Citations

Introduction: Given the major treatment advancements in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) such as bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), understanding patient and healthcare provider (HCP) decision-making perspectives is crucial. This study investigated barriers to adopting resource-intensive novel therapies, unmet needs in access to care, and treatment decision priorities in one of the largest surveys of RRMM patients and HCPs. Methods: This prospective study was conducted from March to June 2024 using 30-minute web-based quantitative surveys fielded in 2269 participants (1301 RRMM patients and 968 HCPs) across 7 countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan). The survey collected data on pre-defined patient subgroups (line of treatment, ages <45, 46-65, 65+]) and in HCP subgroups (care settings: academic, community [non-Center of Excellence [COE]). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Results: Two themes that emerged from the findings were: 1) discrepancies in treatment considerations between patients and HCPs, and 2) Familiarity with and considerations around BsAbs among patients Discrepancies in HCP and Patient considerations HCPs and patients prioritized different considerations during treatment decision-making, particularly related to the importance of treatment related adverse events (TRAEs). 3L+ patients equally prioritized disease control and minimizing TRAEs (49% and 49%); HCPs prioritized disease control more often than minimizing TRAEs (59% and 40% for 3L+ patients). Patients considered many TRAEs extremely challenging to manage, whereas HCPs were less likely to do so (patients vs HCPs: bone-related AEs: 64% vs 39%, p<0.001; hypertension: 54% vs 28%, p<0.001; cholesterol: 53% vs 21%, p<0.001; skin-related AEs: 49% vs 30%, p<0.001). Limiting TRAEs was a concern particularly among patients over 65 (52%, p<0.001) and those with comorbidities (52%, p<0.001). Limiting costs and financial challenges (3L+ patients: 33% vs HCPs: 13%, p<0.001) and avoiding compromising the potential to receive treatment options in later lines (3L+ patients: 25% vs HCPs:14%, p<0.001) were other considerations patients prioritized more than HCPs. HCPs prioritized limiting side effects 9% more in 3L settings compared to 2L. Discrepancies in decision-making in 2L setting included a desire to limit treatment-related logistical burden (patients: 35% vs HCP: 17%, p<0.001), limit challenges for care partners (25% vs 13%, p<0.001), and ensure treatment without referral (24% vs 16%, p=0.001). Compared to their older counterparts, younger patients (<45 y v ≥45y) prioritized convenient treatment administration (39% vs 29%, p=0.024) and avoiding referrals to other institutions (32% vs 22%, p<0.001). Perspectives on treatment considerations specific to BsAbs Among 3L+ patients, most have not heard of BsAbs, or have heard but were unfamiliar with the option. A small proportion of 3L+ patients recalled their HCPs suggesting BsAbs as a treatment option (14%) although most patients decided to receive BsAbs treatment when it was offered (71%). Among patients on BsAb treatment, patients most often cited clinical reasons for going on BsAbs (i.e., remission, symptom relief, and likelihood of greater longevity). Among non-clinical reasons, lower time commitment and lower likelihood of negative financial impact compared with other treatments were also common. Notably, 36% of HCPs reported low confidence in identifying RRMM patients eligible for BsAbs. Compared with academic HCPs (32%), more community/non-COE HCPs (42% p=0.018) reported low confidence. Conclusions: HCPs and patients have different priorities during treatment decision-making, particularly regarding the importance of minimizing TRAE and in prioritizing efficacy and managing logistical burdens in later treatment lines. Among novel treatments, BsAbs are not frequently recalled by patients as a treatment option provided by HCPs. HCPs, especially in community settings, are often uncertain about identifying eligible patients for BsAbs, indicating a need for greater educational resources for HCPs. Increasing patient awareness of available treatments, HCP understanding of novel treatments, and fostering dialogue on patient priorities can increase the likelihood of informed, personalized shared decision-making, and optimize evidence-based patient outcomes.

Background: TP53-mutated (TP53mut) myeloid neoplasms (MN) have particularly poor survival. Discrepancies in defining TP53mut MN have impact on diagnostic work up, therapeutic decisions, and clinical trial enrolment. Methods: MN cases harboring TP53mut (variant allele frequency, VAF ≥2%) were classified based on bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) blast % using the 4th revision of the WHO classification (WHO-4R). Biallelic loss was defined as (i) ≥2 mutations each with VAF ≥2%; (ii) single TP53mut VAF ≥2% plus 17p loss detected on karyotype, FISH, or SNP; or (iii) single TP53mut VAF ≥50%, whereas monoallelic loss was defined as single TP53mut VAF <50% without 17p loss. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from diagnosis. Conditional Inference Trees (CIT) analysis was used to determine the true effect of a predictor. Results: We identified 580 cases including WHO-4R defined acute myeloid leukemia (AML, BM/PB blasts ≥20%, n=219, 37.8%), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with excess blasts-2 (EB-2, BM 10-19% or PB 5%-19%, n=92, 15.9%), MDS with excess blasts-1 (EB-1, BM 5-9% or PB 2-4%, n=75, 12.9%), and the remaining were MDS with low blasts (-LB, BM <5% and PB ≤1%, n=194, 33.4%). Of the 578 cases evaluable for allelic status, 437 (75.6%) and 141 (24.4%) had biallelic and monoallelic TP53 loss, respectively. Higher frequency of biallelic loss was observed with increasing blasts. 63.2%, 73.3%, 78% and 86.3% of cases with MDS-LB, MDS-EB1, MDS-EB2, and AML had bi-allelic TP53 loss (P<0.0001). In a multivariable analysis, WHO-4R categories, VAF ≥10%, and biallelic loss were independent predictors of poor survival. CIT analysis further stratified the cohort into 4 groups with distinct survival: (1) MDS-LB (n=194, 33.4%); (2) MDS-EB1/EB2 and AML with VAF <10% (n=38, 6.6%); (3) MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% (n=149, 25.7%); and (4) AML with VAF ≥10% (n=199, 34.3%). MDS-LB cases could be further stratified based on allelic status and complex karyotype (CK): OS was poor for cases with biallelic TP53 loss and monoallelic TP53mut with CK compared to monoallelic TP53mut without CK, who had the most favorable survival (12.7 vs. 13 vs. 34.8 months, P<0.0001).MDS-EB1/EB2/AML with VAF<10% could also be stratified by CK: MDS-EB1/EB2/AML with VAF<10% cases without CK had the favorable survival compared to their counterparts with CK and MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% cases (26.2 vs. 5.6 vs. 6.3 months, P=0.003).MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% was a homogenous subgroup: Biological characteristics including the proportion of cases with biallelic TP53 loss, CK (P>0.9), monosomal karyotype (MK, P>0.9), del 5q (P=0.6), del 7q (P=0.4), and del 17p (P=0.2) were comparable between MDS-EB1 and -EB2 with VAF ≥10%. Importantly, median OS of MDS-EB1 and EB2 with VAF ≥10% was comparable (9.6 vs. 7.2 months, P=0.12). OS in this group was comparable regardless of the blast %, allelic status, or presence of CK.AML with VAF ≥10% had extremely poor survival: Median OS was 3.9 months. Survival of AML was equally poor irrespective of the mono- or biallelic (3.6 vs. 3.9, P=0.89) and non-CK vs. CK (1.8 vs. 3.9 months, P=0.09). Combined, our model would acknowledge poor survival of 514 (89.1%) cases. In contrast, retrospective application of the 5th edition of the WHO classification (WHO-5) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) would classify only 211 (36.4%) and 468 (80.7%) cases as biallelic/multi-hit TP53mut MN, respectively. Finally, the Harrell's c-index of the proposed model, WHO-5, and ICC was 0.66, 0.571, and 0.617, respectively. Conclusion: We provide evidence for subsequent refinements in classifying MN harboring TP53mut. Our salient findings include: (i) acknowledgement of CK as ‘biallelic equivalent’ in MDS-LB; as well as EB1/EB2/AML with VAF 2 to <10% cases; and (ii) demonstration of poor survival of MDS-EB1 and -EB2 with VAF ≥10% regardless of the allelic status. In conclusion, our proposed model acknowledged poor survival of a higher proportion of cases as TP53mut MN compared to the current models with a higher c- index.

Background: In 2015 the first B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) patient receiving CAR T-cell therapy in Europe was reported to the EBMT registry. Today, the EBMT registry counts with more than 9000 patients treated with CAR T-cell therapies across all indications. Here, on behalf of the GoCART coalition, we present the outcomes of the largest European cohort of B-ALL patients treated with autologous, second generation, CD19-targeted CAR T-cells to date. Methods: Adult and paediatric patients with B-ALL received treatment with CAR T-cell therapy using either academic or commercially available products in 40 centres across 17 different countries. Safety was retrospectively assessed as per ASCTC 2019 consensus grading and CTCAE, and efficacy as per NCCN guidelines. Relapse incidence was defined as haematological relapse or progression after CART with non-relapse mortality as competing event. Leukemia free survival (LFS) was defined as being alive without occurrence of relapse. Follow-up includes patients treated from 2016 to Dec 2023 until data cutoff in June 2024. Results: A total of 345 patients (173 adults and 172 pediatrics) received therapy from 2016 to 2023 with tisagenlecleucel (65.2%), varnimcabtagene autoleucel (25.8%), brexucabtagene autoleucel (5.5%), and others (3.5%). Median age at infusion was 18 yrs. (range, 1.1-78.2) and 41.7% were females. High-risk features were identified including cytogenetic/genomic high-risk as per ELN guidelines (33.8%), relapse after allo-HCT (57.7%), early relapse (<1 year) after prior allo-HCT (30.4%), ≥3 prior treatment lines (55.5%) including prior exposure (and refractoriness) to blinatumomab and inotuzumab in 27.3% (34%) and 28.8% (32.3%), respectively. Median time from diagnosis to CART infusion was 2.8 years (0.1-17.9). Median time from last relapse prior CART to infusion was 2 months (range, 0.9-38.4). Bridging therapy was administered in 86.4% (298) of patients based on high or low intensity chemotherapy (32.1% or 26.5%, respectively), inotuzumab-ozogamicin (13.4%), TKI (8.2%), involved-site therapy (intrathecal chemotherapy, radiotherapy, orchiectomy) (3.5%), and blinatumomab (2.6%), alone or in combination. Prior to infusion, 34.7% had more than 5% BM blast count, 16.3% had circulating blasts in PB, and 20.6% had extramedullary disease. Lymphodepletion was performed in all but one patient, based on fludarabine and cyclophosphamide regimens. The reverse Kaplan-Meier median follow-up was of 2.2 years. The incidence of any grade (and severe) CRS was 71.6% (14.5%), and for ICANS was 15.7% (7.6%). The cumulative incidence of MRD-negative CR at month +3 was 76.9% (71.9-81.1), followed by a 2-year overall survival of 64.6% (58.7-69.8), leukemia-free survival of 48% (42.1-53.7), and relapse incidence of 45.5% (39.6-51.2). Non-relapse mortality at 2 years was 6.5% (4-9.6), 2-year cumulative incidence of subsequent HSCT of 33.3% (28-38.7) and second CAR-T infusions of 12.4% (8.8-16.6). Allogeneic HSCT after CAR-T was performed in 113 cases including 67 (59.3%) HSCT-naïve patients, due to molecular or overt disease relapse (60.9%), and other non-relapse reasons including suboptimal CAR-T persistence/B-cell aplasia (19.1%), pre-CAR-T high-risk features (13.6%), second malignancies (1.8%), and others. Second CAR-T infusions were performed in 39 cases due to molecular or overt disease relapse (79.5%) or suboptimal CAR-T persistence/B-cell aplasia in the absence of relapse (20.5%). Conclusions: The results from this European study demonstrate that CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy is an effective treatment for patients with high-risk B-cell ALL, providing substantial leukemia-free survival and overall survival rates despite the high-risk nature of the patient population. The necessity for bridging therapies and subsequent consolidative approaches, such as HSCT and second CAR T infusions, underscores the complexity and tailored nature of managing R/R B-ALL. These findings support the continued use and further investigation of CAR T-cell therapy in diverse clinical settings, emphasizing the importance of post-infusion strategies to sustain long-term remission. This will provide deeper insights into the factors influencing outcomes and help refine treatment protocols to improve patient care.

Background: The prognosis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory B ALL (r/r B-ALL) treated with CAR T-cells and receive a 2nd CART infusion is unknown. Few reports with limited numbers of patients suggest that 2nd CART infusion is feasible with questionable efficacy. This GoCART coalition registry study aimed at compiling data to investigate the indications, efficacy, and toxicity of CART2 infusion in pts with r/r B-ALL. Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective registry study that included pediatric and adult patients with r/r B-ALL who received autologous CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy (CART1) and subsequently were treated with a second administration of CD19 and/or CD22-targeted CAR-T cell therapy (CART2) from 2017 to 2023. Baseline features, prior stem cell transplant (SCT), indications for CART2 and outcomes were collected. Relapse incidence (RI) was defined as overt recurrence, non-relapse mortality (NRM) as death without relapse occurrence, leukemia free survival (LFS) as being alive without occurrence of relapse and overall survival (OS) as being alive. RI and NRM were estimated using cumulative incidence function and OS and LFS Kaplan-Meier estimation. Results: Out of 345 pts who received CART1, 39 (2y cumulative incidence of second CART: 12.4% (95%CI: 8.8-16.6)) received CART2. Reasons for CART2 were overt relapse (n= 26; 66.7%), molecular relapse by measurable residual disease (MRD+) (n=5; 12.8%), and B-cell recovery (BCR) in the absence of relapse (n=8; 20.5%). Seventeen pts (43.6%) were female and median age at CART2 infusion was 19 yrs (range: 6.9-67.1), including 19 children and 20 adults. 74.4% of the pts had received a prior SCT, 25 pts (64%) before CART1, 2 (5.1%) only between CART1 and CART2, and 2 (5.1%) before CART1 and between CART1 and CART2. Among the 31 pts who received CART2 for relapse, this was CD19+ in 24 (92.3%), CD19- in 2 (7.7%), and unknown in 5. CART1 products were varnimcabtagene autoleucel (ARI-0001) (23), tisagenlecleucel (13), brexucabtagene autoleucel (1), and other experimental (2). All CART2 products targeted CD19 except 2 (1 CD22 and 1 dual CD19-CD22). Median time between CART1 and CART2 was 11.0 months. For patients who received CART2 for BCR, median time between CART1 and CART2 was shorter than for those who received it for relapse: 2.4 (IQR: 2.3-3.3) months vs. 12.4 (IQR:6.4-19.3) months. Regarding leukemic burden at the time of CART2 infusion, 19 pts (48.8%) were in overt relapse (14/19 with extramedullary disease, including 7 in CNS), 12 (30.1%) were in complete remission (CR) MRD+ and 8 (20.5%) CR MRD-. With a median follow-up time of 2.3 yrs [95% CI: 1.2-3.4], the 2-yr OS and LFS after CART2 were 47.1% [95% CI: 27.8-64.3] and 39.9% [95% CI: 24-55.3], respectively. 2-yr RI was 54.5% (95% CI: 36.5-69.4) and NRM was 5.6% (95% CI 1-16.8). 2-yr OS, LFS and RI for pts in CR at CART2 infusion irrespective to MRD were 76.1%, 63.3% and 25.6% while for those not in CR these outcomes were 17.7%, 15% and 85%, respectively (p= 0.007, 0.006 and 0.002). 2-yr LFS (71.4% [95% CI 25.8-92]) and RI (0%) was significantly better for pts receiving CART2 for BCR than in those who received it for relapse (31.6% [15.6-48.9] and 68.4% [46.7-82.8]; p= 0.036, p=0.002). Conclusion: This is a large registry study describing indications and outcome of CART2 in patients with r/r B-ALL. At 2-yrs after CART2, the LFS was of 39.9% and for patients receiving CART2 due to B-cell recovery was of 71.4%. These results show that CART2 is associated with low NRM and might be a bridge to SCT or other additional therapies. Updated results with data about subsequent therapies after CART2 will be presented at ASH meeting.

Introduction: High-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor disorder to active multiple myeloma (MM) without approved treatment options. However, recent evidence suggests patients at high risk of progression to MM may benefit from early treatment. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. DARA is approved as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for RRMM and newly diagnosed MM. Based on the encouraging activity and tolerability observed with DARA monotherapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM in the phase 2 CENTAURUS study, the phase 3 AQUILA study sought to determine if DARA could delay progression to MM versus active monitoring. Here we report the primary analysis from the AQUILA study. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of high-risk SMM for ≤5 years, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (serum M protein ≥30 g/L, IgA SMM, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain ratio ≥8 and <100, and/or clonal BMPCs >50% to <60%). Focal and lytic lesion assessment was performed in screening by CT and MRI and centrally reviewed prior to study enrollment. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DARA SC versus active monitoring. DARA (QW in Cycles 1 and 2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) was given in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as progression to active MM as assessed by an independent review committee and according to IMWG diagnostic criteria for MM (SLiM-CRAB) or death. Major secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS on first-line MM treatment (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 390 patients (DARA, n = 194; active monitoring, n = 196) were randomized. Median (range) age (64 [31-86] years) and time from initial SMM diagnosis to randomization (0.72 [0-5.0] years) were balanced between treatment groups. Median treatment duration in the DARA group was 38 cycles (35.0 months). At a median (range) follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months, PFS was significantly improved with DARA versus active monitoring (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P <0.0001). Median PFS was not reached in the DARA group versus 41.5 months for active monitoring; estimated 60-month PFS rates were 63.1% versus 40.8%, respectively. Prespecified analyses showed generally consistent PFS improvement with DARA versus active monitoring across subgroups. ORR was 63.4% with DARA versus 2.0% with active monitoring (P <0.0001). As of the clinical cutoff, 64 (33.0%) patients in the DARA group and 102 (52.0%) patients in the active monitoring group had started first-line MM treatment. Median time from randomization to the date of first-line MM treatment was not reached with DARA versus 50.2 months with active monitoring (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62; nominal P <0.0001). There was a positive trend in favor of DARA for PFS2 (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96) and OS (60-month OS rates: DARA, 93.0%; active monitoring, 86.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98). A total of 41 deaths were observed, 15 for the DARA group and 26 for the active monitoring group. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% and 30.1% of patients in the DARA and active monitoring groups, respectively. The most common (≥5% in either group) grade 3/4 TEAE was hypertension (DARA, 5.7%; active monitoring, 4.6%). The frequency of TEAEs leading to DARA discontinuation was low (5.7%), as was the incidence of fatal TEAEs in both groups (DARA, 1.0%; active monitoring, 2.0%). Conclusions: DARA monotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated a clinically meaningful and significant benefit in preventing or delaying progression to active MM compared with active monitoring in patients with high-risk SMM. ORR was significantly higher and time to first-line MM treatment was prolonged with DARA compared with active monitoring. This was accompanied by positive trends for PFS2 and OS in favor of DARA. These results strongly support the benefit of early intervention with DARA monotherapy versus active monitoring, the current standard of care, in patients with high-risk SMM.

Introduction: Recent efforts have shed light on the clinical and laboratory factors associated with toxicity and response to BCMA-directed CAR-T therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, a major limitation of current scoring systems lies in their assessment at time of lymphodepletion. Because they are not determined before apheresis, they are ill-equipped to guide patient selection, anticipate level-of-care, or plan pre-emptive toxicity management strategies. We therefore aimed to characterize early predictors of CAR-T toxicity and response. Study Design: In this multicenter observational study, we examined demographic, clinical, and laboratory data across three distinct timepoints: indication (e.g., treatment decision), apheresis, and pre-lymphodepletion (LD). CRS and ICANS were graded according to ASTCT criteria. Hematotoxicity (ICAHT) was graded using EHA/EBMT criteria. Early infections (day 0-100) were defined based on microbiologic data or as a clinical infection syndrome, and graded per Hill et al, Blood 2018. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared by log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard models were applied to explore associations between pre-apheresis risk factors and key toxicity and survival outcomes. The CAR-HEMATOTOX (HT) score - encompassing markers of inflammation (e.g., CRP, ferritin) and marrow reserve (e.g., hemoglobin, ANC, platelet count) - was determined at each timepoint (Rejeski et al, Blood 2021). Results: We included 530 RRMM patients treated with standard-of-care cilta-cel (n=184) or ide-cel (n=346) across nine centers. Median age was 65 (range 31-88), median ECOG was 1 (IQR 0-1), and patients received a median of 5 prior lines of therapy (IQR 4-7). The median time from indication to apheresis was 16 days (IQR 7-52), while the median time from apheresis to infusion was 56 days (IQR 46-69). The proportion of high-risk patients by HT score did not change between the pre-apheresis and LD timepoints (19% vs. 20%, p=0.82). Most patients stayed either low-risk (n=388, 73.2%) or high-risk (n=68, 12.8%). However, 35 patients (6.6%) shifted from high-to-low risk, while 39 patients (7.4%) progressed from low-to-high risk - reflecting their response to bridging therapies. We noted considerable differences in morbidity and mortality based on the pre-apheresis HT score. Compared to their low-risk counterparts (score 0-2, n=427), high-risk patients (score ≥3, n=103) were hospitalized longer (12 vs. 15 days, p=0.009) and required more frequent ICU admissions (6% vs. 12%, p=0.05). They exhibited more severe early cytopenias (G3+: 8% vs. 25%, p<0.001) and late cytopenias (G3+: 7% vs. 21%, p<0.001), resulting in increased use of TPO agonists and stem cell boosts. Grade 3 or higher ICANS was also more common in HThigh patients (3% vs. 11%, p=0.006), as were severe infections (14% vs. 27%, p=0.007). We found increased non-relapsed mortality in HThigh patients (1-yr NRM 4.6% vs. 16.1%, p<0.001), but no significant difference in the occurrence of secondary malignancies (p>0.9). With a median follow-up of 12.4 months, HThigh patients showed inferior PFS (1-yr PFS 29% vs. 63%, p<0.0001) and OS (1-yr OS 49% vs. 83%, p<0.0001). Transitioning from a low-to-high score was linked to poor survival (1-yr PFS 26%), while the shift from high-to-low risk was associated with favorable outcomes (1-yr PFS 51%). In a multivariable Cox regression model of pre-apheresis features, a high HT score (aHR 2.52, p<0.0001), prior anti-BCMA therapy (aHR 1.55, p=0.04), history of extramedullary disease (aHR 1.42, p=0.02), and penta-refractoriness (aHR 1.45, p=0.02) were independently associated with PFS. Notably, the presence of more than 3 of these high-risk features defined an ultra-high-risk cohort of 28 patients (5.3%) with particularly dismal survival (1-year PFS 15%). Conclusions: Leveraging granular pre-apheresis data from a large international cohort, we identify early markers of toxicity and response in CAR-T-treated RRMM patients. The HT score - reflecting baseline inflammation and hematopoietic reserve - identified high-risk patients likely to benefit from pre-emptive toxicity mitigation strategies such as prophylactic stem cell collection. Most importantly, we characterize a small yet ultra-high-risk group of RRMM patients in need of more effective bridging and therapeutic options.

Introduction: Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are highly effective against Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Their effectiveness can be limited by resistance caused by BTK mutations and intolerance. BGB-16673 is a bivalent small molecule that induces BTK degradation by binding specifically to BTK and the E3 ligase. The E3 ligase catalyzes the transfer of ubiquitin molecules to BTK, which marks BTK for destruction by the proteasome. Preclinically, BGB-16673 degraded wild-type and mutant BTK associated with covalentand noncovalent BTK inhibitors (ncBTKis), leading to tumor suppression. CaDAnCe-101 (BGB-16673-101; NCT05006716) is an ongoing, open-label, first-in-human, phase 1/2 study evaluating BGB-16673 monotherapy in patients with a range of B-cell malignancies. Here, early results in patients with WM enrolled in the phase 1 portion are presented. Methods: Eligiblepatients must have confirmed R/R WM (≥2 prior therapies), an ECOG performance status of 0-2, and adequate organ function. Patients must have previously received an anti-CD20 antibody and, in the US and EU, a covalent BTK inhibitor (cBTKi). BGB-16673 was orally dosed once daily in 28-day cycles. Dose escalation used a Bayesian optimal interval design (6 planned dose levels, 50-600 mg once daily). Primary objectives were to evaluate safety/tolerability (CTCAE v5.0) and to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed in the first 4 weeks (cycle 1). A secondary objective was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR, IWWM-6 consensus criteria), with the first assessment occurring after 4 weeks of treatment. Results: As of May 24, 2024, 22 patients with WM were enrolled and treated (100 mg, n=4; 200 mg, n=10; 350 mg, n=8). The median age was 73.0 (range, 56-81) years, and the median number of prior therapies was 3.5 (range, 2-11), including prior cBTKis (n=22 [100%]), BCL2 inhibitors (n=4 [18%]), and ncBTKis (n=3 [14%]). Twenty patients (91%) had previously received chemotherapy. According to the International Prognostic Scoring System for WM, 6 patients (27%) had low-risk disease, 7 (32%) had intermediate-risk disease, and 8 (36%) had high-risk disease (missing/unknown data, n=1). Five patients (23%) had BTK mutations, 20 (91%) had MYD88 mutations, and 8 (36%) had CXCR4 mutations. The median follow-up was 4.3 (range, 0.3-21.3) months. Ninety-five percent of patients reported any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; grade ≥3, 45%; serious, 23%), the most common (≥20%) of which were neutropenia/neutrophil count decreased (32%; grade ≥3, 23%), contusion (23%; no grade ≥3), and diarrhea (23%; no grade ≥3). The most common grade ≥3 TEAE (≥20%) was neutropenia/neutrophil count decreased. No atrial fibrillation, hypertension, febrile neutropenia, or major hemorrhage occurred. Three patients (14%) had a grade ≥3 infection (bronchopulmonary/cerebral aspergillosis, septic shock, and pseudomonal bacteremia/sinusitis). No patients had a TEAE that led to treatment discontinuation or dose reduction. No DLTs occurred, and the MTD was not reached. One patient (5%) died due to a TEAE (septic shock, considered related to disease progression). One patient died due to disease progression. In 21 response-evaluable patients (1 too early), the ORR (minor response or better) was 90%, the major response rate (partial response [PR] or better) was 81%, and the very good PR or better rate was 14%. Median time to first response was 0.95 (range, 0.9-3.7) months, with responses deepening over time. Seventeen patients remain on treatment and have ongoing responses. Responses were seen at the lowest dose (100 mg, 4/4), in patients previously treated with a cBTKi (19/21) and an ncBTKi (3/3), and in patients discontinued from prior BTKi due to disease progression (15/17). In addition, responses were observed in patients with and without mutations in BTK (with, 5/5; without, 6/8; unknown, 8/8), MYD88 (with, 18/20; without, 1/1), and CXCR4 (with, 8/8; without, 11/13). One patient had IgM flare at initial response assessment and went on to develop PR. Conclusions: Early data from this ongoing, first-in-human study demonstrate that the novel BTK degrader BGB-16673 has a tolerable safety profile and shows promising antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with BTK inhibitor-exposed R/R WM, including those with BTK and CXCR4 mutations.

Background: Zamto-cel is an investigational autologous tandem CD20-CD19-directed non-cryopreserved CAR-T cell product administered as a fresh formulation to patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (r/r DLBCL) in the DALY II USA clinical trial (NCT04792489), a multicenter, open label, single-arm Phase 2 study. Here, we report efficacy and safety outcomes as part of a pre-planned interim analysis of 59 evaluable patients and 69 patients in the safety population. Methods: Eligible adults had r/r DLBCL after at least 2 prior lines of treatment including anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and anthracycline-containing regimen and measurable disease per Lugano 2014 classification. Zamto-cel was manufactured utilizing CliniMACS Prodigy® (Miltenyi Biotec), a closed, automated system with a 14-day vein-to-vein time and administered as a fresh formulation. Lymphodepletion chemotherapy was initiated during the manufacturing process (either cyclophosphamide/ fludarabine or bendamustine) prior to receiving a single dose of zamto-cel at a dose of 2.5x106 CAR T cells/kg on Day 0. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) defined as best overall response (BOR) of either complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). Secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and CD19 and CD20 antigen expression at relapse. Results: As of March 29th, 2024, 69 pts received zamto-cel of which 59 were evaluable having received a fresh, conforming product and completed a minimum of 3 months follow-up. Median age was 63 years (range 25-85), 39 (66%) were male. Sixteen pts (27%) received 3 or more lines of prior treatment. The majority of pts (53%) had elevated LDH at study entry, and 49% had ≥ 2 extranodal lesions, indicative of a study population with advanced disease. No pts received any bridging therapy, in the week after apheresis and before lymphodepletion. Only 7 pts (12%) received bendamustine as lymphodepleting regimen. Successful manufacturing of a fresh, in specification product occurred in 91.3% out of 69 treated pts. Four patients received a cryopreserved formulation to permit time for comorbid condition management. The mean viability of the final product was 96.0% with 29.4 % transduction efficacy. No patient died or withdrew during the manufacturing process. The ORR in the evaluable patient population (n=59) as assessed by an Independent Radiology Committee (IRC) was 72.9% (95% CI, 59.7-83.6), with a CRR of 49.2% (95% CI,35.9-62.5). The 6 month and 12 month-PFS was 55% (95%CI, 41-67) and 42% (95%CI, 28-56), respectively; 12 month-OS was 72% (95%CI, 57-83). The median DOR was 11.4 months. All 69 treated pts were assessed for safety outcomes. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly of grade 1-2, the majority of grade ≥ 3 were hematological. Thirty-two pts (46.4%) experienced cytokine release syndrome (CRS), all grade 1-2. Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was reported in 12 pts (17.4%), grade 1-2 (9 pts; 13.1%); grade 3 (3 pts; 4.3%). One patient experienced immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome (IEC-HS), which resolved after 2 days. Biopsies at progression were available in 24 pts. CD19-negative relapse (defined as H Score <100) was seen in 2 pts, CD20-negative relapse was observed in 3 pts. Only one patient experienced loss of both antigens compared to pre-treatment status, demonstrating that most lymphomas maintain target antigen expression at relapse after treatment with zamto-cel. Conclusion: This pre-planned interim analysis represents the first pivotal trial of a tandem CD20-CD19 directed non-cryopreserved CAR-T cell product for patients with third-line r/r DLBCL. The trial plans to enroll 100 evaluable patients and the final data will be presented upon study completion. Among the 59 evaluable patients at the interim analysis, there is encouraging activity and a favorable safety profile in DLBCL patients treated with zamto-cel. Unlike currently registered CAR-T cell products, zamto-cel is administered as a fresh product with a short vein-to-vein time of 14 days with lymphodepletion initiated during the manufacturing process. With a manufacturing success rate of 91% we have demonstrated the feasibility of this process among high-risk patients with r/r DLBCL.

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.

Introduction: Scant data exist on prognostic factors, survival and treatment (Tx)-related outcomes in SCNSL. We conducted a multicenter international analysis to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in SCNSL at diagnosis (de novo), or after frontline Tx (1L) either with (concomitant) or without (isolated) systemic (syst) relapse. Methods: This study collected data from patients (pts) treated between 2001-2023 at 35 centers. Overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated from SCNSL diagnosis to first event (death for OS, relapse/death for PFS) or last follow-up. Uni- (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) Cox analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors; Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Results: 1173 (US: 863, UK: 273, Canada: 37) pts with SCNSL were included. Baseline characteristics were median age: 62 years (interquartile range 52.5-69), male sex: 58.7%, elevated LDH: 71.1%, stage III/IV: 88.6%, HIV: 3%, transformed LBCL (tLBCL): 13.8%, non-germinal center B-cell like (non-GCB) subtype: 52.3%, double expressor (DE): 40%, MYC rearrangement (MYC-R): 28.3%, MYC/BCL2 double hit: 16.6%, MYC/BCL2/BCL6 triple hit (TH): 6.1%. Among 522 pts with de novo SCNSL, 84.2% had involvement of a single CNS compartment (44.7% brain parenchyma; 40.4% leptomeningeal [lepto]). 1L regimens included 36.2% R-CHOP with high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), 12.5% MARIETTA-type, and 9.8% R-CODOX-M/IVAC; 54.6% received intrathecal chemotherapy. Consolidation Thiotepa-based autologous stem cell transplant (TT-ASCT) occurred in 15.3%. The majority of pts who underwent TT-ASCT had previously achieved CR or PR in syst (92.5%) and CNS (72.5%) compartments. At median follow-up 25.7 months (mos), subsequent relapse was observed in 27.5% TT-ASCT recipients: 36.3% had isolated CNS, 27.4% syst, and 36.3% concomitant. 588 pts presented with SCNS after 1L (66.2% isolated, 33.8% concomitant). Brain parenchyma involvement was observed in 56.8%, lepto in 22.6%. Tx included 31.6% HD-MTX combination (eg, R-MPV, MTR); 18.4% HD-MTX +/- rituximab; 16.2% MARIETTA-type; and 9.4% platinum-based regimen. Consolidation TT-ASCT occurred in 22.4% (n=132), and 13.8% (n=81) received CAR-T cell therapy (excluding subsequent relapses in de novo group). Syst (65.1%) & CNS (69.1%) responses (CR/PR) were higher before TT-ASCT compared to CAR-T cell (49.5% & 54.5%, respectively). After TT-ASCT, 52 pts (39.3%) relapsed, mainly in the CNS (n=30, 57.7%), with only 4 (7.7%) concomitant. After CAR-T, 48 pts (59.3%) relapsed: 15 (31.2%) isolated in CNS and 15 (31.2%) concomitant. 12-month cumulative incidence of relapse (with death as competing risk) was 21.1% after TT-ASCT and 55.8% after CAR-T. In 63 pts (5.4%), the first CNS event occurred >2 lines of Tx. With median follow-up of the entire cohort of 24.6 mos, median PFS and OS were 11 and 21 mos, respectively. mPFS and mOS were significantly better in pts with de novo SCNSL (13.4 & 47.4 mos) compared to SCNSL after 1L (10.4 & 14.2 mos) and >2 lines of Tx (6.5 & 9.7 mos); P<0.0001. Factors associated with significantly shorter OS in UVA across all presentations were age >60, male sex, GCB subtype, MYC-R, tLBCL, DE, TH, elevated LDH, ECOG PS ≥2, SCNSL after 1L (vs. de novo), and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L. Of these, age >60, male sex, MYC-R, ECOG PS ≥2, and failure to achieve response to 1L remained significant in MVA. In de novo cases, age >60, DE, ECOG PS≥2, and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L were associated with poorer OS; for pts with SCNSL after 1L, age >60, GCB subtype, and ECOG PS ≥2 were significant. Pts treated with HD-MTX-based regimens after 1L experienced longer OS than those treated with platinum regimens or high-dose cytarabine. In de novo cases, TT-ASCT was significantly associated with longer OS (HR=0.58; P=0.025) in MVA after adjusting for significant factors, 1L type, and response. For SCNSL at relapse, TT-ASCT (HR=0.34; P<.0001) and isolated SCNSL presentation (vs. concomitant HR=0.70, P=0.007) were associated with longer OS, adjusting for significant factors, type of second-line Tx, & site of CNS relapse. Conclusions: This study represents the largest analysis of SCNSL inclusive of all modes of presentation. Concomitant SCNSL at relapse was associated with poor outcomes, while TT-ASCT consolidation was associated with improved OS in de novo & relapsed disease. Despite advances in LBCL SCNSL remains an unmet therapeutic need.