Solh, Melhem

Introduction In October 2021, brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) received U.S. FDA approval as the first CAR T-cell therapy for adults with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) based on the 55-patient ZUMA-3 Phase II study. We subsequently established ROCCA and now report on the largest cohort of patients treated with commercial brexu-cel for r/r B-ALL to date. Methods Adults (18+) with r/r B-ALL infused with commercial brexu-cel across 25 U.S. institutions were included. ASTCT consensus criteria were used to score CRS and ICANS. Methodologies for assessing MRD (minimal threshold of 10 -4) included flow cytometry, NGS, or qPCR depending on institution practice. Duration of remission (DOR) was calculated from time of complete response (CR); progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from day of brexu-cel infusion and were not censored for hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) or maintenance. All living patients were censored at the time of last follow-up prior to data lock, which occurred on June 30, 2023. Results Among 152 infused, the median age was 46 (range, 18-81), 57% were male, and 34% were Hispanic. Most (67%) had Ph- ALL, were heavily pre-treated (median 4 prior lines), and entered apheresis with high disease burden (57%). At time of apheresis, 23% of patients only had MRD+ disease and 15% were in complete molecular remission. While 82% developed CRS, the majority was grade 1-2, with 9% of the overall cohort experiencing grade 3-4 CRS. In contrast, 55% developed ICANS, with 32% of the entire cohort experiencing grade 3-4 ICANS. Eight patients (5%) died of toxicity/infection prior to D+28 response assessment. Among 133 patients with response assessment, 120 (90%) achieved morphologic CR, of whom 82% were MRD-, 15% were MRD+, and 3% MRD unknown. The median follow-up for survivors was 8.4 months; 45 patients have relapsed and 42 patients died. Median DOR was not reached. Median PFS and OS were 8.6 months and 15.6 months, respectively. Estimated PFS and OS of the entire cohort at 6-months were 61% (95% CI, 52-68) and 81% (95% CI, 73-87) and at 12-months were 47% (95% CI, 37-56) and 63% (95% CI, 53-72), respectively. We found no association between pre-CAR disease burden and post-CAR PFS/OS. However, patients with MRD- response to CAR had superior PFS relative to patients with MRD+ CR (median 14 months vs. 5 months, P=0.002). Forty-four patients received post-CAR consolidation/maintenance therapy while in CR: 25 allogeneic HCT, 15 TKI, 2 POMP, and 3 other/unknown. To examine the effect of consolidation/maintenance following brexu-cel, we performed a landmark analysis of PFS limited to patients alive and in CR at 2-months post-CAR infusion (N=113) and suggests superior PFS in patients receiving either HCT or other forms maintenance, relative to those receiving no further therapy following brexu-cel ( P=0.055). We then investigated post-CAR MRD-response in combination with receipt of post-CAR consolidation/maintenance and found that even among patients achieving MRD-negative response, post-CAR consolidation/maintenance led to superior PFS (Figure 1). Conclusions Among 152 adults treated with commercial brexu-cel for r/r B-ALL across 25 U.S. institutions, we found very high response rates (CR/CRi: 90%; 82% MRD-) consistent with the Zuma-3 data. While rates of severe CRS are low, grade 3-4 ICANS was observed in 32% of patients and warrants further investigation We demonstrate the prognostic impact of achieving an MRD-negative CR and an emerging role for consolidation/maintenance therapies to enhance the durability of response following brexu-cel in adults r/r B-ALL.

Background Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) cell therapy that recently received U.S. FDA approval as the first CAR-T cell therapy for adults with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). Social determinants of health (SDoH) are shown to significantly influence outcomes in B-ALL. However, how SDoH relate to and affect outcomes in patients with B-ALL receiving CAR-T therapy has not been well established. We studied the impact of SDoH on outcomes of adults with B-ALL receiving brexu-cel as part of the Real-world Outcomes Collaborative of CAR-T in Adult ALL (ROCCA). Methods This retrospective multicenter analysis spanning 25 U.S centers included adults (≥18 years) with r/r B-ALL treated with commercial brexu-cel between 2021-2023. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the day of brexu-cel infusion and were not censored for hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) or maintenance. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association of age, sex, pre-apheresis disease burden, and SDoH (referral source, insurance, distance from home to CAR-T site, marital status, and the social deprivation index) with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The social deprivation index (SDI), a composite measure (including income, education, employment, housing, household characteristics, and transportation) used to quantify socio-economic variation in health outcomes, with higher SDI indicating greater social disadvantage, was estimated at the zip code level. (Butler et al., 2013) Results Of the 152 patients who received brexu-cel (Table 1), 57% were male. 51% identified as non-Hispanic White, with the remainder identifying as Hispanic (34%), Asian/Pacific Islander (7%), Black (6%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (1%), or mixed race (1%). A majority (46%) were referred for brexu-cel from private/community-based practices and 62% lived within 50 miles of the CAR-T center (36% lived >50 miles and 2% were unknown). Health insurance coverage included primarily public (49%) and private (42%); no patients were uninsured. High SDI (76-100% percentile) was present in 26%, while 14% had a low SDI (0-25 th percentile). In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in PFS or OS between patients with high versus low SDI; closer distance to the CAR-T site (<50 miles versus >50 miles)) was associated with worse OS (HR 1.96; 95% CI 1.00, 3.84; p=0.05). Multivariate analysis (Table 2) revealed that male sex was associated with inferior PFS (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.02, 3.85; p=0.04) and OS (HR 2.52; 95% CI 1.09, 5.84; p=0.03). There was no difference in PFS (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.48-1.88, p=0.88) or OS (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.33,1.92; p=0.62) when comparing Hispanic and non-Hispanic White patients. Additionally, there was no difference in PFS or OS based on any SDoH, including insurance type, marital status, referral source, caregiver type, and distance to transplant center. Conclusions In patients receiving brexu-cel, survival outcomes appear independent of SDoH. Contrary to previous reports suggesting inferior outcomes for Hispanic patients with B-ALL after receiving traditional systemic therapies, we observed comparable outcomes to non-Hispanic patients treated with brexu-cel. Distance from the CAR-T site and referrals from the community did not affect outcomes. Additionally, those with higher SDI had similar outcomes to those with a lower SDI, although this analysis was limited by sample size and the selection bias that exists in being referred for brexu-cel in the first place. The relatively lower logistical burden of CAR-T compared to allogeneic stem cell transplant or non-fixed duration systemic therapies may have mitigated the impact of SDoH on outcomes. These real-world data suggest that continuing to improve access to and treatment with brexu-cel may improve overall outcomes for disadvantaged populations with r/r B-ALL.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). Bridging therapy, defined as anti-leukemia therapy given between apheresis and lymphodepleting chemotherapy, was permitted on the pivotal ZUMA-3 trial. The optimal bridging therapy is unknown in this setting. Here we report patient and disease characteristics in those receiving bridging therapies prior to brexu-cel and the impact of bridging on clinical outcomes in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results: ROCCA includes 25 US institutions contributing retrospective data from 152 B-ALL patients treated with standard of care brexu-cel between 2021-2023. Ninety-nine patients (65%) received bridging therapy, while 53 patients (35%) received no bridging therapy. Bridging therapy consisted of cytotoxic chemotherapy ( n=65, 66%), immunotherapy ( n=26, 26%; 23 inotuzumab, 3 blinatumomab), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) ( n=20, 20%; 16 ponatinib), steroids only ( n=10, 10%), and intrathecal chemotherapy ( n=22, 22%). The median age of the cohort was 46 (IQR 32-61). Patients were heavily pre-treated with a median of 4 prior lines of therapy. The median days from apheresis to infusion was 33 (IQR 26-42). 119 patients had known pre-apheresis blast counts; the bridging group had higher pre-apheresis blast burden, with 21 of 76 patients (28%) having ≥ 50% blasts compared to only 5 of 43 patients (12%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.02). In addition, more patients who received bridging had pre-apheresis extramedullary disease (32% vs. 15%, p=0.02). All other baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups (Table 1). Fifty-four (54%) patients had response assessment after bridging therapy and prior to brexu-cel infusion. In patients who received inotuzumab for pre-apheresis active disease, defined as ≥ 5% blasts, 6 of 13 (46%) who had post-bridging assessment achieved a complete response (CR; 5 measurable residual disease (MRD)+, 1 MRD-), with a mean proportional reduction in blast burden of 46% from baseline. In contrast, after chemotherapy bridging, only 2 of 16 patients (13%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Patients receiving chemotherapy bridging had a mean proportional increase in blast burden of 4.4%. In recipients of TKI bridging, 2 of 4 patients (50%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Compared to no bridging, patients in the bridging group had similar rates of grade 3 or 4 CRS (9% bridging vs. 8% no bridging, p=0.73) and grade 3 or 4 ICANS (34% vs. 26%, p=0.32). In univariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in day 28 response with 63 patients (72%) achieving MRD- complete response in the bridging group as compared to 36 patients (78%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.60). Non-relapse mortality was similar between the two groups (17% bridging vs. 9% no bridging, p=0.20). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were superior in the no bridging group: 1-year OS 74.7% vs 56.8% (log-rank p=0.04), and 1-year PFS 57.3% vs 41.7% (log-rank p=0.04). In a multivariate analysis stratified by bridging and pre-apheresis disease burden, patients with pre-apheresis blasts ≥ 5% and bridging had worse survival than ≥ 5% blasts and no bridging: 1-year OS 45.3% vs. 87.5% and 1-year PFS 27.7% vs. 64.3% (Figure 1). However, patients with < 5% blasts had similar survival regardless of bridging. Conclusions: In our real-world analysis, adults with R/R B-ALL receiving bridging therapy had a higher disease burden at baseline. Despite greater baseline disease, there were no significant differences in toxicity and day 28 response in those receiving bridging therapy vs. not. While survival was inferior in patients with pre-apheresis active disease who received bridging, this may be confounded by the degree of tumor burden. In patients with < 5% blasts pre-apheresis, bridging did not impact survival. Furthermore, inotuzumab bridging demonstrated the most significant disease debulking. However, the comparisons in this study are limited by the variability in practice for post-bridging disease reassessment and the small proportion of patients with active disease who did not receive bridging. A more uniform approach to peri-CAR disease assessment would enable more robust study of optimal bridging strategies.

AbstractTo develop a prognostic model for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for myelofibrosis (MF), we examined the data of 623 patients undergoing allo-HCT between 2000 and 2016 in the United States (the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research [CIBMTR] cohort). A Cox multivariable model was used to identify factors prognostic of mortality. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to patients who received transplantation in Europe (the European Bone Marrow Transplant [EBMT] cohort; n = 623). Patient age >50 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.96), and HLA-matched unrelated donor (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.98-1.7) were associated with an increased hazard of death and were assigned 1 point. Hemoglobin levels <100 g/L at time of transplantation (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.2-2.19) and a mismatched unrelated donor (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.25-2.52) were assigned 2 points. The 3-year overall survival (OS) in patients with a low (1-2 points), intermediate (3-4 points), and high score (5 points) were 69% (95% CI, 61-76), 51% (95% CI, 46-56.4), and 34% (95% CI, 21-49), respectively (P < .001). Increasing score was predictive of increased transplant-related mortality (TRM; P = .0017) but not of relapse (P = .12). The derived score was predictive of OS (P < .001) and TRM (P = .002) but not of relapse (P = .17) in the EBMT cohort as well. The proposed system was prognostic of survival in 2 large cohorts, CIBMTR and EBMT, and can easily be applied by clinicians consulting patients with MF about the transplantation outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundLenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) results in superior progression‐free survival and overall survival. However, patients with high‐risk multiple myeloma (HRMM) do not derive the same survival benefit from lenalidomide maintenance compared with standard‐risk patients. The authors sought to determine the outcomes of bortezomib‐based maintenance compared with lenalidomide maintenance in patients with HRMM undergoing ASCT.MethodsIn total, the authors identified 503 patients with HRMM who were undergoing ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis from January 2013 to December 2018 after receiving triplet novel‐agent induction in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. HRMM was defined as deletion 17p, t(14;16), t(4;14), t(14;20), or chromosome 1q gain.ResultsThree hundred fifty‐seven patients (67%) received lenalidomide alone, and 146 (33%) received bortezomib‐based maintenance (with bortezomib alone in 58%). Patients in the bortezomib‐based maintenance group were more likely to harbor two or more high‐risk abnormalities and International Staging System stage III disease (30% vs. 22%; p = .01) compared with the lenalidomide group (24% vs. 15%; p < .01). Patients who were receiving lenalidomide maintenance had superior progression‐free survival at 2 years compared with those who were receiving either bortezomib monotherapy or combination therapy (75% vs. 63%; p = .009). Overall survival at 2 years was also superior in the lenalidomide group (93% vs. 84%; p = .001).ConclusionsNo superior outcomes were observed in patients with HRMM who received bortezomib monotherapy or (to a lesser extent) in those who received bortezomib in combination as maintenance compared with lenalidomide alone. Until prospective data from randomized clinical trials are available, post‐transplant therapy should be tailored to each patient with consideration for treating patients in clinical trials that target novel therapeutic strategies for HRMM, and lenalidomide should remain a cornerstone of treatment.

Abstract The overall survival (OS) has improved significantly in multiple myeloma (MM) over the last decade with the use of proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug-based combinations, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) and subsequent maintenance therapies in eligible newly diagnosed patients. However, clinical trials using auto-HSCT followed by lenalidomide maintenance have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM), including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We evaluated the impact of SPM and SHM on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients with MM after auto-HSCT using CIBMTR registry data. Adult patients with MM who underwent first auto-HSCT in the United States with melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011 to 2018 and received maintenance therapy were included (n = 3948). At a median follow-up of 37 months, 175 (4%) patients developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid, 36 (20%) myeloid, 24 (14%) SHM, not otherwise specified, and 3 (2%) lymphoid malignancies. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that SPM and SHM were associated with an inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.62, P &lt; .001 and HR 5.01, P &lt; .001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P &lt; .001 and HR 8.13, P &lt; .001, respectively). In patients who developed SPM and SHM, MM remained the most frequent primary cause of death (42% vs 30% and 53% vs 18%, respectively). We conclude the development of SPM and SHM leads to a poor survival in patients with MM and is an important survivorship challenge. Given the median survival for MM continues to improve, continued vigilance is needed to assess the risks of SPM and SHM with maintenance therapy post–auto-HSCT.

Abstract Introduction: Plamotamab (XmAb13676) is a humanized bispecific antibody that binds both CD20 and CD3 to recruit cytotoxic T cells to kill CD20 expressing malignant cells. Interim results of an ongoing first-in-human (FIH), dose-escalation study (XmAb13676-01; NCT02924402) in subjects with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) are reported. Methods: The study is an FIH, multi-center, open-label, phase 1, dose-escalation study in subjects with R/R NHL with a standard 3 + 3 design. The primary objectives are to determine safety, tolerability, and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended dose of plamotamab. Secondary objectives include preliminary anti-tumor activity and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of plamotamab. This study has 3 Parts: Part A, escalating dose cohorts that establish an initial priming dose as part of repeated weekly infusions at a fixed, weight-based dose in a 28-day cycle; Part B, with a dosing schedule consisting of a priming dose on Cycle 1 Day 1, established in Part A, followed by step-up dosing (SUD) on subsequent weeks; and Part C is an SUD regimen with flat and less frequent dosing. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) prophylaxis with dexamethasone, antihistamine, and acetaminophen was mandated prior to each administration of plamotamab. Treatment was continued for 2 cycles or longer if there was evidence of therapeutic benefit. Results: At data cut-off (01Jul2021), 80 subjects with NHL have been treated. Subjects had a median age of 62 years (range 32-89), a median of 4 prior therapies (range 1-10), and had been diagnosed a median of 28 months (range 6-353) prior to treatment in the study. The most common treatment-related adverse event was CRS. Overall, 50 subjects (62.5%) experienced CRS, with 4 (5.0%) experiencing Grade ≥ 3 CRS. No related neurotoxicity &gt;Grade 2 has been observed. Treatment responses for NHL were assessed by the Lugano criteria or International Working Group criteria for Waldenström Macroglobulinemia. There have been 23 objective responses (43.4% overall response rate [ORR]) and 13 (38.2%) at doses of ≥ 80 µg/kg or flat dosing in all evaluable subjects with NHL and diffuse large cell B-cell lymphoma, respectively. In the efficacy-evaluable, follicular lymphoma population, at doses of 80-360 µg/kg or flat dosing, objective responses were observed in 8/10 (80%) subjects. After implementation of flat dosing, as opposed to weight-based dosing, a 50% ORR (4/8 evaluable subjects) has been observed in NHL subjects in that cohort. An MTD has not been reached, and dose escalation is ongoing. Overall, 4 out of 16 (25%) evaluable subjects with prior CAR-T therapy responded to plamotamab. Conclusions: Plamotamab demonstrated evidence of clinical activity in heavily pretreated subjects with R/R NHL. CRS was generally manageable with premedication. The study is ongoing with further optimization of dose and schedule. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patel: Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy. Michot: GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Innate Pharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; H3 biomedecine: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gamamabs: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Exelixis: Research Funding; Eos: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Debiopharm: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo,: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Boeringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Blueprint: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Argen-x: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Aduro: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Ghesquieres: Janssen: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria. Byrd: Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cartron: Roche, Celgene-BMS: Consultancy; Danofi, Gilead, Novartis, Jansen, Roche, Celgene-BMS, Abbvie, Takeda: Honoraria. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; SeaGen: Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Solh: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wierda: Loxo Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; KITE Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Genzyme Corporation: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding. Johnson: Xencor: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Garcha: Xencor: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Promedim: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Ribrag: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Research Funding; MSD Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argen-X: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaMar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liebowitz: Xencor: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Phillips: Incyte: Consultancy, Other: received travel expenses from Incyte, Research Funding; ADCT, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, Incyte, Karyopharm, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

SummaryIn young and fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), intensive induction therapy followed by a consolidative autologous haematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT) is the standard of care in the front‐line setting. Recently, time‐to‐event analysis has emerged as an important risk assessment tool in lymphoma, though its impact in MCL is not well defined. We utilized the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database to evaluate the effect of post‐autoHCT time to relapse on overall survival (OS) over time in 461 patients who underwent autoHCT within 12 months of MCL diagnosis. On multivariate analysis, the impact of relapse on OS was greatest at the six‐month [hazard ratio (HR) = 7·68], 12‐month (HR = 6·68), and 18‐month (HR = 5·81) landmark timepoints. Using a dynamic landmark model we demonstrate that adjusted OS at five years following each landmark timepoint improved with time for relapsing and non‐relapsing patients. Furthermore, early relapse (<18 months) following autoHCT defines a high‐risk group with inferior post‐relapse OS. This retrospective analysis highlights the impact of time to relapse on OS in MCL patients undergoing up‐front autoHCT and emphasizes the need to consider novel therapeutic approaches for patients suffering early relapse.

Abstract Little is known about whether risk classification at diagnosis predicts post-hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We evaluated 8709 patients with AML from the CIBMTR database, and after selection and manual curation of the cytogenetics data, 3779 patients in first complete remission were included in the final analysis: 2384 with intermediate-risk, 969 with adverse-risk, and 426 with KMT2A-rearranged disease. An adjusted multivariable analysis detected an increased risk of relapse for patients with KMT2A-rearranged or adverse-risk AML as compared to those with intermediate-risk disease (hazards ratio [HR], 1.27; P = .01; HR, 1.71; P &lt; .001, respectively). Leukemia-free survival was similar for patients with KMT2A rearrangement or adverse risk (HR, 1.26; P = .002, and HR, 1.47; P &lt; .001), as was overall survival (HR, 1.32; P &lt; .001, and HR, 1.45; P &lt; .001). No differences in outcome were detected when patients were stratified by KMT2A fusion partner. This study is the largest conducted to date on post-HCT outcomes in AML, with manually curated cytogenetics used for risk stratification. Our work demonstrates that risk classification at diagnosis remains predictive of post-HCT outcomes in AML. It also highlights the critical need to develop novel treatment strategies for patients with KMT2A-rearranged and adverse-risk disease.