Citations

Abstract The prognosis of elderly patients (pts) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains poor, and novel therapeutic approaches are clearly needed. CD19 is expressed on the majority of precursor-B ALLs and represents an attractive therapeutic target. The anti-CD19 bi-specific engager antibody blinatumomab has demonstrated significant activity in both relapsed/refractory ALL and minimal residual disease (MRD) positive ALL. Therefore, we evaluated blinatumomab as a single agent in the upfront treatment of newly diagnosed elderly pts with Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) negative B-lineage ALL to determine response rates and overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts were treated at National Clinical Trial Network sites from June 2015 to September 2017. The primary objective of the study was to estimate 3-year OS. An IND was approved by the FDA and the protocol was approved by a central institutional review board. Eligibility: age > 65 years, newly diagnosed Ph negative B-lineage ALL with adequate organ function and no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease. Pts received blinatumomab for induction at standard dosing for 1-2 cycles until attainment of complete response (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (defined below). Pts then received 3 cycles of blinatumomab post-remission therapy followed by 18 months of maintenance POMP (prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate). A total of 8 doses of intrathecal methotrexate were administered as CNS prophylaxis. Cytogenetic risk was ascribed by NCCN 2018 criteria and bone marrow samples were analyzed for the presence of the Ph-like signature. MRD was assessed centrally by 8 color flow cytometry pre-treatment, on Day 35 of induction cycle 1, and on Day 35 of re-induction (if applicable). Response was assessed at the completion of 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab. CR was defined as < 5% marrow blasts with no evidence of extramedullary disease and recovery of counts [absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > 1000/uL, platelets >100,000/uL]. CRi was defined the same as CR but ANC < 1000/ uL and/ or platelets ≤ 100,000/ uL. OS was measured from day of registration on trial until the date of death. Disease-free survival (DFS) was measured from the date the pt achieved CR/ CRi until relapse or death. Toxicities were graded according to NCI CTCAE version 4.0. Results: Of 31 pts enrolled, 29 were eligible. The median age was 75 years (range 66 - 84), 22 (76%) were male, median baseline white blood count was 3.7 x 103/uL (range 0.3 - 7,100), and median bone marrow blast count percentage was 86.5% (range 30-100). Three pts received hydroxyurea or steroids prior to treatment initiation. Cytogenetic risk at diagnosis was: poor (34% of pts; n=10), standard (55% of pts; n=16), good (3% of pts; n=1) and unknown (7% of pts, n=2). Testing for the Ph-like signature is being completed. The most common Grade 3-5 non-hematologic toxicities related to treatment during induction were hyperglycemia (14%), dyspnea (10%), febrile neutropenia (10%), hypertension (10%), and lung infection (7%). One pt developed Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and 1 developed Grade 3 neurotoxicity. No pts died during the first 28 days of treatment. The overall response rate (CR + CRi) was 66% (all CRs). Thirteen of the 19 responders have available MRD data post-treatment. Of these, 12 pts (92%) achieved MRD negativity, all at Cycle 1 Day 35. One pt required 2 cycles of blinatumomab to achieve CR. One pt proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median follow-up time is 1 year and median duration on trial is 170 days (6 pts are still on maintenance therapy). OS estimated by Kaplan Meier at 6 months is 79% (95% CI 58%-90%) and at 1 year is 65% (95% CI 43%-80%). DFS estimated at 6 months is 68% (95% CI 43%-84%) and at 1 year is 56% (95% CI 31%-75%). No baseline features including CD19 expression (by percentage or mean-fluorescent intensity) or presence of a CD19 negative subpopulation were associated with response. Conclusions: Blinatumomab was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with Ph negative B-lineage ALL. Further follow up will determine the durability of these responses. Disclosures Advani: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy. Wieduwilt:Leadiant: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding. Park:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Consultancy. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background: Induction therapy with daunorubicin (Dauno) & cytarabine (Ara-C) [DA] has been the standard of care for eligible older adults (age ≥ 60 years) with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) for over 2 decades. Single agent Clofarabine (CLO) induction & consolidation (Consol.) therapy has demonstrated important clinical activity in this age group in large phase II studies. Lower induction mortality (IM) & similar reported complete remission rate (CR) & overall survival (OS), as well as notable activity in those with higher risk disease features [including unfavorable cytogenetics, therapy-related AML (t-AML) & prior antecedent hematologic disorder (AHD)] raises the possibility that a non-Ara-C-based regimen could achieve similar or superior OS with lower toxicity. Methods: We performed a randomized United States Intergroup Phase III trial of single agent CLO [30mg/m2 x 5 days induction; 20 mg/m2 re-induction (if indicated) & 2 cycles Consol.] vs. standard DA therapy [Dauno 60mg/m2 D1-3 & Ara-C 100mg/m2 D1-7 induction x 1-2 cycles; 2 cycles Consol. with Ara-C (1.5g/m2 Q12hrs D1-6 age 60-69; once daily if age 70+)] in patients (pts) age ≥ 60 yrs with newly diagnosed AML. Patients with serum creatinine >1.0 (or GFR <60 mL/min) and those with AML-M3 and ECOG performance status >3 (PS>2 if age 70+ yrs) were excluded. Randomization was stratified by age (60-69 vs. 70+), t-AML, & AHD. Pts with HLA-matched donor were eligible for allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) after induction, and those completing Consol. were eligible for randomization #2 (R#2) to maintenance decitabine [20mg/m2 x 3D, monthly x 1 year] versus observation. With a target accrual of 747, E2906 was powered to determine non-inferiority [and possible superiority] of CLO vs. standard DA, and primary endpoint was OS. A weighted statistical analysis was performed to account for confounding impact of R#2. AlloHCT patients were censored at transplant in this analysis. Responses & cytogenetics were confirmed centrally and OS & CR rates were monitored by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) at pre-specified time points. Results: As of Feb 23, 2015, 727 pts were randomized. Median age was 68 years (range 60-86); 57% were male, and 38% were age ≥70 yrs. Treatment arms are well balanced for all baselineclinical & AML characteristics, & 30% had unfavorable cytogenetics. Of 659 with complete treatment information reported, 30.4% on DA vs. 40.1% on CLO received 2 cycles of induction (p=0.006). Median follow-up of surviving patients is 7.6 months. Table 1. shows early treatment results (CR, toxicity) for the 686 pts randomized as of Dec 23, 2014 (2 months prior to study end, & excluding 90 with ongoing response evaluation). DA CLO p-value CR/CRi 43.8% 42.8% p=0.87 30-day mortality 8.5% 7.9% p=0.89 60-day mortality 14.9% 13.1% p=0.58 Gr 4-5 Non-Heme Tox.Induction 27% 19% p=0.02 Gr 4-5 Non-Heme Tox.Consol. 20% 7% p=0.001 374 pts have died (174, DA; 200, CLO) & significantly inferior OS was observed for CLO vs. DA [Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.41 (95% CI 1.12-1.78)] (Fig. 1). Planned subgroup analyses were performed (Table 2) demonstrating significant differences in OS after CLO for patients age 60-69 yrs, without AHD, & with intermediate risk cytogenetics; but not for those with Unfav. Cytogen. (Fig. 2) or t-AML. Based on the primary weighted analysis, DSMC recommended suspension of new accrual to E2906 on Feb 23, 2015 & all active patients on CLO were transitioned to DA Arm. Table 2.NHR CLO/Standard (95% CI)*Weighted OS7271.41 (1.12-1.78)Unweighted OS7271.23 (1.00-1.50)Age 60-694491.48 (1.10-1.99)Age 70+2781.34 (0.93-1.93)Intermed. Risk Cytogen.3781.77 (1.27-2.47)Unfav. Risk Cytogen.2160.96 (0.65-1.43)No AHD6041.46 (1.13-1.89)AHD1231.22 (0.74-2.00)De novo AML6271.52 (1.18-1.96)Therapy-related AML1000.94 (0.54-1.61) Conclusions: Despite similar CR & IM, OS after single agent CLO is inferior to standard DA therapy for pts age ≥60 years with newly diagnosed AML who are fit for intensive therapy, and DA remains the standard of care. However no difference in OS was observed after CLO in some pre-specified high risk AML subgroups. R#2 & AlloHCT arms continue in E2906 for pts already enrolled. Embedded prospective minimal residual disease study at CR is being performed to identify pts at higher risk after CLO & DA. Figure 1. Weighted Kaplan-Meier Curves for OS Figure 1. Weighted Kaplan-Meier Curves for OS Figure 2. Unfavorable Cytogenetics OS by Therapy Figure 2. Unfavorable Cytogenetics OS by Therapy Disclosures Off Label Use: Use of clofarabine in AML, and maintenance therapy with decitabine in AML. Claxton:Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Ambit: Research Funding. Levine:Loxo Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy. Altman:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The results of the primary endpoint of the E2906 North American Intergroup phase 3 trial - demonstrating significantly inferior OS after single agent clofarabine versus standard intensive daunorubicin & cytarabine induction and consolidation - strongly support the use of intensive therapy for patients age ≥60 years with newly-diagnosed AML who are fit for treatment. This result was achieved despite similar CR rates (including CRi - CR with incomplete blood count recovery) and similar early (30- & 60-day) induction mortality between study arms, raising the question as to the importance of achieving CR as an endpoint. Therefore, we performed a follow-up analysis to address the factors that contribute to early mortality, the necessity for 2nd induction cycle to achieve CR, and to assess the survival impact of the quality of remission. Methods: E2906 design, study population and results for the primary objective were reported previously (ASH 2015, abstr. #217a). We performed this updated analysis to evaluate clinical risk factors for early mortality and re-induction, and to assess the impact of response quality on OS. Univariate comparisons were made with Fisher's exact test (category) and t-test (continuous variable), and logistic regression models were used to examine risk factors associated with early mortality, and with requiring a 2nd cycle of induction therapy. We performed a landmark analysis (beginning Day 60 after initiation of therapy) to determine the impact of response quality (CR/CRi, morphologic leukemia-free-state (MLFS), and treatment failure - i.e. residual/refractory AML) on OS. Survival comparisons were performed with log-rank test. Results: A total of n=727 patients were registered to E2906, the median age is 68 years (range 60-86) and the median follow-up of surviving patients is now 18.3 months. Adjusting for treatment, cytogenetic risk group, FAB subtype, WBC count, and secondary AML, increasing age (p=0.06) and performance status (PS) >1 (p=0.05) were associated with 30-day mortality and only PS >1 (p=0.06) with 60-day mortality. Treatment arm (p=0.003), adverse cytogenetic risk group (p=0.02), increasing age (p=0.03) and baseline WBC <10K (p=0.03) were each independently associated with higher risk of receiving 2nd cycle induction, but there was no difference in CR/CRi (44.2% vs. 42.2%, p=0.58) or in median OS (13.8 versus 12.0 months, p=0.11) for those receiving 1 vs. 2 induction cycles, respectively. We next performed a landmark analysis (day 60, n=608 evaluable patients) to evaluate OS in relation to the quality of response (Table). We observed an advantage in achieving CR and CR/CRi, although the benefit of CRi diminished greatly after 12 months, and OS after MLFS appeared more similar to treatment failure (Figure, p<0.001). The relative adverse impact of CRi and MLFS (vs. CR) was most pronounced for patients treated with clofarabine, where median OS was shorter for those achieving CRi (12.2m vs. 22.6m standard therapy, p=0.007) and MLFS (6.6m vs. 13.4m standard therapy, p=0.15). Conclusion: This follow-up analysis confirms the importance of CR regardless of the number of cycles of induction therapy required to achieve remission, and identifies risk factors associated with early mortality and with requiring re-induction. At longer follow-up the OS after CRi appears to be inferior to true CR, particularly after clofarabine. We hypothesize that this may be due to higher rates of minimal residual disease in CRi, and studies to determine this are being performed. MLFS is not associated with a better overall survival than frank treatment failure (i.e. residual disease) and therefore its value as a response category is uncertain. These results highlight the role of standard intensive remission induction therapy with the intent of achieving CR, which remains the standard of care for fit older adults. Table. Table. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Foran: karyopharm: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; medscape: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; pfizer: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; agios: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding. Melnick:Janssen: Research Funding. Altman:Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Syros: Honoraria. Al-Kali:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.