Mattison, Ryan J.

The NCCN Guidelines for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) focus on the classification of ALL subtypes based on immunophenotype and cytogenetic/molecular markers; risk assessment and stratification for risk-adapted therapy; treatment strategies for Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive and Ph-negative ALL for both adolescent and young adult and adult patients; and supportive care considerations. Given the complexity of ALL treatment regimens and the required supportive care measures, the NCCN ALL Panel recommends that patients be treated at a specialized cancer center with expertise in the management of ALL This portion of the Guidelines focuses on the management of Ph-positive and Ph-negative ALL in adolescents and young adults, and management in relapsed settings.

Abstract Post-remission strategies after dasatinib-corticosteroid induction in adult Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are not well studied. We evaluated dasatinib and dexamethasone induction then protocol-defined post-remission therapies, including hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Adults (N = 65) with Ph-positive ALL received dasatinib-dexamethasone induction, methotrexate-based central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis, reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, or chemotherapy alone, and dasatinib-based maintenance. Key end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The median age was 60 years (range, 22-87 years). The complete remission rate was 98.5%. With a median follow-up of 59 months, 5-year DFS and OS were 37% (median, 30 months) and 48% (median, 56 months), respectively. For patients receiving RIC allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, or chemotherapy, 5-year DFS were 49%, 29%, and 34%, and 5-year OS were 62%, 57%, and 46%, respectively. Complete molecular response rate after CNS prophylaxis was 40%. Relative to the p190 isoform, p210 had shorter DFS (median 10 vs 34 months, P = .002) and OS (median 16 months vs not reached, P = .05). Relapse occurred in 25% of allogeneic HCT, 57% of autologous HCT, and 36% of chemotherapy patients. T315I mutation was detected in 6 of 8 marrow relapses. Dasatinib CNS concentrations were low. Dasatinib-dexamethasone followed by RIC allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, or chemotherapy was feasible and efficacious, especially with RIC allogeneic HCT. Future studies should address the major causes of failure: T315I mutation, the p210 BCR-ABL1 isoform, and CNS relapse. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01256398.

Introduction: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are often treated with intensive induction chemotherapy to achieve complete remission (CR). Early response to standard anthracycline plus cytarabine induction (7+3) is assessed by a day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy. The nadir marrow has limitations, though, including sampling issues and ambiguity as to whether blasts are leukemia cells vs. regenerating marrow. In prior studies, the predictive value for remission of the nadir marrow is only 67-84%. A more accurate predictor of residual disease (RD) would give clinicians an opportunity to modify therapy earlier. Positron emission tomography (PET/CT) with 3'-deoxy-3'-[18F]fluorothymidine (FLT) is a molecular imaging modality that can assess cellular proliferation in the bone marrow compartment. A prior single-institution pilot study showed a significant difference in the marrow FLT uptake between patients with AML who achieved CR and those who had RD after count recovery. Methods: EAI141 was an ECOG-ACRIN-led, prospective, multi-center study designed to assess FLT PET/CT as a predictor of CR after AML induction. The primary objective was to evaluate the predictive value of post-treatment FLT PET/CT imaging for detecting RD, with the secondary objectives of evaluating the predictive value for detecting CR and estimating the sensitivity and specificity. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of > 7 g/mL in total bone marrow compartment was chosen prospectively based on data from a pilot study as a marker for presence of leukemia cells at nadir. The predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity of the FLT PET/CT and the nadir bone marrow biopsy were calculated. Eligible subjects were 18 years or older with previously untreated AML who were to receive induction with 7+3. Subjects underwent a nadir marrow biopsy and an FLT PET/CT scan 10-17 days after starting induction, and prior to any re-induction if disease was noted on the nadir marrow. A recovery marrow was performed 28-35 days after initial treatment or re-induction to assess CR or RD. Subjects could undergo an optional pre-treatment scan. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were additional clinical outcomes. Results: 87 subjects from 9 centers were enrolled between 2016-2018, and 61 were considered evaluable. Reasons for being not evaluable included study ineligibility (n=3), no post-treatment scan (n=13), and no remission marrow (n=10). Median age was 58 years (range 21-73); 56% were men and 44% were women. CR was achieved in 56% (34/61). Treatment was a single induction course in 79% (48/61) and re-induction in 21% (13/61). Predictive value based on FLT PET/CT was 60% (9/15, 95% CI 32%-84%) for RD and 61% (28/46, 95% CI 45%-75%) for CR. Of patients who achieved CR, 28/34 had SUVmax ≤ 7 g/mL (sensitivity of 82%) and 9/27 of those who did not had high SUVmax > 7 g/mL (specificity 33%). Predictive value of an aplastic marrow was 59% (26/44) for CR and 56% (9/16) for RD. Of patients who achieved CR, 26/33 had marrow hypoplasia (sensitivity 79%) and 9/27 with RD had disease in the nadir marrow (specificity 33%). Significant heterogeneity of bone marrow compartment post treatment (SUVhetero ranging from 0.24 to 1.07) was observed in FLT-PET/CT scans. Heterogeneity of bone marrow compartment decreased about 50% from pre-treatment to post-treatment FLT PET/CT. OS for all participants, stratified by post-treatment FLT PET/CT response and nadir marrow results, are summarized in the Figure. Conclusions: Although this study did not show significant advantage of FLT PET/CT compared to nadir marrow to predict RD or CR on the average, it did show signal heterogeneity in the study population that may be relevant to disease biology not appreciated by a single sampling site for the nadir or remission marrow. For example, in patients with false negative nadir biopsy, in approximately 20% of patients assessment with FLT PET/CT was correct, likely reflecting bone marrow heterogeneity and limitation of a single point sampling. Similarly, in almost 60% of patients with false positive nadir biopsy, FLT PET/CT assessment was correct. Figure 1 Disclosures Jeraj: AIQ Solutions: Current equity holder in private company. Kostakoglu:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy. Strickland:KiTE: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Sunesis: Research Funding; ArcherDx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Honoraria. Perlman:GE Healthcare: Research Funding; AIQ: Research Funding.

PURPOSE Impaired response to erythropoietin underlies ineffective erythropoiesis and anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). We investigated whether treatment with lenalidomide (LEN), which augments erythropoietin receptor signaling in vitro, can restore and improve hemoglobin response to epoetin (EPO) alfa in patients with lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS who have anemia that is refractory to or have low probability of benefit from treatment with recombinant erythropoietin. METHODS In a phase III, US intergroup trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive either LEN and EPO alfa or LEN alone following stratification by serum erythropoietin concentration and prior erythropoietin treatment. RESULTS A total of 195 evaluable patients were randomly assigned: 99 patients to the LEN-EPO alfa cohort and 96 to LEN alone. After four cycles of treatment, the primary end point of major erythroid response (MER) was significantly higher (28.3%) with the combination compared with LEN alone (11.5%) ( P = .004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 38.9% and 15.6% achieved MER, respectively ( P = .004). Additionally, minor erythroid response was achieved in 18.2% and 20.8% of patients, for an overall erythroid response rate of 46.5% versus 32.3%. Among LEN nonresponders, 38 crossed over to the addition of EPO alfa with 10 patients (26.3%) achieving a MER. Responses to the combined treatment were highly durable with a median MER duration of 23.8 months compared with 13 months with LEN alone. CONCLUSION LEN restores sensitivity to recombinant erythropoietin in growth factor–insensitive, lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS, to yield a significantly higher rate and duration of MER compared with LEN alone (funded by the National Cancer Institute; E2905 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02048813 ).

BackgroundThe availability of novel agents (NAs), including blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), has improved the outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Because of the relative effectiveness, it is often a challenge for clinicians to determine how to best sequence these NAs with respect to efficacy and toxicity.MethodsIn this multicenter, retrospective study of patients with RR ALL treated with blinatumomab, InO, or both, their efficacy as a first or second NA was compared.ResultsAmong 276 patients, 221 and 55 received blinatumomab and InO, respectively, as a first NA therapy. The complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi) rate was 65% and 67% for the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively (P = .73). The rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was 4% and 7% in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. Ninety‐two patients (43%) in the blinatumomab group and 13 patients (29%) in the InO group proceeded with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The median overall survival (OS) was 15 and 11.6 months in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. A subset analysis was performed for 61 patients who received both NAs (blinatumomab and then InO [n = 40] or InO and then blinatumomab [n = 21]). The CR/CRi rate was 58% for patients who received InO as the second NA and 52% for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA. The median OS was 10.5 for patients who received InO as the second NA and 5.9 months for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA (P = .09).ConclusionsAlthough the limited power of this study to detect a significant difference between subgroups is acknowledged, the data suggest that blinatumomab and InO may have comparable efficacy as a first or second NA therapy in RR ALL.

Abstract The availability and use of blinatumomab symbolizes a paradigm shift in the management of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort analysis of 239 ALL patients (227 relapsed refractory [RR], n = 227; minimal residual disease [MRD], n = 12) who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy in the “real-world” setting. The median age of patients at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) patients had ≥3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) had allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation before blinatumomab. The response rate (complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery) in patients with RR disease was 65% (47% MRD−). Among 12 patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) patients achieved MRD negativity. In patients with RR disease, median relapse-free survival and overall survival (OS) after blinatumomab was 32 months and 12.7 months, respectively. Among patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, median relapse-free survival was not reached (54% MRD− at 2 years) and OS was 34.7 months. Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity were observed in 3%, 7%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Among patients who achieved complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery, consolidation therapy with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation retained favorable prognostic significance for OS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97; P = .04). In this largest “real-world” experience published to date, blinatumomab demonstrated responses comparable to those reported in clinical trials. The optimal sequencing of newer therapies in ALL requires further study.

Background: Only a small subset of Lower risk (LR) MDS patients benefit from treatment with rhu-Erythropoietin (Epo). We previously reported that lenalidomide (LEN) restores sensitivity to Epo in MDS progenitors by inducing the formation of lipid rafts that are enriched for signaling competent, JAK2/Epo-receptor complexes (McGraw K, et. al. PLoS One 2014; Basiorka A, et. al. Cancer Res 2016). In the MDS-002 and MDS-005 trials, treatment with LEN monotherapy gave rise to RBC transfusion-independence (TI) in 26% of azanucleoside-naïve, transfusion-dependent (TD) LR, non-del(5q) MDS patients for a median of 10.2 and 7.75 months, respectively. In a pilot study of Epo-refractory LR-MDS patients, the addition of epoetin alfa (EA) to LEN treatment yielded erythroid responses in 28% of patients who were unresponsive to LEN alone, suggesting that LEN may overcome clinical resistance to augment response to rhEpo (Komrokji R, et. al. Blood 2012). To test this hypothesis, we performed a randomized phase III trial comparing treatment with LEN to LEN+EA in LR non-del(5q) MDS patients who were refractory to, or not candidates for treatment with rhEpo. Methods: Patients with Low or Intermediate-1 IPSS risk MDS with hemoglobin <9.5 g/dL who were unresponsive to rhEpo treatment or were TD (>2 units/month) with serum Epo >500mU/mL were eligible. Patients were stratified by serum Epo level and prior rhEpo (EA vs. darbepoetin vs. none) then randomized to treatment with LEN 10 mg/d x21d q4wk (Arm A) or LEN + EA 60,000U SC/wk (Arm B). The primary endpoint was major erythroid response (MER) at week 16 which was defined according to transfusion status at baseline: (1) achievement of RBC-TI for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks AND a sustained ≥1 g/dL hemoglobin rise compared to mean pre-transfusion baseline value in TD patients; and (2) a >2 g/dL rise in hemoglobin without transfusion for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks in non-TD patients (<4U RBC/8 wks). Arm A non-responders were offered cross-over to combined therapy. Results: Among 205 patients randomized, 14 were excluded from the primary analysis due to a 4 month interruption in drug supply. Among the 195 evaluable patients, 96 were assigned to Arm A and 99 to Arm B. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms with 85% of patients heavily TD, receiving a median of 4 units/8 weeks. Overall, 93% of patients received prior treatment with Epo and 18% azanucleosides. In an intent to treat analysis, 28/99 patients (28.3%) in Arm B achieved MER compared to 11/96 (11.5%) in Arm A (P=0.004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 28/72 (38.9%) and 10/64 (15.6%) achieved MER, respectively (P=0.004). Forty-four Arm A non-responders crossed over to combination-therapy with 11 patients (25%) experiencing a MER. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified only treatment with LEN + EA as an independent covariate for erythroid response (P=0.01). Responses were durable with MER median duration of 23.8 months in Arm B compared to 13 months in Arm A. There was no significant difference in the frequency or distribution of >Grade 3, non-hematologic adverse events between treatment arms. Two patients progressed to AML while on study (Arm A), and no thromboembolic events were reported. Conclusions: LEN restores sensitivity to rhEpo in otherwise refractory, LR-non-del(5q) MDS patients to yield a significantly higher frequency of durable major erythroid responses compared to LEN alone. The addition of LEN to EA treatment is an effective strategy for the management of Epo-refractory patients with a potential duration of benefit extending to years. Disclosures List: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Verma:Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Stelexis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Maciejewski:Novartis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Komrokji:JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy. Luger:Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Claxton:Astellas Pharma: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Medimmune Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Celgene Corporation: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Incyte Corporation: Other: Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies. Artz:Miltenyi: Research Funding. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Lenalidomide used for treatment non-del 5q myelodysplastic syndromes.

Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin, which is approved for relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), based on efficacy demonstrated in a randomized control trial. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of InO in the "real world" setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of patients (pts) with RR B-cell ALL, who received InO outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response to InO, duration of response, overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Demographic and disease characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Duration of response was estimated among pts who achieve complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Results: From June 2016 to May 2019, 84 pts with RR-B cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at InO initiation was 50 years (yrs) (range, 20-87). Twenty-two (27.5%) pts had t(9;22) (Ph+ve) and 6 (7.5%) pts had t(4;11) (MLL gene) chromosomal abnormalities. Nine (11%) and 20 (25%) pts had CNS disease at diagnosis and at relapse, respectively. Median number of therapies prior to InO was 2 (range, 0-7), 40 (48%) pts had ≥ 3 therapies and 23 (27%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to InO. Forty (48%) pts received blinatumomab prior to InO. Fourteen (17%) pts received InO in combination with chemotherapy and/ or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Overall response rate (CR/CRi) was 63%; 44% had CR with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by flow cytometry. Response rate in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 73%. Twenty-three (27%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median response duration with InO was 11.5 months (mo); 32.5% had sustained response at 2 yrs (Fig. 1a). Median response duration post InO, censored at allo-HCT was not reached (NR) (51% in remission at 2 yrs) (Fig. 1b). Median OS after InO was 11.6 mo and 32% were alive at 2 yrs (Fig. 1c). Median OS post InO, censored at of allo-HCT was 13.6 mo (Fig. 1d). Median OS after InO in Ph+ve pts was NR (71% alive at 1 yr). Forty-nine percent, 27%, 6% and 5% of pts discontinued InO due to progression, allo-HCT, adverse events and maintenance therapy, respectively. Nineteen (30%) pts had dose interruptions. In terms of toxicities, 14 (17%) and 7 (8%) pts had grade (G)1-2 and G3 transaminases secondary to InO, respectively. One pt each had G2 and G3 pancreatitis, respectively. One (1%) and 2 (2%) pts had G2 and G4 veno-occlusive disease secondary to InO, respectively. Two of these pts were treated with defibrotide. Two (2%) pts died due to InO toxicity. A complete description of adverse events are summarized in Table 1. Conclusion: Our real-world data obtained by multicenter collaboration suggest that InO was well tolerated and had significant efficacy in this heavily treated patient population of RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Liedtke: Celator: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Aldoss:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yang:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Advani:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding. Atallah:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy.

Background Blinatumomab is a bispecific T cell antibody construct, that binds and allows CD-3 positive cytotoxic T cells to recognize and eradicate CD19-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) blasts. The drug is approved for patient (pts) with relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell ALL and those with minimal residual disease (MRD) based on efficacy in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab in the "real world" setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of RR B-cell ALL pts, who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS) from the time of blinatumomab initiation and toxicity. DOR was estimated among pts who had achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Results From December 2014 to May 2019, 239 pts with B-cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (yrs) (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) pts had Philadelphia chromosome [t(9;22)] positive (Ph+ve) disease. Sixty-one (26%) pts had ≥ 3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-two (9%) pts received inotuzumab ozagamicin prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-nine (12%) pts received blinatumomab in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Twelve (5%) pts received blinatumomab for MRD. Response rate (CR/CRi) in pts with RR disease was 61%; 44% had CR with MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Rate of CR/CRi in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 74.5%. Among 12 pts who received Blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) pts achieved MRD negativity. Overall 113 (48%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median DOR in pts with RR disease was 32.1 months (95% CI; 9.5-not reached [NR]) (Fig. 1a) and when censored at allo-HCT was 14.8 months (95% CI; 5.2-NR) (Fig. 1b). Median OS in pts with RR disease after blinatumomab was 12.7 months (95% CI; 9.2 -17.9) (Fig. 1c) and when censored at allo-HCT was 8.6 months (95% CI; 6.4-11.6) (Fig.1d). Median OS after blinatumomab in RR B-cell ALL Ph+ve pts was NR (59% alive at 2 yr). Among pts who received blinatumomab for MRD, median DOR was NR and 54% sustained MRD negativity at 2 yrs. Median OS was 34.7 months (95% CI; 8.8-34.7) in group of pts who received blinatumomab for MRD. Seven (3%) pts discontinued blinatumomab due to adverse events and 40 (21%) pts had dose interruptions. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade (G) was reported in higher number of pts (93 [39%]) compared to clinical trials, though G3-4 CRS appears to be similar (G1-2 [36%], G3-4 [3%]). Forty-four (44%) pts were treated with steroids and 8 (8%) pts required tocilizumab with steroids for CRS. Ninety-three percent of pts had complete resolution of CRS. CNS toxicities were observed in 31 (13%) pts, among them 60% (n= 19) had G3-4 toxicities. Hepatic toxicities were observed in 84 (35%) pts as outlined in Table 1. Six (2.5%) pts died due to blinatumomab induced toxicities. Conclusion: Our real-world data with multicenter collaboration suggest that overall blinatumomab was well tolerated and had led to significant response in pts with RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Advani: Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Aldoss:AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau. Podoltsev:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Yang:Agios: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah:Helsinn: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy.