Citations

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 Background Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a major cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). High-dose steroids are standard first-line therapy for grade II–IV acute GVHD, whereas systemic treatment (tx) is generally not recommended for grade I. However, in practice many patients (pts) with grade I GVHD receive systemic steroids. A prior GITMO randomized trial (n=173) of grade I GVHD to either systemic steroid tx or “watch and wait” found that preemptive steroid tx reduced progression to grade II but not grade III/IV GVHD, increased serious infections, and resulted in similar chronic GVHD, NRM and survival (Bacigalupo, Haematologica 2017). In this study we analyzed real world evidence for early systemic steroid use and the potential impact of serum biomarkers in grade I GVHD. Methods We analyzed clinical data and serum samples from pts with grade I acute GVHD at 24 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between 2014 and 2022 who were treated according to physician discretion. Pts were divided into a preemptive steroid tx group or a watch-and-wait group (systemic steroids administered only if progression to grade II–IV GVHD). Preemptive steroid use was treated as a time-dependent covariate and a frailty proportional hazards model with random effects was used to adjust for center effects to account for possible heterogeneity in clinical practices across transplant centers. Serum samples collected at the diagnosis of grade I GVHD were analyzed for ST2 and REG3α to calculate validated Ann Arbor (AA) scores (1, 2, 3). Results Grade I GVHD was diagnosed in 1143 pts; 591 (52%) received preemptive tx and 552 (48%) were treated by a watch-and-wait strategy. In the preemptive tx group, steroids were initiated at a median of 0 days and within 7 days for >90%. The median initial dose of steroids was 1 mg/kg of prednisone or its equivalent. In the watch and wait group, only 184 pts (33%) required systemic steroids for progression to grade II-IV GVHD at a median of 14 days from grade I diagnosis. Preemptive steroid tx reduced the risk of grade II–IV acute GVHD (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56–0.89; P=0.003), but not the risk of grade III/IV acute GVHD (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.69–1.52; P=0.899) or chronic GVHD (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.69–1.52; P=0.899), consistent with the GITMO trial. The 12-month incidence of NRM was higher for preemptive tx vs. watch and wait (13% vs 7%, P=0.002). In multivariate analysis preemptive steroid use independently predicted an increased risk of NRM (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.06–2.50; P=0.026) as did several other known risk factors (older recipient age, umbilical cord blood donor, HCT-CI ≥3, and myeloablative conditioning). Greater NRM in the preemptive tx group was driven primarily by 3-fold more infectious deaths; deaths due to uncontrolled GVHD were similar for both tx groups. The risk for relapse was unexpectedly lower in the preemptive tx group (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47-0.88; P=0.006) and overall survival was therefore not different between groups, but risk factors for relapse such as minimal residual disease status were not available precluding further analysis of this finding. Serum was collected in 871 (76%) pts at onset of grade I GVHD for retrospective biomarker analysis. AA scores were AA1 (80%), AA2 (15%), and AA3 (5%). AA scores were highly predictive of progression to grade III/IV GVHD (AA1 vs AA2 vs AA3: 9% vs 14% vs 44%, all P<0.001) and the risk of 12-month NRM (8% vs 16% vs 39%, all P<0.001); this pattern was observed in both tx groups. The negative effect of preemptive steroid tx was most pronounced in pts with grade I/AA1 GVHD who experienced 5-fold more infectious related deaths compared to pts managed with a watch and wait approach. Conclusion Treatment of grade I GVHD with systemic steroids did not reduce the incidence of grade III/IV GVHD or deaths due to uncontrolled GVHD and instead increased the risk of NRM from infections compared to pts who were treated only after GVHD progressed. Importantly, 2/3 of the watch and wait pts never needed systemic steroid tx. These findings remained robust after adjusting for multiple confounders, including center effects, and were consistent with the GITMO trial. MAGIC biomarkers at the onset of grade I GVHD predicted outcomes and a watch and wait strategy may be best for the 80% of pts with AA1 GVHD. Better treatment options are needed for the 20% of pts with grade I and AA2/3 GVHD.

Abstract Copy Number Alterations (CNAs), including chromosomal gains and losses, shape the genetics and clinical management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), particularly in complex karyotypes (e.g. CK-AML). Traditionally, AML associated CNAs have been studied using cytogenetic approaches, i.e., karyotyping, that are limited in resolution and sensitivity. Here, low-coverage, sparse whole genome sequencing followed by machine learning applied to over 600 AML patient samples (ECOG-ARCIN trials: E1900, E3999) reveals novel genetic, biologic, and clinical correlates in AML disease. We find that multi-variate Cox-regression analysis applied to the data identifies select patients exhibiting focal and cryptic hemizygous deletions at 17q, 21q, and 3p, in otherwise diploid genomes, associate with inferior survival compared to other patients (median overall survival; OS = 65.5 compared to 421 days, Chi-square test pval=6x10-11), independent of factors such as age, treatment, and karyotype complexity status. In addition, we confirm that amplifications at 11q23, encoding the KM2TA gene, are associated with inferior outcome, and further identify unique breakpoint event features as well as transcriptional signatures suggestive of distinctive KM2TA-translocation independent biology. Applying machine learning approaches to the data, more specifically Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), we develop a prognostic model that captures clinically adverse, cryptic variation such as focal 5q deletions, missed by conventional chromosome analysis and thereby, adds novel, complementary information to traditional, cytogenetic based risk-stratification (e.g. ELN). The model also associates gain of chromosome 8 in Intermediate risk patients with worse outcome compared to other Intermediate risk patients (median OS = 186 compared to 446 days, Chi-square test pval=0.005) and identifies a subgroup of patients within the adverse risk category that lack deletions on chromosomes 5, 7, and 17, and that fare better than the rest of the adverse risk patients (median OS = 188 compared to 97.5 days, Chi-square test pval=0.02), likely reflecting previously identified “atypical” CK-AML patients. Last, we develop a prognostic classifier based on a combination of Neural-Network and Random-Forest based learning, that predicts disease outcome with high accuracy and is based on a three genomic feature list on chromosome bands 5q31.2, 7q31.33, and 8q24, suggesting potential for clinical implementation. Altogether, our results show that low coverage, sparse whole genome sequencing combined with advanced learning methods can be applied clinically to support the diagnosis and clinical management of AML disease as well as serve as a powerful tool to further a basic understanding of the genetics and biology of CNAs in myeloid neoplasms and other cancers.

Abstract BackgroundWarm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) is clinically characterized by autoantibody-mediated (typically IgG) erythrocyte destruction at body temperature. While oral corticosteroids remain first-line therapy, rituximab is frequently used as a second-line agent, mostly supported with concomitant background medications, yet real-world evidence is limited and utilization is driven by published retrospective data and expert opinion. Real-world evidence characterizing its utilization patterns and outcomes is needed to inform clinical practice. AimsThis study aimed to: 1) describe treatment patterns among patients with newly diagnosed wAIHA, 2) evaluate rescue therapy use and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) with current standard of care (SOC), 3) characterize patterns of rituximab use during the first year. MethodsNewly diagnosed wAIHA patients were identified from multiple US databases (MarketScan® Databases, IQVIA PharMetrics, Optum Clinformatics®, and Optum PanTher EHR). Patients with ≥1 wAIHA diagnosis code in any position (ICD-10-CM D59.11) from October 2020 to December 2023 and 12-month post-index follow-up were pooled together. Secondary wAIHA was defined with evidence of hematologic malignancy, solid tumors, immunodeficiencies, or autoimmune diseases in the 6 months prior to diagnosis. Patients on treatment were defined by use of oral corticosteroids (OCS), immunosuppressants (IST) (including azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine, cyclophosphamide, or tacrolimus) or rituximab. Initial therapy was defined as the first treatment occurring ≥ 30 days prior to diagnosis. Therapies were identified as combination when initialized within 21 days of each other. The regimen is considered active until all therapies are discontinued or a new agent is initiated. Rituximab regimens were classified as standard (4 weekly doses), alternative (2 doses given 2 weeks apart), single infusion, or extended (>4 infusions). Results Among 2,028 wAIHA patients (median age 62.0 years, 59% female), 55% had secondary wAIHA. Among patients on treatment (n=1,439), 64% received OCS monotherapy; rituximab and IST, alone or in combination with OCS were received by an additional 28% and 5% of patients, respectively. Overall, 80% of treated patients received OCS in some combination during initial therapy. Within 12 months following diagnosis, 1 in 4 patients required ≥ 1 blood transfusion, 1 in 8 required either erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Within 12 months of diagnosis, 35% of patients required ≥ 1 hospitalization, average length of stay 3.8 days; AIHA was the principal diagnosis for 65% cases. Greater than 1/3 of patients (38%) had ≥ 1 emergency department visit. Almost all wAIHA patients (98%) had an all-cause outpatient visit with a median of 31 visits per patient. Among patients receiving rituximab in any line (n=613), median time from diagnosis to first administration was 59.0 days (interquartile range: 42.0-171.0). For the first course of rituximab, 62.2% of patients received a complete course (standard, alternative, or extended courses). Among patients with a completed course, 39.8% had >4 infusions without a 90-day gap between administrations with a median of 8 administrations within 12 months. Of the nearly 38% of patients that did not receive a complete course of rituximab, 33% received a single infusion. The use of rescue medications in the period prior to rituximab treatment was compared to the period after treatment (defined as 60 days to 12-months post final rituximab infusion). Use of blood transfusions was observed to increase from 9.0% to 32.8%, while the use of ESA and IVIG were stable at approximately 2% and 4%, respectively.Conclusion With current wAIHA SOC, US HCRU remains high, posing a financial burden in terms of the rate of outpatient and emergency department visits, and inpatient stays. Rituximab is an early line therapy post-diagnosis, typically in combination with OCS. No changes in rescue treatments, and an increase in blood transfusions after rituximab infusion suggest treatment gaps remain. Analysis reveals heterogeneity in rituximab dosing patterns including high deviation from standard dosing practices; this variance from published expert opinion along with common use of rescue therapies suggests continued need for standardized guidelines and development of targeted therapies in wAIHA.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is indicated in patients (pts) with FLT3-ITD mutated AML. The randomized BMT CTN 1506 trial (Levis et al. JCO) demonstrated that maintenance with FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (gilt) significantly improved relapse-free survival (RFS) among pts with detectable peri-alloHCT minimal residual disease (MRD) but was also associated with a greater degree of myelosuppression and infections. In older pts, aged >60 years, increasing post-HCT toxicity may adversely impact outcomes. On this basis, we performed a post-hoc analysis of pts aged > 60 years enrolled onto BMT CTN 1506 to examine the impact of gilteritinib maintenance in older pts. METHODS Pts ≥60 years randomized on BMT CTN 1506 (gilt=47, placebo=57; N=104) were included. The primary endpoint of this post-hoc analysis was RFS. We additionally assessed overall survival (OS), incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM) in all pts and in pts with detectable MRD. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were balanced. Age was similar (65.2 vs 64.7 years; p = 0.12), as was prior TKI exposure, and NPM1 mutation status. Myeloablative conditioning (MAC) was used in 8 (17%) pts randomized to gilt and 18 (32%) pts randomized to placebo (p=0.08). Median f/u of survivors was 43.8 months (range:1-61 mo.). Estimated RFS and OS at 48 months were not different between groups (RFS: gilt: 57.0%, 95%CI 44.1-73.7%, placebo: 57.1%, 95%CI 45.4-71.8%; OS: gilt: 56.9%, 95%CI 42.9-46.7%, placebo: 58.4%, 95%CI 46.7-73.1%). While gilt assignment did not affect survival, several predictors of poorer survival were identified including use of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (HR = 3.46; p = 0.014), use of calcineurin inhibitor/MTX for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis (HR = 2.29; p = 0.041), high-risk cytogenetics (HR = 2.64; p = 0.021), and MRD (+) pre-HCT (HR = 2.29; p = 0.018). Finally, relative to gilt assignment, opposing rates of relapse and NRM were observed. The incidence of relapse was lower with gilt (16%, 95%CI 6.8-28% vs 32%, 95%CI 20-45%, p=0.046) but NRM was higher (27%, 95%CI 15-41% vs 11%, 95% CI 4.3-21%, p=0.033). We next analyzed the 49 pts (gilt=22, placebo=27) with detectable peri-HCT MRD. RFS and OS again were not different (RFS: gilt: 44.4%, 95%CI 27.1-72.7%, placebo: 43.8%, 95%CI 28.4-67.5%, OS: gilt: 49.2%,95%CI, 31.3-77.4%, placebo: 55.6%, 95%CI 39.4-77.8%). The incidence of relapse trended lower in gilt pts (25%, 95%CI, 5.3-44.7% vs 45% (95%CI, 25-63%), p=0.2) while NRM trended higher (31%, 95%CI 12-52% vs 11%, 95%CI, 2.7-26%, p=0.12). Seventeen (36%) patients completed planned 2 year maintenance with gilt compared to 29 (51%) completing therapy with placebo. Median time on gilt was 13.2 months. The most common reason for discontinuation was adverse events (n=19, 40%), of which cytopenias (n=8) and infections (n=4) were most frequent. Non-relapse causes of death among gilt treated pts included infections (n=8), intracranial hemorrhage related to thrombocytopenia (n=1), second cancer (n=1), and Guillain-Barre syndrome (n=1). Most infections (n=5) were attributed to GVHD as an underlying cause. CONCLUSION Among pts aged ≥60 years, gilt maintenance did not improve RFS or OS. Gilt use was associated with reduced relapse regardless of peri-HCT MRD status demonstrating disease effect; however, higher NRM limited overall benefit. In older FLT3 mutated pts, employing strategies to mitigate HCT related toxicity, e.g. alternative GVHD prophylaxis strategies, may better accommodate use of maintenance therapy including gilt. Lower doses of gilt (particularly with azole co-use) may be worth exploring to mitigate drug AEs, improve compliance, thus further improving benefit.

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.

Abstract Background: Clonotypic peptide detection by mass spectrometry (MS) leverages monoclonal protein (M-protein) de novo sequencing and peptide quantification to enable ultra-sensitive blood-based monitoring of multiple myeloma (MM) patient M-protein kinetics. Etentamig is a 2nd generation BCMA x CD3 bispecific antibody that has shown promising efficacy and a favorable safety profile in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) MM (Journal of Clinical Oncology, 43;16:suppl.7527). In the current study, we explored the depth and kinetics of MS M-protein response to etentamig monotherapy in serum samples from Phase 1 M22-466 (NCT03933735) study patients. The correlation between blood-based MS M-protein levels and bone marrow minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity as determined by next generation sequencing (NGS) was also evaluated. Method: Clonotypic peptide MS using M-Insight (Sebia/Corgenix) was performed on serum samples from a subset of MRD evaluable patients enrolled into the Phase 1 (NCT03933735) clinical trial of etentamig monotherapy in patients with RRMM. Bone marrow MRD negativity (<10-5 and 10-6) analysis was determined by NGS (clonoSEQ, Adaptive Biotechnologies). Patient pre-treatment (Cycle [C] 1 Day [D] 1) serum samples were digested with proteolytic enzymes to permit sequencing of the M-protein heavy and light chain. Clonotypic peptides specific to the patient's complementarity-determining regions were selected for quantification by MS. Clonotypic peptide quantification by MS was performed on available tracking peripheral blood samples at C2D1, C3D1, C4D1, and C5D1 time points post etentamig monotherapy treatment. Results: Twenty patients who were MRD evaluable and treated with 40 mg and 60 mg doses of etentamig with available serum samples collected from C1D1–C5D1 time points were selected for M-Insight evaluation. Of the 20 patients, 16 (80%) had at least one clonotypic peptide identified prior to etentamig treatment that was utilized for tracking at subsequent time points. Rapid decline in MS M-protein levels was observed in patients treated with etentamig, which strongly correlated with the patients' best International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response. At C3D1 post etentamig treatment, patients with complete response (CR)/stringent CR (n=9) demonstrated a significant decline from MS M-protein levels (median: 1.8±0.9 g/dL at C1D1 to 0.03±0.2 g/dL at C3D1) (P<0.001). All evaluable subjects (n=16) had detectable MS M-protein at all time points (n=80). The lowest detectable M-protein level observed in the current dataset was 44 mg/dL (lower limit of quantitation of assay: 10 mg/dL). Subsequent analysis of differences in kinetics between MRD-negative (<10-5) (n=8) and MRD-positive (n=8) patients revealed a deeper reduction in M-protein levels for MRD-negative patients (median 0.02±0.2 g/dL at C3D1 compared with 0.4±0.3 g/dL at C3D1 for MRD-positive patients). Among the 8 patients who achieved MRD negativity at 10-5 threshold, 5 patients also achieved <10-6 threshold, and serum MS M-protein levels remained detectable in these patients (0.07±0.2 g/dL). Conclusions: Using MS-based clonotypic peptide detection, rapid and deep decline in serum M-protein levels was observed in RRMM patients treated with etentamig. Strong concordance was observed between MS M-protein levels and IMWG response, including in patients achieving MRD-negative CR at <10-5 and 10-6thresholds. Non-invasive and ultra-sensitive M-protein detection is feasible in MM and may serve as a key biomarker for enhancing the detection of residual disease in the future.

Abstract Background: Recent clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated the need to prioritize patients most likely to benefit from this type of therapy (Richard, et al., Nat. Cancer, 2024). Immune checkpoints in MM function through receptor-ligand (RL) interactions between CD8+ T cells and malignant plasma cells. However, there is a gap in our understanding of the immune checkpoint landscape in newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). To explore this, we mapped known immune checkpoint RL pairs in subjects enrolled in the CoMMpass Study (NCT01454297), a prospective, longitudinal observational trial. Methods Bone marrow aspirates from study participants were collected and separated into CD138 positive and CD138 negative fractions for comprehensive molecular characterization of the tumor (using bulk RNA sequencing and whole genome sequencing) and tumor immune microenvironment (using 3' single cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq)). 191 patients had paired bulk tumor and single cell immune expression profiles. To evaluate the co-expression of receptor-ligand pairs, we developed two approaches that combine gene expression values across single cell and bulk RNA-seq. The first approach uses joint percentiles to identify patients with high expression (top 75%) of both receptor and ligand (referred to as high-high). The second approach uses a rank-based interaction score to create a single value for each patient within a distribution defined for each receptor-ligand pair; patients with extreme values have high expression of both receptor and ligand. The two methods identified similar sets of patients with high co-expression of receptor and ligand. We then compared progression free survival (PFS) across receptor-ligand co-expression groups (high-high vs. others) and tested for other clinical associations. From a pre-defined list of 17 receptor-ligand pairs (Liu, et al., Exp. Hematol. Oncol., 2023), we focused on the following receptors (from CD8+ T cells) and ligands (from tumor plasma cells): PD-1 with PD-L1; LAG-3 with MHC-II; TIGIT with CD115; and TIM-3 with phosphatidylserine. Results Overall, 91 patients (91/191, 47.6%) showed high-high co-expression for at least 1 out of 17 receptor-ligand pairs, and 100 patients were high-high for no receptor-ligand pairs. Among patients with at least one high-high pair, there was a median of 2.0 high-high pairs (range: 1-11). Hierarchical clustering of high-high status and rank-based interaction score correlations showed that for a given receptor, patients often showed high-high co-expression across multiple related ligands. For TIM-3 (receptor, CD8+ T cells) and phosphatidylserine (ligand, tumor plasma cells), we identified 16 patients (16/191, 8.4%) with high-high co-expression and significantly worse PFS (median survival 485 vs. 1503 days, log-rank p-value 0.043). For PD-1-PD-L1, we identified 7 patients with high-high co-expression; for LAG-3-MHC-II, 12 patients (6.3%); and for TIGIT-CD115, 13 patients (6.8%). Conclusion ICI therapy remains an emerging area of study in MM. Here, we developed methods to explore immune checkpoint receptor-ligand co-expression from paired immune microenvironment and tumor cell populations. Our approach demonstrates the value of data integration across gene expression modalities, especially when standard sample collection methodologies segregate tumor and immune populations. Co-expression analysis may be one factor in prioritizing patients for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Abstract Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive leukemia with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Previous studies on T-PLL patients receiving an allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) are limited by small numbers with limited data on disease and transplant characteristics. Further, recent data from our large national cohort of patients demonstrated significant survival difference between TCL1A+ and TCL1A- T-PLL, and CD8+ T-PLL vs CD8- T-PLL. In this large multi-center series, utilizing comprehensive disease subtype and alloSCT clinical data, we evaluated prognostic and survival therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients that had an alloSCT with a particular focus on T-PLL disease subtypes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 572 diagnosed with T-PLL at 21 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023, of which we performed a further evaluation on the169 that proceeded with alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Among n=169 alloSCT recipients with T-PLL, the median follow-up time was 20.9 months post-alloSCT (range: 0.2-182.9), the median age at transplant was 59 years (range: 35-77) and 52% were male. In evaluated patients (n=109), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 69%. As our recent analysis demonstrated significant differences in survival among specific subtypes of T-PLL, we evaluated outcomes in patients with CD4+CD8- T-PLL (n=90, 53%), CD4-CD8+ (n=17, 10%) T-PLL, and CD4+CD8+ T-PLL (n=52, 31%). 53% (87/164) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan and 45% (43/96) of known patients had minimal residual disease (MRD) at the time of transplant [defined as <5% T-PLL in marrow by flow, or +cytogenetics (e.g. TCL1A)] prior to alloSCT. At the time of alloSCT, 136 (80%) patients were in CR and 23 (14%) patients were in PR. Forty-nine (30%) had a myeloablative (MAC)conditioning regimen and 114 (70%) had a reduced intensity chemotherapy (RIC) conditioning regimen. Eighty (49%) patients had TBI as part of their regimen. The most common regimens were fludarabine (flu)/melphalan based regimens (n=44; 26.0%), flu/cyclophosphamide (cy) based regimens (n=33; 19.5%), flu/busulfan based regimens (n=22; 13.0%), flu/total body irradiation (TBI) (n=8; 4.7%), and cy/TBI (n=4; 2.4%). Across the whole cohort, the median OS and PFS post-alloSCT was 32.6 months (95% CI: 21.0-41.9) and 20.8 months (95% CI: 14.4-30.5) months while the 1-year cumulative incidences (CI) of NRM and relapse were 17% and 20%, respectively. The incidences of grade II-IV acute GVHD and cGVHD were 19% and 23%. There was no difference between patients with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (n=49, 29%) when compared to patients that received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (n=114, 67%) in OS (33.1 vs 29.2; p=0.68) and PFS (20.2 vs 20.8; p=0.97). Patients that were MRD+ (n=31) had worse OS (22.2 vs 48.6; p=0.1) and PFS (14.1 vs 32.5; p=0.04) and higher rates of relapse (1-year relapse 20% vs 8%; p=0.08) than patients that were MRD- (n=50). PFS was improved in those who received alloSCT though only trended towards significance due to low numbers (HR 0.76, p=0.09). In subtype analysis, TCL1A+ T-PLL had significantly worse outcomes compared to TCL1A negative T-PLL. TCL1A+ disease had significantly worse OS (21.6 vs 63.1; p=0.01) and PFS (12.4 vs 50.7; p=0.01) compared to TCL1A-. Additionally, in TCL1A+ disease CI of NRM (24% vs 3%; p=0.02) and relapse (25% vs 12%; p=0.86) was higher vs TCL1A- PLL. CD4+CD8-, CD4-CD8+, and CD4+CD8+ disease had no difference in survival via either OS (28.0 vs 34.4 vs 21.0; p=0.17) or PFS (29.4 vs 23.5 vs 13.6; p=0.09) as well as no difference 1-year CI of NRM ( 11.6 vs 23.5 vs 26.2; p=0.35) and relapse (18.5 vs 23.5 vs 20.0; p=0.67).Conclusions: AlloSCT significantly improved outcomes for patients with T-PLL compared to those who did not proceed to alloSCT and remains he only curative therapy for those with T-PLL. OS, PFS, and CI relapse were significantly worse for patients with TCL1A+ subtype of T-PLL, or those with MRD positivity or PR prior to alloSCT. Novel strategies to decrease relapse such as post-alloSCT maintenance therapy to improve outcomes are urgently needed in these patients.