Citations

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) Prognosis is highly variable due to underlying biological and molecular heterogeneity. The first-line (1L) treatment paradigm for MCL continues to evolve with increasing use of bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) and decreasing use of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). TP53 alterations are associated with inferior outcomes in MCL. The aim of this retrospective study is to determine treatment strategies and clinical outcomes in MCL patients based on TP53 gene mutation status. Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 19 institutions in the United States from 1/1993 to 1/2024. We examined treatment patterns and outcomes among MCL patients >18 years of age with known TP53 mutation status by sequencing. Patients who did not receive treatment were excluded. The analysis was stratified based on presence of TP53 mutations. Systemic therapies were categorized as chemo-immunotherapy (CIT), non-chemotherapy (including monoclonal antibodies, lenalidomide, venetoclax, and novel agents on clinical trial), and regimens containing BTKi. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes were progression free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment (TTNT). OS and PFS were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to compare groups. Results: 645 patients were included in the study, with 468 men (72.6%) and median age was 64 years (range 30-89). 230/645 patients (35.7%) had a TP53 mutation, of which 182 (79%) were identified prior to 1L. While the male/female distribution was the same between the mutated and unmutated groups, median age at diagnosis and MIPI risk score was higher in the TP53 mutated group (age 65.9 vs 63.1 yrs, p= 0.015; MIPI 6.4 vs 6.1, p<0.001). TP53 unmutated patients had a median of 1 line of therapy vs. 2 for the mutated group (p<0.001, range 1-8). Blastoid histology and higher ki67 were also associated with the TP53 mutated group (p=0.045, 0.01 respectively) The median OS was 14.2 years for TP53 unmutated and 8.3 years for TP53 mutated patients (p<0.0001). PFS in 1L was 0.95 years in TP53 mutated compared to 2.02 years in TP53 unmutated group (p<0.0001). Selection of 1L therapeutic strategy was not associated with presence of TP53 mutation (Χ2 p= 0.21) although more patients in the TP53 unmutated group underwent ASCT (119/415 vs 38/230; Χ2 p=0.0006) TP53 mutation was associated with inferior survival compared to TP53 unmutated patients for CIT in 1L but the difference did not reach statistical significance when non-chemotherapy regimens and regimens containing BTKi were used. For CIT in 1L, 5 year OS was 78% [71-84%] for unmutated compared to 58% [48-67%] for the mutated group (p=0.0001 ). For non-chemotherapy regimens, 5 year OS for unmutated patients was 73% [52- 86%] compared to 52% [25-73%] for the mutated group (p=0.09). For regimens containing BTKi, 5 year OS for unmutated was 93% [81-97%] compared to 57% [28-78%] for mutated (p=0.07). Within the TP53 mutated group, there were no differences in any clinical outcomes between those receiving CIT, non-chemotherapy, or BTKi in 1L. While median OS appeared numerically longer in the BTKi group (14.4 yrs vs 8.8 yrs for CIT and 6.8 yrs for non-chemotherapy), the difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.58). In contrast,TP53 unmutated patients who received CIT in 1L had better TTNT (p=0.0039) compared to those in non-chemotherapy and BTKi groups. There was no improvement in PFS (p=0.79) or OS (p=0.47). Conclusions To our knowledge this is the largest retrospective real world dataset of MCL treatment outcomes stratified by TP53 mutation. As in prior studies, TP53 mutation portends a worse prognosis in MCL compared to TP53 unmutated patients, but outcomes are better than historically reported. CIT in 1L was not associated with improved OS in either group. Irrespective of TP53 mutation status, incorporation of BTKi in first line was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. The gap in OS between TP53 mutated and unmutated MCL may be narrowing as treatment paradigms shift away from intensive induction chemotherapy and ASCT, and due to an increasing number of effective therapies for relapsed patients. Clinical trials of novel agents are needed to further improve the OS of TP53 mutated MCL patients.

Introduction: NPM1 mutations, seen in up to 30% of adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), often co-occur with FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD). Measurable residual disease (MRD) testing before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) for persistence of mutated NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD can identify patients with AML in complete remission (CR) at highest risk of relapse and death. Quantitative RT-PCR assays are currently recommended for NPM1 MRD testing, while FLT3-ITD MRD testing is DNA-based using next generation sequencing (NGS). DNA-based NGS assays for mutated NPM1 MRD testing may have several advantages but require validation. We performed NPM1 MRD detection in blood collected from patients with AML during first CR (CR1) prior to alloHCT on a subset of patients from the Pre-MEASURE study (PMID: 36881031) using a highly-sensitive, commercially available DNA-based NPM1 NGS MRD assay. Methods: Of the 531 patients aged 18 or older from the Pre-MEASURE study who received an alloHCT for NPM1mutated AML during CR1 at a CIBMTR reporting site in the USA between the years of 2013-2019, a subset of 190 were randomly selected to be included in this analysis. A commercially available research testing kit (IVS, Invivoscribe, San Diego, CA), which can detect DNA-based NPM1 MRD, was used to establish a workflow following clinical testing standards and validated to detect NPM1 insertion variants down to a variant allele fraction (VAF) of at least 0.005%. Results were compared to those previously reported using an anchored multiplex PCR-based (AMP) targeted NGS assay (detection limit 0.01%) and FLT3-ITD MRD results, where applicable. Overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of relapse were estimated with the day of transplant as time 0 using Kaplan-Meier estimation (log-rank tests), Fine and Gray model, and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: NPM1 NGS MRD testing was successful for 186 (98%) patients, of which 48 (26%) relapsed (median: 4.0 months; range: 0.7-52.5) and 64 (34%) died (median: 9.7 months; range: 0.4-58.9) post-alloHCT. The IVS assay detected NPM1 insertion variants in 71 patients with a median VAF of 0.0026% (range:0.0002-2.1%). Using a VAF threshold of ≥0.01% for MRD positivity, the IVS test showed that 24 patients tested positive for NPM1 MRD pre-alloHCT, which was associated with significantly increased rates of relapse (52% vs 20% at 3yrs; HR=4.3; P<0.001) and decreased OS (34% vs 71% at 3yrs; HR=3.6; P<0.001) compared to testing negative, in close alignment with those previously reported using the AMP assay. After removing the VAF threshold, an additional 47 patients were classified as NPM1 MRD positive, which remained associated with increased rates of relapse (40% vs 15% at 3yrs; HR=3.4; P<0.001) and decreased OS (50% vs 75% at 3yrs; HR=2.9; P<0.001). In multivariable analysis, residual NPM1 MRD burden prior to alloHCT was associated with risk of relapse and death in a dose-dependent manner. Patients were further subdivided based on their reported FLT3-ITD mutational status at baseline. Increased risk of relapse was seen for NPM1 MRD positive patients regardless of baseline FLT3-ITD. 123 (66%) patients were co-mutated for FLT3-ITD at baseline and previously tested for FLT3-ITD MRD using the IVS assay (PMID: 38696205). Defining MRD based on the presence of NPM1 vs NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD revealed equivalent levels of relapse (45% vs 44%) and OS (45% vs 46%) at 3 years, with NPM1 MRD evaluation identifying 5 additional relapses. These results were confirmed in the full Pre-MEASURE cohort (n=317) using the AMP assay. NPM1 MRD positive patients receiving nonmyeloablative conditioning or reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) without melphalan (mel) had increased risk of relapse or death compared to patients receiving myeloablative conditioning or RIC with mel, regardless of FLT3-ITD co-mutational status (3yrs: relapse 87% vs 55%, P=0.006; OS 15% vs 42%, P=0.013). Conclusions: In patients with NPM1 mutated AML from the Pre-MEASURE study, we show that detection of residual NPM1 variants in pre-transplant blood during CR1 using a highly sensitive DNA-based assay is associated in a dose-dependent manner with a significantly increased risk of relapse and death after allo-HCT, which can be mitigated in part by conditioning regimen. In patients co-mutated for both FLT3-ITD and NPM1 at diagnosis, NPM1 should be prioritized as a target for NGS-MRD if only one test is available.

Background: Whereas major improvements have been made in the treatment of advanced HL outcomes of patients > 60 yrs are generally suboptimal compared with younger patients, and generally with more toxicity. To address this issue we conducted the first phase II study of BV-nivo in older pts with HL (ACCRU RU0515051, NCT02758717), with initial results reported at a median of 20.2 mo of follow-up. (Cheson et al, Lancet Haem, 11:e808, 2020). Herein we present the 5-year follow-up for this study. Methods: Eligible pts were either >60 yrs or considered unsuitable for standard chemotherapy because of cardiac, pulmonary or renal dysfunction. Pts received BV at 1∙8 mg/kg (dose cap at 180 mg) and nivo at 3 mg/kg both intravenously every 21 days for 8 cycles.The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Results: Follow-up data were available for 39 of the original 46 pts. At a median follow-up of 58.5 months (0.45-65.4 mo), the median duration of response was 17.2 mo (11.6-45.2). 58.7% of the patients had progressed with the median progression-free survival of 18.3 mo (12.8-46.3 mo); thus 41.3% had still not experienced a progression event. Median overall survival was not yet reached with 84.8% of patients still alive. Conclusions: BV-nivo is an effective regimen for patients >60 yr, curing approximately 40% of pts. For those not cured by initial therapy, outcome with subsequent treatment is excellent, suggesting check point inhibitor sensitization, or other factors. Optimization of dose and schedule, and incorporation of other novel agents will result in a successful chemo-free approach for older patients with HL, especially those unable to receive an anthracycline.

Introduction: Despite advent of multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and newer treatment methods for both 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 (ELN) blast phase registry reported outcomes of 240 CML-BP pts. They also reported marked heterogeneity in treatment patterns and lack of an accepted standard. Hence, we are undertaking this study through the H Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium (HJKC3) to study 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 separately 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 2024 were included. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the time of diagnosis to death from any cause. Survival probabilities were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Results: Of the 72 pts with CML-BP included in this analysis, 29 (40.3%) were female and 43 (59.7%) were males. At the time of diagnosis, 36 (50%) had CML-CP (chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase), 11 (15.3%) pts were diagnosed with CML-AP (accelerated phase CML) and 25 (34.7%) pts with de-novo CML-BP. For the 47 pts that were initially diagnosed with CML-CP or CML-AP, the median time to progression to CML-BP was 26 months (1-207 months). Median age at diagnosis of CML-BP was 54 years (range 21-86 years). EM disease was present in 17 (23.6%) pts (7 myeloid sarcoma, 5 central nervous system and 5 skin) with 3 pts presenting with EM disease only. Blasts were of myeloid phenotype in 41 (56.9%), lymphoid in 29 (40.3%) and mixed in 2 (2.8%) pts. The bcr-abl protein was p210 in 59 (81.9%), p190 in 5 (6.9%) and p230 in 1 (1.4%) pt. Four pts had prior allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) for CML-CP. Of the pts who had an ABL kinase domain mutation tested, 42.9% (18/42) pts were found to have an ABL kinase domain mutation. The most common TKD mutation was T315I (n=6). Next generation sequencing was performed in 32 pts. The most common mutations were ASXL1 (n=10), RUNX1 (n=4), BCOR (n=2), BCORL1 (n=2), DNMT3A (n=2) and 1 each in CSF3R, KMT2A, EZH2, NF1 and TP53. Of the 72 pts, 68 underwent CML-BP directed therapy. While only 9 (13.2%) pts were treated with TKI alone (4 dasatinib, 2 imatinib, 2 ponatinib and 1 asciminib), 54 (79.4%) pts were treated with a combination of chemotherapy with TKI (24 dasatinib, 13 ponatinib, 9 imatinib, 6 nilotinib, 1 bosutinib and 1 asciminib), and 5 (7.4%) pts were treated with chemotherapy alone. The response rate after CML-BP directed therapy was 72.1% (n=49). Best response was return to CML-CP in 17 pts, CHR with PCyR in 1 pt, CCyR in 11 pts, MMR in 5 pts, MR4 in 4 pts, MR4.5 in 5 pts and MR5 in 6 pts. Rate of response with third and second generation TKI was significantly better than first generation TKI (80% and 77.1% vs 36.3%; p=0.02287). 30 (44.1%) pts proceeded to alloSCT. Of the 49 pts that responded, 16 (32.6%) relapsed. The median time to relapse was 5 months (range 1-46 months). At a median follow up of 57 months, the median OS for all pts was 18 months. There was no difference in OS based on blast phenotype (14 months for myeloid, 21 for lymphoid and 7.5 for mixed; p=0.1185), initial diagnosis (38 months CP-CML, 13 for CML-AP and 16 for de-novo BP pts; p=0.6380), or TKI (13 months for first generation, 20 for second and not reached for third generation TKI; p=0.1729). The OS of pts that were treated with a combination of TKI and chemotherapy was significantly longer compared to pts treated with TKI or chemo alone (28 vs 13 or 4.5 months; p=0.0003). Of the 32 pts that responded, OS for pts that underwent alloSCT was significantly longer compared to pts that did not (not reached vs 14 months; p= 0.0022). Conclusion: CML-BP continues to have a dismal prognosis. Treatment is heterogenous involving various combinations of TKI and chemotherapy. In our analysis, treatment with second or third generation TKI led to better responses. In addition, treatment with chemotherapy in combination with TKI and alloSCT led to improved OS. Updated results from further multi-institution analysis will be presented at the meeting.

Introduction: Light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is caused by the secretion of immunoglobulin light chains by monoclonal plasma cells. The increase in the levels of these monoclonal proteins may proceed the development of any clinical symptoms, and their identification in the serum and urine remains an integral part of establishing a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis. This systematic review aims to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of serum immunofixation (SIFE), urine immunofixation (UIFE), and free light chain (FLC) ratio for the diagnosis of AL amyloidosis. Methods: As part of the ASH AL Amyloidosis Diagnostic Guideline, we performed systematic reviews for 7 prioritized PICO questions related to the screening, diagnosis and organ involvement evaluation of AL amyloidosis. Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception till January 2024. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate performed title and abstract screening and full text article screening on LASER AI, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Eligible studies were those that included patients who performed one of the three tests (SIFE, UIFE, and κ/λ FLC) and had their AL amyloidosis diagnosis confirmed via a biopsy. Diagnostic test accuracy measures of interest were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. Statistical analysis was performed on OpenMeta[Analyst]. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: After deduplication, we retrieved 29,237 studies from electronic databases. 31 studies with 3973 patients reported on the use of serum immunofixation (SIFE) with a pooled sensitivity of 72.4% (95% CI 68.1%-76.4%). 27 studies with 2855 patients reported on the use of urine immunofixation UIFE for the diagnosis of AL amyloidosis with a pooled sensitivity of 78.6% (95% CI 74.6%-82%). 29 studies with 5305 patients reported on the use of κ/λ FLC ratio amyloidosis with a pooled sensitivity of 79.9% (95% CI 73.7%-84.9%). 24 studies reported on the use of both SIFE and UIFE with a sample size of 3751 patients and a pooled sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 85.3%-93.3%). 3 studies reported on the use SIFE and κ/λ FLC ratio with 321 patients and a pooled sensitivity of 97.7% (95% CI 95.6%-99.9%). Finally, we identified 10 studies that performed SIFE,UIFE, and κ/λ FLC ratio concurrently with 1926 patients and a pooled sensitivity of 99% (95% CI 97%-99.7%) of all three tests and considering a result abnormal if any of the components had a positive result. We also identified 5 studies with 957 patients reporting on the concurrent use of SIFE, UIFE, and κ/λ FLC ratio for the diagnosis AL amyloidosis and differentiation of AL from ATTR amyloidosis in a population of patients with suspected cardiac amyloid involvement, the pooled sensitivity was found to be 99%(95% CI 99%-100%) and with a pooled specificity of 77%(95% CI 75%-80%). Certainty of evidence moderate for all outcomes. Conclusion: The combined use of SIFE, UIFE, and κ/λ FLC ratio has a high sensitivity for the diagnosis of AL amyloidosis, and the tests remain a valuable initial screening of AL amyloidosis and differentiation from ATTR amyloidosis.

Introduction: In patients with systemic light-chain amyloidosis, cardiac involvement is common. Cardiac involvement (presence and severity) is the most important predictor of mortality in patients with AL amyloidosis. Endomyocardial biopsy remains the gold standard, but it is a costly and invasive test. Consequently, cardiac biomarkers are used for screening for cardiac involvement and have significant prognostic value.In this systematic review, we aim to estimate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of Nt-proBNP, BNP, and high sensitivity troponin for cardiac amyloidosis. Methods: As part of the American Society of Hematology guidelines on the diagnosis of Amyloidosis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception till January 2024 for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently performed title and abstract screening and full-text article screening on LASER Al and extracted relevant data using piloted Excel sheets. The panel judged whether the reference test is acceptable or not. Acceptable reference test is EMB alone or a combination of extracardiac biopsy plus cardiac imaging (CMR or echocardiography) with or without positive cardiac biomarkers (troponin or BNP or NT-proBNP). For statistical analysis, we only included studies reporting on both the sensitivity and specificity of the cardiac biomarker. We used Stata 18.0 software for meta-analysis. We evaluated risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We report diagnostic test accuracy as sensitivity (95% confidence interval) and specificity (95% confidence interval). Results: After screening 29,237 studies, a total of 10 studies addressed DTA of Nt-proBNP for cardiac amyloidosis. These studies used a wide variety of cutoffs for diagnosis of cardiac involvement, ranging from 150 to 5000 ng/L and a cutoff of 332 ng/L was the most studied and reported. The pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity of Nt-proBNP using 332 as cutoffs are 0.99 ( 0.97, 1) and 0.53 (0.3, 0.75), respectively. The pooled estimates were based on 4 studies (n=645) with moderate certainty in the evidence. For BNP, DTA was assessed in 3 studies (n= 257). Each study used a different cutoff for BNP (73, 100, and 412 ng/L). The sensitivity and specificity of BNP in each study were comparable and not significantly affected by the cutoff variation. Pooled sensitivity and specificity across studies, were 0.87 (0.80, 0.92), and 0.79 (0.71, 0.85), respectively. The certainty in evidence for the DTA of BNP was low. Eight studies reported on DTA of high sensitivity troponin, with cutoffs ranging from 14 to 86 ng/L. Meta-analysis of studies reporting on cutoff 14 ng/L yielded sensitivity of 0.94 (0.87, 0.97) and specificity of 0.11 (0.08, 0.16) with moderate certainty evidence. Increasing the cutoff to 35 ng/l led to a decrease in sensitivity to 0.82 (0.66, 0.92) and an increase in specificity to 0.86 (0.74, 0.93) with low certainty evidence. Conclusion: Cardiac biomarkers are highly sensitive, valuable initial tests for increasing suspicion of cardiac involvement in patients with AL amyloidosis. However, they lack specificity and, on their own, are insufficient for a definitive diagnosis of cardiac involvement. These biomarkers may be used in conjunction with other diagnostic tests to accurately identify and assess the extent of cardiac involvement.

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

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

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

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