Alkhateeb, Hassan B.

Abstract Background: Acute T-cell lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL)/ lymphoma (T-LBL) are immature T-cell malignancies with very poor outcomes. In patients with relapsed disease, survival is often < 12 months (Marks et al, Blood, 2009). Prognostic correlates and treatment outcomes after relapse remain largely unknown. Aims: To evaluate prognostic correlates and treatment outcomes in patients with relapsed T-ALL/LBL. Methods: After IRB approval, 92 consecutive patients with T-cell ALL/LBL were identified. 41 patients with relapsed disease after achieving a first complete remission (CR1) were included in the study group. Features at the time of relapse were retrospectively abstracted and analyzed. Survival time after relapse was calculated from the time of relapse until death or last follow-up. Conventional methods were used for statistical analysis. Results: A. Baseline characteristics of all patients 92 patients were identified [41 LBL, 51 ALL]. Median age was 33 years (range; 18-88) and 66 (72%) were males. Median follow-up was 25 months (range 0.9-260). 13(14%) received palliative care or were lost to follow-up before treatment initiation. At last follow-up, there were 41 (52%, n = 79) relapses and 42 (46%, n = 92) deaths. Of 79 patients, 71 (90%) achieved a CR1 and 8 (10%) had primary refractory disease. Comparisons between ALL and LBL revealed expected differences in presenting features such as frequency of primary mediastinal mass at presentation in LBL and high leukocyte count in ALL. Significant differences in treatment were seen. Asparaginase-based and ALL-directed therapy were more common in the ALL group (71% vs. 45%, p = 0.009; 88% vs. 71%, p = 0.04). 13 (81%) LBL and 14 (27%) ALL underwent allogeneic SCT. The remaining three in each group underwent autologous SCT in CR1. B. Characteristics of relapsed patients 41 relapsed after achieving CR1 [23 LBL, 18 ALL]. Median time to relapse was 8.0 months (range 2.3-130), with no difference between ALL and LBL groups. Median age was 34 years (range 19-71) and 29 (71%) were males. Median follow-up after relapse was 7.2 months (range 0.3-207). At time of last follow-up, there were 30 (73%) deaths, 25 (61%) achieved a second complete remission (CR2) and 14 (34%) had persistent disease. 12 (48%) had relapse following CR2. 34 (83%) relapsed following CR1 after induction chemotherapy alone. 6 (15%) and 1 (2%) relapsed following allogeneic and autologous SCT respectively. 27 (66%) had BM involvement, 5 (12%) had CNS involvement, 13 (32%) had mediastinal involvement, and 3 (7%) had isolated extramedullary relapse. Ten (43%) patients with LBL relapsed with ALL. Of 27 patients with available data, 9 (33%) had high-risk cytogenetics at relapse, defined as ≥ 5 chromosomal abnormalities and/or markers known to confer an unfavorable prognosis. 16 of these 27 patients had follow-up cytogenetic studies performed, of which 8 (50%) had evidence of clonal evolution. Patients were treated with up to five regimens. 12 (31%) received asparaginase-based therapy and 13 (33%) received nelarabine with CR2 rates of 75% and 25% respectively. Median number of regimens needed to achieve CR2 was one. 18 (46%) went onto SCT following CR2: 14 (allogeneic), 3 (autologous), and 1 (donor lymphocyte infusion). The majority received myeloablative conditioning (92%). C. Outcomes and prognostic correlates for survival after relapse Median survival following relapse was 8.2 months (IQR 4.1-21.3) and did not differ between LBL and ALL. Nine (36%) who achieved CR2 are alive at time of last follow-up. 25 (61%) achieved CR2, but 12 (48%) relapsed following CR2, with median time to second relapse of 7.6 months (IQR 4.7-14). Nine of 18 who underwent SCT following CR2 had disease relapse (8 allogeneic, 1 autologous). Only BM involvement at relapse significantly correlated with post-relapse survival (HR 2.4 [1.1, 5.1], p = 0.03). Clonal evolution, high-risk cytogenetics, nelarabine therapy, achieving CR2, and SCT were not independent predictors of survival in our small subset of patients. Conclusion: Patients with relapsed T-ALL/LBL have dismal outcomes, in spite of advances in therapy with newer agents such as nelarabine and the use of allogeneic SCT. Regardless of T-ALL/LBL subtype, BM involvement at relapse appears to be a significant factor negatively impacting post-relapse survival. Further studies are needed to validate these findings. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding. Thompson:Kite Pharma: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a heterogeneous disease characterized by cytopenias and a propensity to progress into acute myeloid leukemia in a subset of patients. Clinical trials which led to FDA approval of hypomethylating agents (HMAs) stratified patient's risk status per the IPSS. In 2008, WHO further categorized patients into different groups and the IPSS was revised into the IPSS-R. Therefore, there is a paucity of data regarding the response rates and clinical outcomes of HMA therapy when stratified per WHO subtype and IPSS-R. Goal: We carried this review to assess whether WHO subtypes or IPSS-R had a differential response with corresponding impact on survival. Methods: After IRB approval, all MDS pts who received hypomethylating agents (HMA) (azacitidine or decitabine) with available response data (2000-2014) were included. Clinical characteristics were obtained retrospectively. IPSS-R (Greenberg 2012) was used for risk stratification. Response assessment was based on IWGR 2006 criteria. Statistical comparisons were performed with the χ2 test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. Survival analysis was based on the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test. For all analyses, P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: We identified 823 pt in our MDS database; among those that received HMA therapy 70 patients (pts) had evaluable response data. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years (31-85) and 49 (70%) were males. MDS subtypes per WHO 2008 classification were 31(44%) RAEB1/2, 26(37%) RCMD, 10(14%) MDS-U, 2(3%) RARS, and 1(1%) MDS 5q. Fifteen (33%) patients had secondary MDS. 23(32%) developed AML, and median time to leukemic transformation was 14 months (7.8-21). Median time to start HMA was 2.7 months (0-77). Median follow up from initial diagnosis was 20 months (3-118) at which time 22(31%) deaths were documented. A. Patient characteristics: Prior to HMA therapy median laboratory values included; Hemoglobin 9.6 g/dL (6.6-14.8), ANC 1.1 x1010 (0.01-16), Platelet 66 x1010 (4-937), peripheral blast % 0 (0-18), and bone marrow blast % 5 (0-17). IPSS-R for our cohort was as the following, 15(27%) Very high, 14(25%) high, 10(18%) intermediate 12(21%) low, and 5(9%) very low risk. B. HMA Response rates based on WHO subtype: We observed no significant difference in response (p = 0.6) when comparing response rate among different groups. Response rates per WHO subtype were as follows: i. RAEB: 7 (22%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 1(3%) had HI/PR, 17(55%), and 6(20%) had stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD), respectively. ii. RCMD: 2 (8%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 4(16%) had HI/PR, 12(46%), and 8(30%) had SD and PD, respectively. iii. MDS-U: 1 (10%) pt achieved CR/Marrow CR, 1(10%) had HI/PR, 6(60%), and 2(20%) had SD and PD, respectively. iv. MDS 5q/RARS: 1(33%) had SD, and the remaining three pts had PD. C. HMA Response rates based on IPSS-R: i. Very low: 1(20%) had HI/PR, 3(60%), and 1(20%) had SD. ii. Low: 2(17%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 3(25%) had HI/PR, 4(33%), and 3(25%) had SD and PD, respectively. iii. Intermediate: 2 (20%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 5(50%), and 3(30%) had SD and PD, respectively. iv. High: 2(14%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 2(14%) had HI/PR, 7(50%), and 3(21%) had SD and PD, respectively. v. Very high: 1(7%) pts achieved CR/Marrow CR, 9(60%), and 5(33%) had SD and PD, respectively. Comparing responses among IPSS-R risk stratification groups, was not statistically significant (p = 0.49). We did not observe a difference in response rate when we further classified pts into low risk (very low, low & intermediate), and high risk (high, very high) (p = 0.27). D. Response effect on Survival: Overall survival was not statistically different among responders (CR/Marrow CR/HI &PR) and non-responder (SD & PD); 22.3 vs 14.7 months respectively (p = 0.21) (Figure1). Conclusion: Using contemporary MDS risk stratification and WHO classification was not predictive of response to hypomethylating agents. Responders did not seem to benefit from prolongation of survival. Given the small sample size in this cohort, this should be further explored in larger groups to identify if there are any potential subgroups that would benefit more from such therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Acute erythroleukemia (AML-M6) is an aggressive myeloid leukemia, with poor outcomes (median survival < 12months). In 2008, the WHO further sub-classified this disease into two subgroups- erythroid leukemia and pure erythroid leukemia, based on the number of erythroblasts and myeloblasts. We carried out this study to evaluate differences in presenting features and outcomes between erythroid leukemia and pure erythroid leukemia. Methods: After due IRB approval, out of 923 AML, 43(4.6%) pts who met the 2008 WHO criteria for acute erythroleukemia (2000-2014) were identified, and clinical characteristics retrospectively reviewed. A diagnosis of erythroid leukemia (M6a) was considered if > 50% of the total nucleate BM cells were of erythroid lineage and > 20% of non-erythroid cells were myeloblasts. Pure erythroid leukemia (M6b) was diagnosed in pts who presented with > 80% of BM nucleate cells consisting of immature erythroid precursors. Cytogenetic risk stratification was based on NCCN AML guidelines. Statistical comparisons were performed with the χ2 test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with the Cox logistical regression. Survival analysis was based on the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test. For all analyses, P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (27-90) and 34(79%) were male. 30 (69%) had M6a and 13 (30%) had M6b. 27 (62%) had de novo AML M6, whereas 16 (37%) had secondary AML (9 underlying MDS and 7 therapy related).The median time to leukemic transformation for pts with underlying MDS was 8 months (2-83). Median follow up in our cohort was 7.2 months (2-157) at which time 13 (30%) deaths were documented. A. Patient characteristics: At time of diagnosis median laboratory values included; Hemoglobin 8.5 g/dL (4.6-11), WBC 2x109 (0.7-11.1), ANC 0.47x109 (0.01-4.07), Platelet 33x 109 (7-177), peripheral blast % 2 (0-35), and bone marrow blast % 11 (0-84). Cytogenetic information was available in 38 pts; of which 6(16%) were diploid, 21(55%) were complex/monosmal and 1(3%) was complex/non monosomal. Intermediate risk cytogenetic was observed in 15 pts (39%), and poor risk cytogenetic was identified in 23(61%). Comparing M6a and M6b, we observed that pts with M6a tend to have more leukopenia and neutropenia and higher marrow blast percentage compared to M6b (Table 1). None of the patients experienced extramedullary disease or CNS involvement. B. Outcome and prognostics: We did observe a trend towards worse survival in pts with M6b, 7 months vs 12.9 months with M6a (p= 0.08) (Figure 1). There was no difference in survival in acute erythroleukemia compared to other acute myeloid leukemias, 10.1 vs 14 months (p= 0.28), respectively (Figure 2). In univariate analysis, WBC, ANC, and cytogenetic risk impacted survival (Table 2), however only cytogenetic risks retained significance in the multivariate model; Intermediate risk HR 0.18 (0.05-0.51; p = 0.0009) and poor risk HR 5.4 (1.9-17.6; p = 0.0009). Conclusion: Acute Erythroid Leukemia is a rare leukemia with ~5% incidence in our cohort. We observed that regardless of the percentage of bone marrow erythroblasts and myeloblasts, survival in patients with Acute Erythroleukemia are predominantly impacted by cytogenetic risk stratification. This raises a question on the clinical relevance of the sub-categorization of acute erythroleukemia into erythroid leukemia and pure erythroid leukemia. Larger studies are needed to validate our results. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive form of blood cancers with a wide range of response and relapse rates using standard chemotherapy regimen (commonly known as 7+3). Several genes (FLT3, IDH1, RAS) have been targeted using small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors with encouraging results. The stem cell receptor tyrosine kinase KIT is expressed more than 10% in the blasts in 95% of relapsed AML cases and mediates leukemic proliferation and has anti-apoptotic effects (Domen and Weissman 2000). AML with high KIT expression is associated with poorer outcome (Del Poeta, Venditti et al 2003). Goals: To study the efficacy and safety of combination 7+3 and nilotinib in patients (pts) with AML and KIT expression. Primary goal is to determine the complete response (CR) rate; while secondary goals include 2-year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) in addition to safety of DATA regimen. Methods: A single arm, Phase II study, enrolled pts at Mayo Clinic (MN and AZ). Appropriate IRB was obtained and study was registered (NCT 01806571). Pts were enrolled if they were newly diagnosed with AML with KIT (CD117) expression of 20% or higher on myeloblasts by flow cytometry. KIT mutations were allowed if present. Nilotinib 300 mg twice daily was given on days 4-14 of induction and consolidation; and continuous daily maintenance therapy for up to 2 years. Cytarabine 100 mg/m2/day continuous IV x7 days plus daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 IV daily x3 days were used for induction , while consolidation used standard cytarabine 3 gm/m2 twice daily days 1, 3, 5 for a total of 4 cycles. This is a Simon 1-stage design with a safety analysis after enrolling 12 pts, and an interim analysis after enrolling 18 out of 43 pts. If 11 or fewer pts achieve complete remission, the regimen will be considered ineffective. Results: Eighteen pts have been enrolled between July 2013 and July 2015, 17 of which have baseline data. Median age was 58 years (range 24-65) with 76.5% being male. Median laboratory findings include hemoglobin of 9.3 gm/dL, platelets of 52 x109, and white blood count of 7.0 (0.5-125). Cytogenetics were normal in 41% of the pts. Favorable cytogenetics were seen in 2 pts (inv 16). FLT3 testing was done on 15 pts and was positive in 27%. KIT gene sequencing (exon 8, 9, 10, 11, 17) revealed no pathogenic mutation. Median number of cycles was 3 (range 1-7). Six pts had treatment delays, with 2/13 (15%) delays being due to non-hematologic toxicities. No delays or missed doses affected cytarabine and daunorubicin administration. Out of 15 pts evaluable for response, 12 (80%) achieved CR (or CR with incomplete platelet recovery). Six of the 12 pts (50%) who achieved remission needed a second induction on protocol. Two out of 15 did not respond (did not get re-induction on protocol). One pt died before disease assessment due to liver failure (G5, had only one dose of nilotinib and toxicity was attributed to daunorubicin). Of the 14 pts having at least 1 bone marrow biopsy, the overall CR rate was 86%. Five (33%) pts proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplant, all are alive and none were able to initiate protocol nilotinib maintenance therapy. Only 2 out of 12 (17%) pts relapsed after achieving CR, one was secondary AML from myelodysplastic syndrome with complex karyotype and the other was therapy-related AML with t(9;11). Only 2 (11%) pts died at time of report. Thirteen pts were evaluated for adverse events (AE). Six pts had G4 non-hematological AEs. Five of 12 G4 AEs were related to infection, 2 were electrolyte imbalances, and 2 were heart failures. Most common G3 non-hematological AEs were febrile neutropenia (53%), hypophosphatemia (23%), hyperglycemia (23%), and hypertension (23%). In agreement with the favorable outcomes, the molecular target validation revealed that nilotinib treatment down-regulates the expression of KIT, Sp1, DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) 1, DNMT3a and DNMT3b. Conclusion: Combination daunorubicin and cytarabine with nilotinib (DATA) appears to be safe and effective. Interim results show an acceptable safety profile in the first 12 evaluable pts with most common AE being infection as expected. Thirty day mortality is acceptable (7%). DATA regimen has encouraging CR rates of 80% (intent to treat) and 86% in assessed pts, with half of the pts who achieved remission requiring 2 cycles of induction. Relapse rate seems to be low at 17%. We will continue accrual until all pts accrued for final results. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding. Off Label Use: This is a Phase II study of combination nilotinib to standard chemotherapy in patients diagnosed with AML.. Tibes:TetraLogic Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Background:Morphologic complete remission (CR) is the gold standard for assessing response in acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) and CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp) are associated with inferior overall survival post induction therapy (Walter et al, JCO 2010 and Chen et al, JCO 2015). Furthermore, residual cytogenetic disease is associated with a higher relapse compared with patients with cytogenetic CR (CCR; Chen et al, JCO 2011). There is a paucity of literature regarding the impact of CRi, CRp and CCR prior to allogeneic transplantation. Aim:To study the impact of CRi, CRp and CCR and their impact on relapse incidence (RI), non-relapse mortality (NRM) and overall survival (OS) in reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation (RIC-SCT). Methods:After due IRB approval, patients (pts) with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who received RIC-SCT at our institution between 2008-2014 were identified. All clinical and pathologic data were retrospectively extracted. CR, CRi, CRp and CCR were defined in accordance to the international working group definition. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared and Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis, respectively. Survival estimates were calculated using the kaplan-meier and log-rank test. RI was estimated on a competing event analysis using Grey's model. Cox proportional regression was used to compute hazard ratios (HR). Results: A. Baseline characteristics: A total of 134 patients were identified. A total of 70 (52%) were in CR, 40 (30%) in CRi and 24 (18%) in CRp. 129 patients had evaluable cytogenetic data pre-SCT; 81 (63%) were in CCR and 48 (37%) had persistent cytogenetic disease. Baseline patient, disease and transplant characteristics stratified by peripheral count recovery pre-SCT are shown (Table 1). Significantly more patients in CR had higher KPS, higher proportion AML diagnosis, more likely to be in first complete remission (CR1), higher rate of cytogenetic CR and a higher proportion of minor ABO mismatched donor. No other significant variables were identified between the three cohorts. B. Transplant outcomes: Median follow up of the entire cohort was 41.9 months and the 2-yr OS, RI and NRM were 61.7%, 25.7% and 21.9%. Patients in CR, CRi and CRp had a similar 2-year rates of RI (26.3%, 18.4% and 28.9%, respectively; p = 0.66), 2-year NRM (20.5%, 38.8% and 22.1%, respectively; p = 0.18) and 2-year OS (61.8%, 55.1% and 58.6%, respectively; p = 0.82). RI was significantly lower for patients in CCR pre-SCT with HR 0.25 (95% CI 0.11-0.51 p = 0.0001) without a difference in overall survival HR 0.68 (0.41-1.15; p = 0.14). However, we observed a similar RI in CR, CRi and CRp patients who had persistent cytogenetic disease pre-SCT (p = 0.55). The outcome remained similar between strata after excluding MDS patients (data not shown). Conclusion: We observed equivalent post-transplant outcomes between CR, CRi and CRp despite the presence of persistent cytogenetic disease. This suggests that RIC SCT had a role in mitigating the negative prognosis associated incomplete hematologic recovery. These findings have implications as physicians may not need to postpone SCT to await count recovery. This important question should be further validated in a larger cohort of patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding.

Background: The patient/caregiver experience during CAR-T therapy is stressful, overwhelming, terrifying, and often a patient’s last treatment option. The Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery Innovation and Design team has worked with the CAR-T therapy clinical team to develop a patient experience that provides patients with a sense of caring, supportive environment, timely knowledge, and realistic expectations. Using a human-centered design approach, the Innovation and Design team worked with patients and caregivers to understand latent and unspoken needs in order to develop an ideal CAR-T therapy patient journey. Methods: With qualitative interviewing techniques, patient observation, and low fidelity experimentation, 21 patients/caregiver pairs were interviewed throughout their CAR-T therapy experience in 2018. Patients were interviewed at several touch points as well as encouraged to reach out to the Innovation and Design team at any point with reflections on their experiences. Patients were recruited as they began their evaluation phase for CAR-T therapy. The interviews were unscripted to allow for a breadth of discovery by not constraining the conversations to previously developed themes. As themes emerged from patient/caregiver interviews, artifacts and interventions were designed to alleviate pain points and improve the patient/caregiver experience. These artifacts and interventions were integrated into the clinical processes in real time and patient/caregivers were interviewed to understand the impact of these activities. Results: Several themes emerged from qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers. From the themes, interventions were developed. We were able to demonstrate a qualitative improvement in patient/caregiver experience through these interventions (Figure 1). Conclusions: Patients/caregivers undergoing CAR-T therapy have unique issues surrounding the logistics of care, emotional burden, and physical effects of treatment. We implemented processes to address these issues and observed a qualitative improvement via patient interviews/feedback. Ongoing work includes optimizing remote monitoring, digital platforms for patient education, and a quantitative study looking at patient reported outcomes (PROs) in such patients. To our knowledge, this is the first report for care delivery optimization in real-world practice for this new therapy.