Citations

Background: For patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)-the most common form of leukemia in older adults-equitable access to care is particularly challenging, as the disease is often diagnosed in community cancer centers encumbered by regional disparities. Therefore, identifying and understanding regional barriers to care is essential. In 2020, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a heat map detailing the incidence rate of CLL diagnoses across the country (Fig.1), overlayed with the locations of CLL “expert” providers, revealing the areas in the US most in need of additional CLL clinical expertise (Fig. 2). In 2022, these incidence rates were stratified by race, ethnicity, and metropolitan statistical area to identify disparities Building on these maps, ACCC set out to identify specific regional challenges to appropriate, equitable care for patients with CLL. Methods: As part of an independent education program, ACCC initiated conversations with providers about the regional barriers that patients with CLL face. Through 4 webinars in February 2023, participants from 4 regions-Northeast (New York and Maine), Northwest (Montana and Idaho), Midwest (Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa), and Southwest (Texas)-shared insights on challenges and exchanged ideas on strategies to improve care for patients with CLL. In addition, ACCC interviewed 3 regionally diverse cancer programs (from the US Northwest, South, and Southwest regions) that are effectively overcoming regional challenges to reach their patient populations and provide equitable care. These interviews highlighted barriers and challenges, showcased effective outreach campaigns, and explored how the outreach improved the patient journey. Findings: The following themes emerged as key challenges and potential solutions throughout all regions studied: (1) Comprehensive Diagnostic Work-up Before Treatment Initiation: A key component in caring for patients with CLL is identifying certain disease related criteria prior to formulating a treatment plan. This includes determining the disease burden, disease-related symptoms, and if the patient meets certain active disease criteria (eg, Binet Stage C or Rai Stage III or IV). Further, by utilizing genetic testing, such as the TP53 gene mutation and IGHV mutation tests, physicians can estimate time to treatment and choice of specific novel targeted therapies. (2) Understanding Patient Population Needs: Cancer programs must understand the needs of their unique patient populations to effectively address them. For example, in the Northwest, as mountainous passes can make travel dangerous at times, one local program utilizes near-campus housing/hotel space for patients for the duration of their intensive treatment. In the Southwest, addressing health insurance coverage, low health literacy, language barriers, patient-provider mistrust, and culturally competent care for undocumented individuals presents challenges to equitable care delivery. Therefore, cancer programs in this region have implemented protocols to utilize community and social services to help support these patients. (3) Developing Community Partnerships: As the median age of diagnosis with CLL is approximately 70 years old, barriers such as transportation availability, caregiver support and financial constraints could be magnified. Building trust, particularly among vulnerable communities, also presents a significant challenge. By partnering with community outreach organizations, programs can help address these issues through community resources such as ride share programs, transportation vouchers, and financial assistance programs. (4) Provider Education and Learning: Because many patients are diagnosed in community cancer programs and smaller practices where physicians do not often have experience with CLL, nationally available provider education on new developments in testing and treatments is key. Conclusions: ACCC identified regional challenges and solutions to appropriate and equitable care for patients with CLL, including the importance of comprehensive diagnostic work-up before treating, understanding the regional needs of patient populations (particularly underserved populations), building community partnerships, and engaging in targeted provider education.

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) therapy in older patients (age ≥ 60) has undergone a transformation with the introduction of multiple targeted therapies, which has allowed more patients to receive therapy than before. The most successful has been the combination of venetoclax + azacitidine (VA) which generated higher overall complete response rates in phase 2 studies than would be expected with azacitidine alone, leading to accelerated FDA approval on 21Nov2018. The VIALE-A phase 3 study confirmed the improved overall survival (OS, median 14.7 versus 9.6 months) of VA, leading to full FDA approval for marketing. This retrospective analysis provides real world data on the impact of baseline clinical and genomic markers of individuals receiving intensive chemotherapy versus VA. Methods: The precision medicine Beat AML Master Trial (NCT03013998) assigns patients to biomarker specific sub-study treatments based on targeted DNA sequencing and cytogenetics. However, a large subset of patients did not enroll on a sub-study, but were followed for off-study treatment and OS. From this subset, patients enrolled onward from 21Nov2018, when VA received accelerated approval, were examined for differences in clinical/genetic characteristics and OS in those receiving venetoclax + hypomethylating agent (V/HMA), any form of intensive chemotherapy (IC), alternative non-intensive therapy (NIT), or no therapy. The genetic mutations identified in this study are characterized by a variant allele frequency of 20%+, as defined in the trial for determining the dominant clone. The method of Kaplan-Meier was used to estimate OS, and the Cox model was fit to associate patient characteristics with OS. Results: From 21Nov2018, a total of 468 AML patients consented to the Beat AML trial and did not enroll to a sub-study. Treatment was chosen by the investigator based upon available clinical and genomic data. Of these 468 patients, 62 did not receive treatment, 2 had treatment data missing, 226 were treated with V/HMA, 112 with IC, and 66 with NIT. Demographics for all patients include median age 71 (60-90), 40% female, performance status (PS) (0-20%; 1-55%; 2-22%; 3-3%), median white blood cell (WBC) 4.1 (range 0.3-298.6), complex karyotype (CK) 20.6%, core binding factor (CBF) 7.8%, KMT2A-rearranged 3.6%, NPM1-mutated (m) 15.6%, IDH2m 14.6%, TP53m 13.2%, FLT3-ITD/TKD 12.9%, and NRASm/ PTPN11m/ KRASm/ NF1m/ CBLm 23.6%. Demographics that were significantly different (p<0.01) among the three groups (V/HMA, IC, and NIT) include age (younger in IC), PS (worse in NIT), AST/ALT (worse in NIT), CBF (more in IC), CK and TP53m (less in IC). Of the 404 patients who underwent treatment with V/HMA, IC, or NIT, 208 have died with those surviving having a median follow-up of 22.3 months. Figure 1 summarizes the OS of each treatment group. The median OS (95% CI) from time of initiating therapy is 13.6 (10.9-16.8) for V/HMA, 33.8 (20.7-not reached) for IC, and 11.6 (5.2-21.3) months for NIT. Univariable analysis for OS was significant at p<0.05 for increased age, WBC, PS, hemoglobin, CBF, CK, NPM1m, TP53m, TET2m and IC versus V/HMA. Multivariable analysis was significant at p<0.05 (hazard ratio) for increased age (1.14), PS (1.83), WBC (1.08), hemoglobin (0.91), and select genomic aberrations including CBF (0.37), NPM1m (0.35), and TP53m (2.1). Conclusions: These results from a large cohort of older AML patients treated with V/HMA, IC, or NIT show that their outcome is best defined by pre-treatment clinical features previously identified including age, performance status, WBC and hemoglobin along with limited genomic characteristics including CBF, NPM1m, and TP53m. While univariate analysis of OS favored IC over V/HMA and NIT, multivariable analysis supports that this advantage was most likely due to the favorable clinical and genomic features. The OS of V/HMA patients in this cohort is similar to that in the VIALE-A registration study of VA, providing further justification for this treatment for older AML patients deemed ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Additionally, this data supports use of the patient cohort in this study for ongoing work in understanding and/or validating biomarkers associated with survival with V/HMA.

Background. Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogenous disease that occurs primarily in older adults with a median age of 69 years at diagnosis. Most studies that characterize the genomic landscape of AML include younger adults with the majority of patients being younger than 60 years of age. We aimed to study the mutational landscape of newly diagnosed AML patients aged 60 years or older. Methods.Samples were collected from the multi-center Beat AML Master Trial (Burd, Nat Med 2020). Patients were enrolled between 2016 and 2023. Informed consent was obtained according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Patients diagnosed with non-APL AML and who were aged ≥ 60 years old were included. Patients underwent bone marrow aspiration and biopsy, cytogenetic analysis, FLT3-ITD ratio assessment (LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, Invivoscribe) and next generation sequencing (NGS) using FoundationOne®Heme(Foundation Medicine) to interrogate the entire coding region of 406 genes and select introns of 31 genes involved in rearrangements, as well as RNA sequencing to interrogate 265 genes known to be somatically altered in human hematological malignancies. The presence of multiple hotspot mutations within one gene in an individual patient was counted as one gene mutation. Patterns of co-occurrence between gene mutations were calculated using the Phi correlation coefficient. Statistical analyses were performed using R statistical software. P<0.01 was considered statistically significant. Results. A total of 1088 newly diagnosed AML patients were identified, of whom 1032 were 60 years or older. Patients had a median age of 72 years at time of diagnosis (range 60-92 years). Forty-two percent of the patients were female, most patients were non-Hispanic and 79% were Caucasian. NGS data were available for 1024 patients and mutations were identified in 461 different genes. Patients had a median number of 11.0 mutations (range 3.0 to 28.0). The most frequently mutated genes were DNMT3A (n=257; 25.1%), TP53(n=255; 24.9%), TET2 (n=243; 23.7%), RUNX1 (n=225; 22.0%), SRSF2 (n=221; 21.6%), ASXL1 (n=216; 21.1%), NPM1 (n=206; 20.1%), FLT3 (n=205; 20.0%), IDH2 (n=190; 18.6%), NRAS (n=208; 16.9%), PTPN11(n=104; 10.2%), STAG2 (n=101, 9.9% and IDH1 (n=99; 9.7%) (Figure 1A). FLT3-ITD was present in 98 (12.1%) of the 810 patients who were tested. Strongest significant co-occurrence was found between FLT3and NPM1 (n=103), STAG2 and ASXL1 (n=63), ASXL1 and RUNX1 (n=92), ASXL1 and SRSF2 (n=88), RUNX1 and SRSF2 (n=94), STAG2 and SRSF2 (n=51) and DNMT3A and NPM1 (n=92) (p<0.01). Pairwise negative correlations were observed between TP53 and NPM1 (n=6), TP53 and SRSF2 (n=17), and between NPM1 and RUNX1 (n=6) (p<0.01) (Figure 1B). The cytogenetic profiles and the full genomic landscape will be presented during the ASH meeting. Discussion. This is the largest study investigating the mutational profile in older adults with AML aged 60 years and older. Due to the 7-day screening period of the Beat AML study, patient selection was biased towards less-rapidly proliferative AML. We showed that the pattern of gene mutations was markedly different from other studies in AML that mainly included younger AML patients (Papaemmanuil, NEJM 2016; TCGA, NEJM 2013 ). The frequency of mutated TP53 was substantially higher in older AML patients, as was the occurrence of myelodysplasia-related gene mutations (e.g., SRSF2, RUNX1, ASXL1, STAG2, U2AF1, and SF3B1) and gene mutations in IDH1, IDH2 and TET2. In contrast, NPM1 mutation was less frequently mutated in older AML patients. Furthermore, we demonstrated that a large proportion (46%) of the AML patients older than 60 years of age do have a mutation that is potentially targetable for treatment ( FLT3 IDH1 IDH2 and NPM1). The high incidence of mutated TP53 and MDS-related gene mutations underscores the increased incidence of high-risk AML and the need for innovative personalized therapies in this older age group. Figure 1. A. Co-occurrence of the 15 most frequently mutated genes, and B. co-correlation between the 15 most frequently mutated genes. Blue indicates positive correlation, red indicated negative correlation. Only significant correlations (p<0.01) are shown.

Introduction: Immune-mediated graft failure (also termed graft rejection) is a feared complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and there is no effective intervention. Multiple pre-transplant risk factors for graft failure are known and recent studies from our groups identified interferon gamma (IFNγ) as a mechanistically important and pharmacologically targetable cytokine involved in graft failure pathophysiology. CXCL9, a downstream marker of IFNγ production, was also identified as a biomarker. We describe an international multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of emapalumab (EMA), an IFNγ neutralizing agent, for the prevention/treatment of immune-mediated graft failure after HSCT. Methods: The safety and preliminary efficacy of EMA were studied in predominantly pediatric patients who received EMA using two different strategies: 1) graft failure treatment and 2) graft failure prophylaxis. Patients at US centers were treated with EMA if they developed clinical and laboratory signs of graft failure after HSCT. All treatment patients met 2 or more of the following criteria: 1) HLA mismatched donor and/or prior graft failure, 2) unexplained fever >39°C (or >38°C if prior history of graft failure) after HSCT, 3) absolute neutrophil count decline after initial engraftment, 4) delayed neutrophil engraftment after HSCT, 5) real-time CXCL9 > 2.5x upper limit of normal (ULN). Temperature and CXCL9 cutoffs were based on a prior graft failure biomarker publication (Sabulski et al, Blood Advances 2021). Patients treated at European centers received prophylactic EMA to prevent graft failure if they were deemed at high-risk prior to transplant. High-risk patients had a prior history of graft failure after HSCT or had two or more of the following established risk factors: a) affected by a disease with high risk of graft failure, including acquired severe aplastic anemia, thalassemia, primary HLH; b) ex-vivo T cell-depleted stem cell product; c) transplant from unrelated cord blood unit or mismatched related/unrelated donor. Results: Thirty-six HSCTs used EMA for graft failure treatment or prophylaxis and were included in this study.EMA was used for graft failure treatment in 25 HSCTs wherein patients developed clinical and laboratory signs of graft failure (Table 1). Most HSCTs in the treatment cohort were performed for bone marrow failure syndromes (n=16). All patients tolerated EMA without complications and no side effects or infections were attributed to EMA. Fifty six percent (14/25) of patients treated with EMA for impending graft failure engrafted and had resolution of graft failure concerns, while the remaining 44% suffered graft failure. Responders had a median ANC of 0.29 x10 3 cells/μL (range 0.05-0.79) prior to EMA, which increased to a median of 0.6 x10 3cells/μL (range, 0-5.1) and 2.97 x10 3 cells/μL (range, 0.85-8.7) on days 3 and 7 after EMA dosing. Eighty percent (20/25) of CXCL9 levels were elevated in the treatment cohort prior to EMA dosing. The median CXCL9 level prior to EMA dosing was elevated 2.4 x ULN (range, 0.3-157.8). The median pre-EMA CXCL9 level in patients who ultimately suffered graft failure in the treatment cohort was 3.3x ULN (range, 0.7-157.8) compared to a median of 2.2x ULN (range, 0.3-30.4) in subjects who had signs of graft failure but did not suffer graft failure (p=0.24). Eleven patients received prophylactic EMA based on a prior history of graft failure or other pre-transplant risk factors. EMA was well tolerated in these patients and 91% (10/11) of patients engrafted while one patient with prior history of graft failure suffered recurrent graft failure. The pre-HSCT (day -2) CXCL9 level in the lone prophylactic patient who suffered graft failure was 4x the ULN. Conclusions: This study reports the largest cohort of HSCTs that used EMA therapy for the novel purpose of treating or preventing graft failure. EMA was well tolerated in all patients. Efficacy conclusions are preliminary and limited by the study design, however our treatment study successfully identified a cohort of patients with a markedly high graft failure rate (44%) and we show preliminary evidence to suggest emaplaumab prevented graft failure in patients who had signs of impending graft failure at the time of treatment. The safety and preliminary efficacy observations in this study support a larger prospective study of IFNγ blockade for graft failure prevention after HSCT.

Introduction: Preclinical studies have suggested synergism between lenalidomide (LEN) and ibrutinib (IBR) in multiple myeloma (MM). Both downregulate IRF4, a master transcriptional factor that regulates myeloma cell survival. Single agent oral IBR combined with dexamethasone proved well tolerated and active in advanced, steroid refractory relapsed MM as part of a large Phase1/2 study in 60 patients, with durable stabilization and minimal response seen in most evaluable patients (Richardson PG et al, BJH 2018). LEN is considered a standard of care in newly diagnosed MM, as maintenance and in relapsed disease, and a backbone of oral therapy in the MM treatment paradigm (Laubach JP et al, Leukemia 2016). Methods: We therefore conducted a 3+3 phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IBR in combination with LEN + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM who had at least 2 prior lines of therapy. Three dose levels (DL) were planned. Cycle length was 28 days. IBR was administered orally daily at 560mg on DL1-2 and 840mg on DL3, LEN orally days 1-21 at 15mg on DL1 and 25mg on DL2-3, and DEX orally days 1, 8, 15, and 22 at 40 mg if age < 75 or 20 mg if ≥75 for DL1-3. Patients with GFR ≥ 30 and < 60 were treated according to manufacturer's instructions with lenalidomide dosed at 10mg/d. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) included grade 4 thrombocytopenia; grade 4 neutropenia lasting more than 5 days or febrile neutropenia; grade 4 nausea, vomiting or diarrhea; grade 3 thrombocytopenia with bleeding or platelet transfusion; grade 3-4 hyperglycemia or thrombotic/embolic event, treatment delays ≥ 21 days for toxicity; and treatment related death. Due to changes in standard of care during the study, eligibility was modified to allow the enrollment of patients with RRMM who had at least 1 prior line of therapy. Response was assessed using IMWG/Uniform Criteria. Results: Fourteen patients (DL1-6 pts; DL2-3 pts; DL3-5 pts) registered to the study from March 2019 to May 2023, prior to its closure due to slow accrual. One patient on DL3 cancelled participation prior to start of treatment due to disease progression (PD). The remaining 13 patients are included in summary of toxicities and response but 2 patients on DL3 are excluded from determination of MTD due to discontinuing cycle 1 treatment due to COVID and receiving 280 mg/day of IBR instead of assigned 840 mg/day dose during cycle 1, respectfully. Twelve patients were evaluable for response. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range: 2-9), reflecting a heavily pretreated relapsed and refractory population. One of the 6 patient on DL1 developed a DLT, grade 3 non-viral hepatitis. None of the 3 patients on DL2 or the 2 patients on DL3 had a DLT. One patient on DL1 remains on treatment with stable disease for 42+ cycles. The median number of cycles administered was 3 (range: 1-42+). Severe toxicities reported included grade 3 lymphocytopenia (3), anemia (2), alanine aminotransferase increase (1), aspartate aminotransferase increase (1), blood bilirubin increase (1), hypocalcemia (1), hypokalemia (1) hypophosphatemia (1), febrile neutropenia (1), chronic kidney disease (1), non-viral hepatitis (1), soft tissue infection (1), and fatigue (1); grade 4 lymphocytopenia (1), and grade 5 sepsis (1). End of treatment reasons included: PD (7), toxicity (2), death [soft tissue infection that turned into sepsis considered to be likely related to DEX] (1), and concomitant conditions (2). Stable disease (SD) or better was achieved in 10 of 12 evaluable patients (83%), including one patient who achieved disease control for over 3.5 years. One patient (8%) on DL3 had a complete response (CR) but stopped treatment after 2 cycles due to reversible toxicity and comorbid conditions, based upon physician advice and patient choice. Conclusions: The combination of lenalidomide with Ibrutinib as an all-oral approach in RR MM proved feasible and generally tolerable, with the majority of discontinuation seen in this Phase I study due to disease progression. No COVID related - mortality was seen. SD or better was achieved in 83% of patients, including one CR. Potential future directions include combination approaches with next generation IMids such as pomalidomide, as well as other orally bioavailable novel agents with potent immune activating properties, such as CelMoDs. Support: AFT; Pharmacyclics; Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702725