Citations

8044 Background: In the phase 3 MAIA study, adding DARA to Rd improved progression-free survival (primary endpoint), overall survival, duration of response, and PROs in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. We report a MAIA subgroup analysis of time to response, duration of response, and PROs. Methods: Transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM received 28-day cycles of Rd (R 25 mg PO on Days 1-21; d 40 mg PO QW) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW in Cycles 1-2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Secondary endpoints included time to response and duration of response. PROs were measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30, with treatment effects assessed via mixed-effects model with repeated measures. Results: In total, 368 pts were assigned to the D-Rd group and 369 pts to the Rd group; 162 (44%) D-Rd pts and 142 (38%) Rd pts had renal impairment (defined as baseline CrCl ≤60 mL/min). At a 56.2-mo median follow-up, median times to very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) and complete response or better (≥CR) were shorter with D-Rd vs Rd in the overall study population and in the subgroups of pts with and without renal impairment (Table). Among pts who achieved ≥CR or partial response or better (≥PR), higher proportions of D-Rd vs Rd pts had not experienced disease progression at 48 mo (Table). Among pts with renal impairment, greater improvements from baseline in pt-reported pain, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting symptom scores were observed with D-Rd vs Rd across most timepoints; a notably greater meaningful reduction in pain symptom score was seen with D-Rd vs Rd as early as Cycle 6 Day 1 (least squares mean change from baseline, −14.9 vs −7.0; P=0.0241). Analyses for additional pt subgroups will be presented. Conclusions: In transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM, D-Rd showed more rapid deep responses as well as more durable responses vs Rd, regardless of renal function. Improvements in pt-reported symptoms were generally greater with D-Rd vs Rd in pts with renal impairment. Our results support the use of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172. [Table: see text]

7010 Background: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (KTE-X19) is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy approved in the US to treat adult R/R B-ALL based on the ZUMA-3 study. The overall complete remission (CR) rate (CR + CR with incomplete hematologic recovery [CRi]) was 71% (95% CI, 57-82) after 16.4 mo median follow-up (N = 55; Shah et al. Lancet 2021). Here, we report updated outcomes with longer follow-up in these pts and in a larger pooled analysis of Phase (Ph) 1 and 2 pts who received the pivotal dose of KTE-X19. Methods: Eligible adults (≥18 years) had R/R B-ALL and received a single infusion of KTE-X19 at the pivotal dose (1×106 CAR T cells/kg) following leukapheresis and conditioning chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was CR/CRi rate by central review. Results: As of 23 July 2021, median follow-up was 26.8 mo (range, 20.7-32.6) for treated Ph 2 pts (N = 55). The CR/CRi rate per central review was 71% (95% CI, 57-82; 56% CR; 15% CRi). Eleven pts (20%; 8 CR and 2 CRi) proceeded to subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT). Median duration of remission (DOR) censored at subsequent alloSCT was 14.6 mo (9.4-not estimable [NE]); not censored: 18.6 mo (9.6-NE); 6/39 responders (15%) had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Median (95% CI) relapse-free survival (RFS) was 11.6 mo (2.7-20.5) censored at subsequent alloSCT and 11.7 mo (2.8-20.5) not censored at subsequent alloSCT; 18-mo RFS rates (95% CI) were 35% (20.5-50.6) and 42% (28.0-55.0), respectively. Median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) was 25.4 mo (16.2-NE) among all KTE-X19-treated pts and not reached (25.4-NE) in pts with CR (n = 31). For Ph 1/2 pts (N = 78) who received the pivotal KTE-X19 dose (median follow-up: 29.7 mo; range 20.7-58.3), the CR/CRi rate by independent review was 73% (95% CI, 62-82). Medians (95% CI) for DOR, RFS, and OS were 18.6 mo (9.6-NE), 11.7 mo (6.1-20.5), and 25.4 mo (16.2-NE), respectively. A subgroup analysis revealed that in pts aged 18-39 (n = 36), 40-59 (n = 27), and ≥60 (n = 15) years, the CR/CRi rates (95% CI) were 69% (52-84), 70% (50-86), and 87% (60-98); 24-mo OS rates (95% CI) were 48% (30-64), 54% (33-71), and 57% (28-78), respectively. In pts with pre-KTE-X19 infusion marrow blast percentages > 25 to ≤50 (n = 12), > 50 to ≤75 (n = 14), and > 75 to 100 (n = 30), CR/CRi rates (95% CI) were 83% (52-98), 86% (57-98), and 57% (37-75); 24-mo OS rates (95% CI) were 58% (27-80), 55% (26-77) and 37% (19-55), respectively. There were no new safety signals; the proportion of treated Ph 2 pts with Gr ≥3 treatment emergent adverse events was unchanged since prior data cutoff. One pt had an ongoing neurologic event of Gr 1 finger numbness. Conclusions: With longer follow-up and an expanded data set by independent review, outcomes remain durable in adults with R/R B-ALL, most of whom were heavily pretreated, with median OS not yet reached in pts with CR. Long-term safety was favorable. Clinical trial information: NCT02614066.

4020 Background: High grade (G3) GEPNENs are a rare and heterogeneous disease entity for which there is little prospective treatment data. EP chemotherapy is the treatment standard but this may not be appropriate for all G3 GEPNEN pts. CAPTEM has demonstrated activity in G3 GEPNENs and may be a promising alternative. EA2142 aimed to determine if CAPTEM was superior to EP in pts with G3 GEPNENs. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized (1:1) phase II trial for pts with a locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic well differentiated G3 neuroendocrine tumor (NET) or a poorly differentiated, non-small cell G3 neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of suspected gastrointestinal origin and an ECOG PS of 0-2. Pathology must have demonstrated a Ki-67 of 20-100% or at least 10 mitoses/10 high powered field. Pts were randomized to receive capecitabine 750 mg/m2 orally every 12 hours on days 1-14 and temozolomide 200 mg/m2 orally once daily on days 10-14 of a 28-day treatment cycle (Arm A) or etoposide 100 mg/m2 daily on days 1-3 with either cisplatin 25 mg/m2 daily on days 1-3 or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 of a 21-day treatment cycle (Arm B). Restaging scans were performed every 8 weeks and toxicity monitored per CTCAEv4. Final statistical plan was to accrue 80 pts to detect a 67% improvement in progression free survival (PFS) (primary endpoint) with CAPTEM as compared to EP, 80% power and one-sided significance level of 0.10. A planned interim analysis for efficacy and futility was conducted. Results: A total of 67 pts were enrolled (Arm A, n=32; Arm B, n=35). Male 58%, African American 4%, Asian 3%. Mean age 61. Among 63 eligible pts, primary tumor site pancreatic 56%, non-pancreatic 43%. Poorly differentiated 57%, well differentiated 33%, unknown 10%. Mean Ki-67 48% (Arm A), 60% (Arm B). The study was closed prior to full accrual due to futility at 57.7% information time. In the interim analysis, among 62 eligible pts, PFS, overall survival and response rate with CAPTEM were 2.43 months (mos) (95% CI 2.04, 7.72), 12.6 mos, 9% respectively vs 5.36 mos (95% CI 2.14, 7.23), 13.6 mos and 10% with EP. Toxicity was evaluable in 57 pts with Grade (G) 3/4 events occurring in 29% of pts on Arm A, 66% of pts on Arm B. G3/4 events occurring in more than 5% of pts on Arm A—febrile neutropenia (n=2); abdominal pain (n=2); diarrhea (n=2); nausea (n=2); neutropenia (n=2); dehydration (n=2) and on Arm B—anemia (n=8); febrile neutropenia (n=2); fatigue (n=2); lymphopenia (n=2); neutropenia (n=12); thrombocytopenia (n=4); leukopenia (n=6). There was one G5 event on Arm A due to sepsis. Conclusions: CAPTEM does not appear to be superior to EP chemotherapy as front-line treatment for pts with G3 NENs but does demonstrate a more favorable toxicity profile. Studies assessing G3 NET independently of G3 NEC are needed. Clinical trial information: NCT02595424.

Key Points Identifying ways to prevent AKI may reduce mortality further in the setting of intensive BP control. Creatinine-based ascertainment of AKI, enabled by electronic health record data, may be more sensitive and less biased than traditional serious adverse event adjudication. Background Adjudication of inpatient AKI in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) was based on billing codes and admission and discharge notes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intensive versus standard BP control on creatinine-based inpatient and outpatient AKI, and whether AKI was associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. Methods We linked electronic health record (EHR) data from 47 clinic sites with trial data to enable creatinine-based adjudication of AKI. Cox regression was used to evaluate the effect of intensive BP control on the incidence of AKI, and the relationship between incident AKI and CVD and all-cause mortality. Results A total of 3644 participants had linked EHR data. A greater number of inpatient AKI events were identified using EHR data (187 on intensive versus 155 on standard treatment) as compared with serious adverse event (SAE) adjudication in the trial (95 on intensive versus 61 on standard treatment). Intensive treatment increased risk for SPRINT-adjudicated inpatient AKI (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.08) and for creatinine-based outpatient AKI (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.70), but not for creatinine-based inpatient AKI (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.48). Irrespective of the definition (SAE or creatinine based), AKI was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality, but only creatinine-based inpatient AKI was associated with increased risk for CVD. Conclusions Creatinine-based ascertainment of AKI, enabled by EHR data, may be more sensitive and less biased than traditional SAE adjudication. Identifying ways to prevent AKI may reduce mortality further in the setting of intensive BP control.

The aim of the NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities is to provide guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events resulting from cancer immunotherapy. The NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions, consisting of medical and hematologic oncologists with expertise across a wide range of disease sites, and experts from the areas of dermatology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, neurooncology, nephrology, cardio-oncology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, and oncology nursing. The content featured in this issue is an excerpt of the recommendations for managing toxicities related to CAR T-cell therapies and a review of existing evidence. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines, including recommendations for managing toxicities related to immune checkpoint inhibitors, visitNCCN.org.

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are a heterogeneous group of lymphoproliferative disorders arising from mature T cells, accounting for about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas. PTCL-not otherwise specified is the most common subtype, followed by angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase–negative, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma. This discussion section focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of PTCLs as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for T-Cell Lymphomas.

PURPOSE Chemotherapy outcomes in older patients with Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome–negative B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are very poor. Here, we evaluated blinatumomab as induction and consolidation therapy followed by prednisone, vincristine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate (POMP) maintenance chemotherapy in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were treated at National Clinical Trial Network sites. Eligibility criteria included age ≥ 65 years and newly diagnosed Ph chromosome–negative B-ALL. Patients received blinatumomab as induction for one-two cycles until attainment of response (complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete count recovery). Patients then received three cycles of consolidation with blinatumomab followed by 18 months of POMP maintenance chemotherapy. Eight doses of intrathecal methotrexate were administered as central nervous system prophylaxis. RESULTS Twenty-nine eligible patients were enrolled. The median age was 75 years, and the median bone marrow blast count at diagnosis was 87%. Cytogenetic risk was poor in 10 patients (34%), and five of 14 patients (36%) tested had the Ph-like ALL gene signature. Nineteen patients (66%; 95% CI, 46 to 82) achieved CR. Kaplan-Meier 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival estimates were 37% (95% CI, 17 to 57) and 37% (95% CI, 20 to 55), respectively. CONCLUSION Blinatumomab was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of older patients with newly diagnosed Ph chromosome–negative B-ALL, including patients with poor-risk cytogenetics. The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival results are encouraging and suggest that this approach should be further explored.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as “Preferred,” “Other Recommended Regimens,” or “Useful in Certain Circumstances.” This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.

The NCCN Guidelines for Squamous Cell Skin Cancer provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical stage, and treatment options for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The NCCN panel meets annually to discuss updates to the guidelines based on comments from panel members and the Institutional Review, as well as submissions from within NCCN and external organizations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the introduction of a new surgical recommendation terminology (peripheral and deep en face margin assessment), as well as recent updates on topical prophylaxis, immunotherapy for regional and metastatic disease, and radiation therapy.

Abstract Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the outcomes of patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Many older patients (pts) are not good candidates for intensive chemotherapy and are treated with TKIs plus corticosteroids or low intensity chemotherapy. Although the remission rates with this approach have been high, the median disease-free survival (DFS) has been short. Therefore, novel treatment strategies are needed. This trial evaluated the feasibility of combining the TKI dasatinib with prednisone and blinatumomab in older pts with Ph+ ALL. Methods: This trial was activated through the NCTN in January 2015 and closed to accrual in April 2021. Pt eligibility included: age ≥ 65 years; Ph+ or Ph-like ALL (with dasatinib-sensitive fusions or mutations); newly diagnosed or relapsed/ refractory; no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease; and adequate organ function. Treatment: For induction, pts received dasatinib 140 mg/d orally (PO) Days 1-56 along with prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d PO Days 1-24. Pts achieving complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (Day 28 or Day 56) continued dasatinib until Day 84 followed by 3 cycles of post-remission therapy (PRT) with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Pts not achieving CR or CRi by Day 56 received re-induction with blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Day 35 of blinatumomab. Pts not achieving CR/ CRi could receive a second cycle of blinatumomab. This was followed by 3 cycles of PRT with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Maintenance therapy consisted of prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d x 5 days every 28 days for a total of 18 cycles along with dasatinib 140 mg po qd indefinitely. CNS prophylaxis included intrathecal (IT) methotrexate every 4-6 weeks x 8 doses. IT methotrexate was given at least 2 days apart from blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Days 28, 56, 84 and additional time points were dependent on response. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed centrally by multi-color flow cytometry at Day 28. Statistics: 9 eligible/ evaluable pts receiving PRT were to be evaluated before enrolling additional pts. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined as: > Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities with the exception of nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea (if manageable with supportive care measures) or Grade 4 neutropenia lasting > 42 days with possible relationship to dasatinib or blinatumomab. If due to unexpected accrual, 12 pts were evaluable for DLT, the following rules would apply. If > 4 of the 12 pts experienced a DLT, the study would be temporarily closed pending review. Upon re-opening, 8 additional eligible and evaluable pts would be enrolled for a total of 20 pts receiving blinatumomab. Results: Due to rapid accrual, 16 pts enrolled before accrual was paused to assess feasibility and safety. Twelve pts were evaluable for DLT and 4 experienced a DLT: Grade 3 dyspnea and gastrointestinal pain (n=1), Grade 3 hypertension (n=1), Grade 3 dyspnea (n=1), Grade 3 hyperglycemia (n=1). These adverse events were deemed acceptable by the NCI and FDA and the study re-opened. A total of 25 eligible pts were accrued. The median age was 73 years (range 62-87). All pts were newly diagnosed. One pt was Ph-like, with the remainder being Ph+; 89% of Ph+ pts had additional cytogenetic abnormalities. During induction, 2 pts experienced treatment-related non-hematologic Grade 4 toxicities. No Grade 4 or higher treatment-related non-hematologic toxicities occurred during post-remission therapy or maintenance. Twenty-three out of 25 pts (92%) achieved a CR during dasatinib-based and prednisone induction therapy. Four did not receive PRT (2 due to adverse events, 1 to receive transplant, 1 because of insurance issues). Sixteen pts who achieved CR had MRD data. Five out of 16 pts (31%) were MRD negative at Day 28. One pt remains on PRT and 10 are on maintenance. The median follow up for pts who are alive is 1.7 years. The median overall survival (OS) and DFS have not been reached as of July 8, 2021. Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimates of OS and DFS are 85% (95% CI 58%-95%) and 80% (95% CI 55%-92%), respectively (Figure). Conclusions: This trial demonstrates the feasibility of combining dasatinib and blinatumomab in Ph+ ALL. In addition, with 1.7 years of follow up, outcomes are encouraging with high estimated 3-year DFS and OS. Longer follow up will be needed to determine the durability of these results. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Advani: Kite Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; OBI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moseley: BioSight Ltd: Consultancy. Wood: Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Juno, Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Other: Laboratory Services Agreement. Park: Intellia: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Wieduwilt: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Reata: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Jeyakumar: Jazz: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Atallah: Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Gerds: PharmaEssentia Corporation: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Constellation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Othus: Celgene: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Merck: Consultancy; Biosight: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Stone: Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Consultancy; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee.