achievement of MRD negativity enabling blinatumomab randomization, and with subsequent response to blinatumomab. Methods:For genomic analysis, we studied 569 adults with newly diagnosed B-ALL registered for initial screening on the ECOG-ACRIN-led E1910 trial (NCT02003222), which evaluated the addition of blinatumomab to standard consolidation chemotherapy. The median age was 52 yrs (range 30 to 71 yrs), with 52% males. Analysis was performed on tumor and matched-normal samples using whole transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq; tumor only; n=569), whole exome sequencing (n=490), whole genome sequencing (n=131), and single nucleotide polymorphism array (n=445). B-ALL cases were classified into 22 molecular groups. Outcome analysis was limited to patients enrolled and treated on E1910 (n=319). Results: Driver genes (n=268) were identified by the mutation-significance detection tool dNdScv or by the presence of pathogenic variants in known cancer genes, with NUP188 identified as a novel driver gene. Recurrently mutated pathways included: B-cell development (46%), cell cycle (44%), epigenetic regulation (30%), other transcriptional regulation (27%), Ras signaling (25%), RNA machinery (17%) and JAK-STAT signaling (8%). A high frequency of high-risk subtypes was observed including BCR::ABL1 (20%), BCR::ABL1-like (18%), low hypodiploid (14%) and KMT2A (12%). Using tSNE analysis, we identified a new cluster of cases (n=20, 3.5%) lacking a known subgroup driver, with overexpression of CEBPA (n=13) or CEBPB (n=7), distinct from CEBPE/ZEB2, termed “CEBP-altered” ALL (CEBPalt). Five of 13 cases with high CEBPA expression harbored an IGH::CEBPA rearrangement and one harbored a RXRA::CEBPA enhancer hijacking alteration. Of the 7 cases with high CEBPB expression, 5 harbored IGH::CEBPB, and two of these had concomitant clonal BCR::ABL1 fusions. To identify additional mechanisms of CEBP deregulation, in situ Hi-C coupled to H3K27 acetylation immunoprecipitation (HiChIP) was performed on 5 cases. Four cases showed evidence of de novo CEBPA enhancer activity. In two cases, we identified novel insertions (12 and 34nt) ~2kb downstream of CEBPA. A novel translocation and enhancer hijacking event between LINC00426 and the 5' UTR of CEBPB was identified in the remaining case. Overall, we confirmed genomic alterations of CEBPA or CEBPB in 16 of 20 cases with available material. Thus, we have identified a new molecular subgroup of adult B-ALL characterized by genomic alterations that drive enhancer hijacking and oncogenic deregulation of CEBPA/CEBPB. Several subgroups were enriched in patients that failed induction chemotherapy (n=62) or were MRD-positive (n=63) compared to those that achieved MRD-negative status (n=194): BCR::ABL1-like (30 vs 14%, p<0.001), KMT2A (18 vs 9%, p=0.03) and BCL2/MYC (5 vs 1%, p=0.06). Conversely, the following subgroups were enriched in patients that achieved MRD-negativity: PAX5alt (6 vs 18%, p=0.002), TCF3::PBX1 (0 vs 5%, p=0.01) and ZNF384 (2 vs 6%, p=0.08) Within each molecular subgroup we compared the survival of patients who achieved MRD-negative status after induction and were randomized to receive blinatumomab plus chemotherapy (n=93) or chemotherapy only (n=91). Although numbers were low, blinatumomab improved relapse-free survival for patients with hyperdiploid, PAX5alt, BCR::ABL1-like and KMT2A ALL compared to chemotherapy alone. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP)-related gene mutations were identified in 121 of 417 cases analyzed (29% total: somatic 74%, remission 31%, both 5%). TP53 mutations were most frequent (n=65 patients), with the majority identified in patients with low hypodiploid (n=52). Interestingly, patients with CRLF2 rearrangements collectively harbored the highest number of other CHIP gene mutations (n=13), including DNMT3A (n=4), TET2 (n=3) and ASXL1 (n=3). Conclusions:We provide a comprehensive landscape of genomic alterations in adult B-ALL and identify a new group characterized by deregulation of CEBPA/CEBPB (CEBPalt). We also provide insights into the efficacy of blinatumomab in different molecular subgroups of adult B-ALL.

Abstract Introduction : Current standard of care for smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic precursor of multiple myeloma (MM), is observation until progression to active MM. Increasing evidence suggests that patients (pts) with SMM at high risk for progression to active MM may benefit from early treatment (tx). In AQUILA, a phase 3 study in pts with high-risk SMM (NCT03301220), daratumumab (Dara) monotherapy significantly reduced risk of progression to active MM or death with a trend of extending overall survival (OS) vs active monitoring (ActMon), with no new safety concerns. Given the evolution in SMM risk stratification, a post hoc analysis was performed to assess outcomes using the IMWG 2020 and IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk models to assess which AQUILA pts benefited most from Dara monotherapy. Safety and efficacy analysis by age and stem cell collection outcomes were also assessed. Methods: Eligible pts with a confirmed diagnosis (≤5 y) of high-risk SMM per IMWG 2014 criteria, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPC) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (IgA SMM, serum protein ≥30 g/dL, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain [I/U FLC] ratio ≥8 and <100, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, and/or clonal BMPC >50% to <60%) at study entry, were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous Dara or ActMon for 39 cycles, 36 months, or until confirmed disease progression (PD), whichever came first. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent review committee, defined as progression to active MM (based on IMWG SLiM-CRAB diagnostic criteria) or death. Secondary endpoints included time to first-line (1L) MM tx and OS. For this post hoc analysis, we assessed outcomes by age, IMWG 2020 high-risk SMM criteria (BMPC >20%, monoclonal spike >2 g/dL, serum FLC ratio >20; ≥2 factors=high risk; also known as the Mayo 2018 or the 20-2-20 criteria), and the IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic criteria (IMWG 2020 criteria + presence of ≥1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities [t(4;14), t(14;16), +1q and/or del13q]; ≥3 factors=high risk). Results : Dara tx showed a PFS benefit across all IMWG 2020 risk subgroups (low: hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; intermediate: HR, 0.70), with the largest benefit in the high-risk subgroup, where the PD/death rate in the ActMon arm was ~1.6-fold that in the Dara arm (62.8% vs 37.5%; HR, 0.36). This benefit of Dara vs ActMon was preserved over time, with 5-year PFS rates of 78.2% vs 71.6%, 56.2% vs 42.9%, and 60.4% vs 23.6% in IMWG 2020 low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. There was a positive trend favoring Dara for time to 1L MM treatment across all IMWG 2020 risk groups (low-risk HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.22–1.80; intermediate-risk HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35–0.92; high-risk HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25–0.62). IMWG 2020 plus cytogenetic risk classification results will be available at the time of presentation. When comparing the younger (<65y HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32–0.79) vs the older (≥65y, HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32–0.77) pt population, a PFS benefit was observed regardless of age. Similarity was also observed in TEAE incidence rate when looking into <65, 65 to <75, and ≥75 y subgroups (82.7%, 81.1%, and 87.5% with ActMon; 96.2%, 98.5%, and 95.2% with Dara); however, serious TEAEs were more frequently observed in older ActMon pts (12.2%, 18.9%, and 50.0% with ActMon; 24.8%, 35.8%, and 28.6% with Dara). Across all pts treated/monitored in AQUILA, 23 (11.9%) and 41 (20.9%) pts in the Dara and ActMon arms, respectively, received autologous stem cell transplant as part of their first tx after progressing to active MM, with very limited plerixafor use (Dara, 3 [1.6%] vs ActMon, 9 [4.6%]). Median (range) CD34+ cell yield was 5.0 (2–20)×106 cells/kg body weight among 22 pts in the Dara arm and 5.1 (2–21)×106 cells/kg body weight among 39 pts in the ActMon arm. Conclusions : In this analysis, pts with high-risk SMM from the phase 3 AQUILA study treated with Dara monotherapy experienced long-term PFS benefit across IMWG 2020 subgroups, with the most pronounced benefit in the high-risk subgroup. No notable differences in PFS or safety were observed across age subgroups. Early Dara tx for high-risk SMM did not have a detrimental impact on stem cell yield. Although mature OS analyses are forthcoming, overall, these results further support early intervention with Dara monotherapy vs ActMon among pts with high-risk SMM, regardless of risk stratification criteria used.

Abstract Background: The addition of the CD19/CD3 bispecific T-cell engager, blinatumomab, to standard consolidation chemotherapy in adults with ALL who achieved a measurable residual disease negative (MRDneg) remission (CR), demonstrated an improvement in 3-year overall survival (OS, 85% vs 68%, HR 0.41, P=0.002) and 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS, 80% vs 64%, HR 0.53) compared to conventional chemotherapy in the ECOG-ACRIN E1910 study (Litzow et al, NEJM 2024). Given the complex therapy in this study, treatment delays and modifications are expected. We herein explored the impact of such delays on patient outcomes. Methods: In the phase 3 ECOG-ACRIN E1910 trial (NCT02003222), adults aged 30-70 years with newly diagnosedALL who had achieved MRDneg CR following induction and intensification were randomized to consolidation chemotherapy with blinatumomab (blina arm) or chemotherapy alone (chemo arm). We examined the association between the timing of the initiation of maintenance therapy and OS and RFS. The expected duration of consolidation was 252 days vs 126 days for patients on the blina and chemo arms, respectively. For this analysis, participants were classified into two groups (no/short delay or long delay) depending on whether they started on time/before or after the median time between the beginning of consolidation and start of maintenance therapy for their treatment group (medians: 335 days, range, 181-457 days vs 176 days, range, 139-265 days for blina and chemo arms, respectively). Multivariate analyses of OS and RFS were performed to examine the effect of no/short delay vs. long delay in starting maintenance. Patients were stratified according to their assigned consolidation treatment arm, and the models were further adjusted for age, sex, white blood cell count, platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, bone marrow blasts, performance status and genetic-genomic risk at diagnosis. Results: Of the 488 patients enrolled, 224 MRDneg patients were randomized to consolidation chemotherapy with or without blinatumomab and 135 of the 224 went on to maintenance therapy on study (N= 66 on blina arm and 69 on chemo arm, respectively). The median follow-up from the time of maintenance registration was 43.4 months. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients in either arm who experienced no/short delay or long delay. In the blina group, 60 of 66 patients (90.9%) received all 8 cycles of consolidation therapy of which 31 (45.6%) had long delays. Sixty-eight of 69 patients on the chemo arm (98.5%) received all cycles of consolidation therapy, of which 34 (50%) had a long delay. Strikingly, patients who had a long delay before initiation of maintenance had a significant improvement in OS in multivariate analysis compared to patients who had no/short delay (HR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11-0.91; P =0.03). However, within each treatment group, OS benefit did not reach statistical significance (blina arm: HR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.001-1.64; P =0.09; chemo arm: HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.08-1.38; P =0.13). Similar results were observed for RFS in multivariate analysis (HR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.16-1.01; P =0.05), though this impact on improved RFS was noted in the chemo arm but not in blinatumomab treated patients (blina arm: HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.10-3.24; P =0.52; chemo arm: HR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04-0.83; P=0.03). Additionally, patients who had no/short delay before starting maintenance experienced a longer median duration of maintenance treatment (blina arm, 548 days; chemo arm, 708 days) compared to patients who had a long delay (blina arm 488 days; chemo arm 598 days) before initiation of maintenance (P=0.0008). Conclusion: In the phase 3 randomized ECOG-ACRIN E1910 clinical trial, long delays between initiation of consolidation therapy and start of maintenance therapy were associated with improved OS compared to no/short delays. However, within each treatment group (blina or chemo), no significant difference of OS was observed. We postulate that these longer delays allowed more patients to receive all of the recommended protocol-assigned therapy thereby resulting in improved survival. Furthermore, patients who had no/short delays had a significantly longer duration of maintenance therapy. These data indicate that treatment delays during consolidation do not worsen survival. Further studies are being done to better understand why patients with long delays had better overall survival.

Abstract Introduction Although chemo-free regimens are increasingly used in elderly patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), most still receive conventional chemoimmunotherapy. Patients up to 75–80 years old are usually treated with full-dose R-CHOP, while 80+ patients receive the attenuated R-miniCHOP regimen as standard of care. Prior studies have shown that in patients aged 65+ years, R-CHOP was associated with improved survival based on propensity score matching (PSM) analysis (Al-Sarayfi, Am J Hematol, 2023), though this did not include comorbidity data. Furthermore, no formal studies have focused specifically on 80+ patients. We aimed to perform a PSM comparison of R-CHOP versus R-miniCHOP to better inform treatment decisions in this population. Methods We harmonized and pooled data from 237 LBCL patients receiving chemotherapy with rituximab (out of all 263 80+ patients) from the prospective LEO cohort (USA, n=147; 2015–2020) and NiHiL registry (Czech Republic, single center, n=116; 2010–2023). Of them, 205 (86%) receiving anthracycline(A)-based regimens were included. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, treatments, and outcomes were collected. PSM (1:1, caliper 0.2) was performed to compare R-CHOP and R-miniCHOP using age, ECOG performance status (PS), clinical stage, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and major comorbidities (heart disease, history of stroke, and other recent cancer) as matching variables. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS, defined as death attributed to lymphoma progression). Results Among 205 A-treated patients, median age was 83 years (range 80–99); 30% had ECOG PS 2–4, 67% clinical stage III–IV, 34% ≥2 involved extranodal sites, 59% elevated LDH, and 58% had International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores 3–5. Median follow-up was 5.5 years; median OS and EFS were 4.1 and 3.4 years, resp. A-based regimens comprised full-dose R-CHOP-like (n=79; 39%; R-CHOP n=74, DA-EPOCH-R n=5) and R-miniCHOP (n=126; 61%). Patients receiving R-CHOP-like regimens had more favorable baseline characteristics (median age 82 vs 83 years, P=0.04; ECOG PS 2–4: 16% vs 39%, P<0.01; IPI 3–5: 46% vs 66%, P=0.03) and a lower, though not statistically significant, comorbidity burden (mean 1.14 vs 1.39; heart disease 35% vs 45%, P=0.22; history of stroke 4% vs 6%, P=0.64; other cancer 6% vs 5%, P=0.87). R-CHOP-like regimens vs R-miniCHOP had superior OS (median 6.3 vs 3.4 years; HR=0.61, 95% CI 0.42–0.90; P=0.01) and EFS (median 5.3 vs 2.1 years; HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.40–0.83; P<0.01), with no significant difference in LSS (2-year 89% vs 82%, HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.39–1.54, P=0.46). To mitigate selection bias, we performed PSM on patients with available baseline characteristics treated with R-CHOP (n=69) and R-miniCHOP (n=121), resulting in 63 matched pairs. Matched cohorts were well-balanced on age (median 82 years in both cohorts; P=0.68), ECOG PS 2–4 (17% vs 19%; P=0.82), IPI 3–5 (52% vs. 59%; P=0.41), and comorbidity burden (mean 1.10 vs. 1.29; P=0.30). The presence of heart disease (40% in both cohorts), history of stroke (5% vs 6%), and cancer (5% vs 6%) were similar. Survival modestly favored R-CHOP, but differences were not significant: median OS 5.3 vs 3.5 years (HR=0.73; 95% CI 0.46–1.15; P=0.17), median EFS 3.8 vs 2.8 years (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.49–1.18; P=0.23), and 2-year LSS 88% vs 84% (HR=1.09; 95% CI 0.45–2.63; P=0.85). Treatment-related mortality was similar in both cohorts (16%). Among R-miniCHOP patients, survival outcomes did not differ between matched (n=63) and unmatched (n=63) groups (OS P=0.72; EFS P=0.23; LSS P=0.27). Unmatched (n=16) R-CHOP patients had a trend toward improved survival compared to matched (n=63) individuals (OS P=0.10; EFS P=0.049; LSS P=0.24). Conclusion This is the first PSM-based analysis comparing R-CHOP and R-miniCHOP in LBCL patients 80+ years old. Despite inherent limitations of a non-randomized design and limited number of matched patients, our findings – derived from two prospective cohorts – suggest that R-miniCHOP may offer outcomes comparable to R-CHOP, particularly with respect to LSS. While these results support R-miniCHOP as an appropriate frontline option, treatment decisions remain highly individualized. These data may help inform clinical decision-making and provide a basis for designing future trials targeting this population, where R-miniCHOP could serve as a comparator arm. Funding: NU21-03-00411, U01 CA195568.

Abstract Introduction: IRAKLIA is an international, open-label, non-inferiority (NI) trial (NCT05405166) investigating isatuximab (Isa) subcutaneous (SC) vs intravenous (IV) administration, plus pomalidomide-dexamethasone (Pd) and the first Phase 3 multiple myeloma (MM) trial using an on-body injector (OBI). IRAKLIA demonstrated NI in its co-primary endpoints: overall response rate (ORR) and steady state trough concentration (Ctrough; Cycle(C) 6 Day(D) 1 predose). IsaOBI offers hands-free administration of flat-dose Isa, a small, hidden, retractable needle to prevent sharps injury and low-pressure delivery. Here, we examine the effect of body weight (BW) on pharmacokinetics (PK) as well as efficacy and safety outcomes with flat-dose IsaOBI vs IV + Pd in IRAKLIA. Methods: Patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM ≥18 years (yr) with ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT) were randomized 1:1 to IsaOBI (1400mg; n=263) or IV (10mg/kg; n=264 weekly in C1, then every 2 weeks + P (4mg/day, D1–21) + d (40mg [20mg if ≥75yr] weekly) in 4-week cycles. This analysis is run by BW (≤65kg, >65–≤85kg, >85kg) which was a stratification factor, and extreme BW (≤50kg, >50–≤100kg, >100kg). Results: Number of pts per BW group were: ≤50kg [OBI n=16, IV n=14], ≤65kg [OBI n=84, IV n=85], >65–≤85kg [OBI n=117, IV n=118], >85kg [OBI n=62, IV n=65], and >100kg [OBI n=22, IV n=22]. Baseline (BL) demographic and disease characteristics were generally balanced across BW groups for IsaOBI vs IV, including age (median 66yr) and prior LOT (median 2). However, in the >100kg group, more IsaOBI vs IV pts exhibited poor prognostic characteristics including plasmacytoma, International Staging System Stage II/III disease, beta 2-microglobulin level ≥5.5mg/L, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60mL/min/1.73m2 and a lower very good partial response (VGPR) rate as best overall response at last regimen. Flat-dose IsaOBI showed adequate exposure (C2D1 Ctrough) for all BW groups, with geometric mean ratios (90% CI) vs IV >1: ≤65kg (1.628 [1.294–2.048]), >65–≤85kg (1.303 [1.089–1.560]) and >85kg (1.006 [0.817–1.239]). IsaOBI ORRs were comparable to IV across BW: ≤65kg, 66% vs 71% (relative risk [RR]: 0.928), >65–≤85kg, 70% vs 70% (RR: 1.009), and >85kg, 81% vs 72% (RR: 1.115). For extreme BW groups, ORRs (95% CI) were similar between IsaOBI and IV for ≤50kg group [56% vs 60%] and for >50–≤100kg [72(66–78)% vs 70(63–76)%] but lower [68% vs 86%] in >100kg group. An exposure-response (E-R) analysis showed the impact of BW on response: IsaOBI pts ≤50kg tended to respond less vs IsaOBI pts >50kg despite correct exposure because they were confounded by BL disease characteristicsincluding a higher proportion of high-risk cytogenetics and plasma cells in the bone marrow vs other BW group pts. For IsaOBI and IV, Grade (Gr)≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and Gr≥3 treatment-related TEAEs decreased with increasing BW. They were similar between arms in ≤65kg group (OBI vs IV, Gr≥3 TEAEs: 87% vs 88%; Gr≥3 treatment-related TEAEs: 73% vs 77%). A similar trend was observed in extreme BW groups along with similar incidences between arms in ≤50kg group. While TE serious AEs (TESAEs) and treatment-related TESAEs decreased with increasing BW for IsaIV, incidence was stable in the IsaOBI arm. OBI arm OBI Gr5 TEAEs were similar between groups and arms, except for higher incidence in ≤65kg group (12% vs 5%) with OBI vs IV that was not reflected in ≤50 or >50–≤100kg groups. Treatment discontinuation rates for all drugs with IsaOBI vs IV were 14% vs 6% (≤65kg), 8% vs 10% (>65–≤85kg), and 2% vs 10% (>85kg). Similar incidence of Gr≥3 laboratory (lab) neutropenia was observed across BW in IsaOBI: 86.9% (≤65kg), 83.5% (>65–≤85kg) and 83.9% (>85kg). Higher rates of Gr≥3 lab neutropenia were observed in ≤50kg group (93.8%, IsaOBI vs 71.4%, IsaIV), which did not translate into higher rates of neutropenic complications (18.8% vs 14.3%). The E-R analysis revealed no relationship between Isa PK exposure and safety for OBI and IV arms. Conclusions: No notable impact from IsaOBI flat dosing was observed across BW groups. Flat-dose Isa OBI showed consistent safety and efficacy across different BW groups, with differences likely linked to BL disease characteristics according to the E-R analysis. The IsaOBI C2D1 Ctrough, a time-independent predictor of efficacy, was similar to, or higher vs IsaIV in each BW group, supportive of a flat dose providing adequate exposure without need for adjustment.