Citations

Background An increased risk of second cancers (SC), in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), has been suggested by a number of population-based and cancer registry studies (Blood 2011;118:6515). Such studies often included patients belonging to a broad category of MPN entities and did not always account for history of cancer prior to the diagnosis of MPN, associated comorbidities, mutations, or treatments received, in assessing risk association and prediction (Leukemia 2019;33:1996). The current study seeks to fill knowledge gaps, in this regard, in the context of a biologically more homogeneous MPN setting, vis-ẚ-vis polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET). Methods The present study was conducted under an institutional review board approved minimum risk protocol that allowed retrospective collection and analysis of data from Mayo Clinic patient records. Diagnostic criteria were according to the International Consensus Classification (Blood 2022; 140:1200). Documented primary cancers were annotated in 17 categories, not including pre-cancerous conditions or MPN progressions. SC was defined as any cancer that developed after 3 months from the initial diagnosis of MPN. Cox proportional hazard regression model was used for univariable and multivariable analysis. Kaplan-Meier plots were used for time-to-event assessment (considering the first in case of multiple events). Results The study population included 1,968 consecutive patients (median age 60 years; 56% females) with PV (N=1,001) or ET (N=967), seen at the Mayo Clinic between 1970 and 2024. Median follow-up was 8.6 years. The incidences of arterial/venous thrombosis were14%/12% at diagnosis and 12%/10% after diagnosis. Co-morbid conditions included diabetes (12%), hypertension (52%), tobacco use (16%), and history of autoimmune/inflammatory disease (AID; 6%); hyperlipidemia was annotated in PV cases only (51%). Non-driver mutation information was available in 620 patients: TET2 (13%), ASXL1 (7%), DNMT3A (5%), SRSF2 (3%), SF3B1 (3%) and TP53 (2%). A history of another cancer was documented in 598 (30%) patients and included cancers documented before/at (N=291; 15%) or after (N=404; 20%) the diagnosis of MPN, with only the latter being referred to as “SC”. Most frequent cancer type was non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), accounting for 28% of cancers diagnosed before/at MPN, and 47% of SC; other SC types included lymphoid neoplasms (10%), melanoma (10%), prostate cancer (9%), and trachea/lung/bronchial cancer (8%), as the most frequent. On multivariable analysis, cancer history, before/at or after MPN diagnosis, clustered with age >60 years (OR 2.7), male sex (OR 1.5), and history of AID (OR 1.7). History of cancer prior to MPN diagnosis, NMSC or otherwise, was associated with inferior overall survival (p<0.01); by contrast, neither myelofibrosis-free (p=0.5) nor leukemia-free (p=0.8) survival was affected. Median time from MPN diagnosis to SC was 5.7 years. In multivariable analysis including all cancers, SC-free survival was adversely affected by age>60 years (HR 2.5; p<0.01), male sex (HR 1.7; p<0.01), history of previous cancer (HR 2.5, p<0.01), and AID history (HR 1.6; p<0.01); all these 4 risk factors remained significant after excluding NMSC. Interestingly, among informative cases, SRSF2 mutation also predicted SC (HR 2.6; p=0.02), even after NMSC cases were excluded (HR 3.4; p=0.02). Pre-MPN history of cancer did not affect either arterial (p=0.9) or venous thrombosis-free survival (p=0.7), in age- and sex-adjusted analysis. Conversely, after excluding post-SC thrombotic events, venous (p=0.02) but not arterial (p=0.1) events, occurring after MPN diagnosis, were predictive of SC. This association remained significant in multivariable analysis that included age, sex, and venous thrombosis history (p=0.03). Additional observations from this study, include an independent association between SC and hyperlipidemia in PV (p<0.01) and ruxolitinib monotherapy with NMSC (HR 9; p<0.01). Conclusions The risk of SC in patients with MPN is significantly higher in older patients, men, and in the presence of pre-MPN cancer history and AID. Incidental venous, but not arterial, thrombosis was associated with subsequent SC, not NMSC. The observed association of SC with SRSF2 mutations and hyperlipidemia is noted but requires further validation.

Introduction Malignant histiocytoses (MH), encompassing histiocytic sarcoma (HS), interdigitating dendritic cell sarcoma (IDCS), and Langerhans cell sarcoma (LCS), are a group of rare, hematologic neoplasms with diverse clinical presentations and poor outcomes. There are no established or effective treatments for patients with MH. The discovery of MAPK/ERK pathway mutations in non-malignant histiocytoses have revolutionized the treatment paradigm, but it is unknown whether novel treatments are efficacious for MH. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of targeted agents (TA) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in MH. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of MH patients seen at our two institutions. Only patients treated with TA and/or ICI were included. We captured the mutational status by next generation sequencing and PD-L1 expression level by immunohistochemistry, where available. We also conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed to identify additional cases of MH patients treated with TA and/or ICI. Responses were reported as complete (CR), partial (PR), or none (NR) using previously published criteria for histiocytic disorders. Results From our institutions, we identified 12 MH patients (7 HS; 4 LCS; 1 IDCS) who received 14 instances of these treatments including TA (n=9) and/or ICI (n=5). The median age at diagnosis was 55 years (range, 33-70) and 50% were males. TAs included BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib [1]), MEK inhibitors (binimetinib [1], cobimetinib [2], trametinib [2]) and others (dasatinib [1], pazopanib [1], pexidartinib [1]), while ICIs were exclusively pembrolizumab (5). The median number of prior treatments for those who received TAs and ICIs were 4 and 2, respectively. Responses were observed in 44.4% (1 CR, 3 PRs, 5 NR) and 40% (2 CRs, 3 NRs) of patients who received TA and ICI, respectively. Only 1 patient (20%) treated with MEK inhibitor responded [DOCK8-BRAF; PR 5+ mos]. Other responders received dasatinib [PDFGRA-V608I; PR 2 mos], pexidartinib [PTPN11-A72T; PR 5 mos], and vemurafenib [BRAF-V600E; CR 10+ mos]. Two patients (40%) who received pembrolizumab responded (both CRs 12+ [10% PD-L1] and 44+ mos [40% PD-L1]). We identified 29 MH patients in the literature (27 HS; 2 LCS) treated with TAs (22) and/or ICIs (10). TAs included BRAF inhibitor only (vemurafenib [3], dabrafenib [3]), MEK inhibitor only (trametinib [5]), BRAF + MEK inhibitors (2), and others (apatinib, anlotimib, bevacizumab, daratumumab, dasatinib, imatinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, or combinations [9]), while ICIs included pembrolizumab (4), nivolumab (4), tislelizumab (1), and sintilimab (1). Responses were observed in 77% (7 CRs, 10 PRs, 5 NRs) and 100% (2 CRs, 8 PRs) of patients who received targeted agents and ICI, respectively. Most patients carrying BRAF (7/8; V600E, G596R, D594G, TRIM::BRAF) or MAP2K1 (3/3; C121S, F53I) mutations responded to treatments, irrespective of the number of mutations present. The median durations of response for ICI and targeted agents were 10.5 months (range: 1-36+) and 12+ months (range: 3-44+), respectively. After combining the datasets from our institutions and literature review, we analyzed the association between the extent of PD-L1 expression and response to ICI. Those who responded to ICI had higher PDL-1 expression (median 75% [range, 10-75] vs 25% [range, 1-30]; P=0.0097). Conclusion TAs and ICIs can be considered in the management of MH. The responses to ICI therapy may be associated with the degree of PDL1 expression

Introduction: Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has emerged as the new standard of care for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis following reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT). The BMT CTN 1703 phase III trial demonstrated superior GVHD/relapse or progression-free survival (GRFS) in patients receiving PTCy, without affecting relapse risk. The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of relapse in high-risk myeloid neoplasms post RIC/Nonmyeloablative (NMA) transplant using PTCy vs Tacrolimus/Methotrexate (TAC/MTX) as GVHD prophylaxis (PPX). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with high-risk myeloid neoplasms following RIC/NMA alloSCT who received PTCy or TAC/MTX for GVHD PPX between Jan 2018 and June 2023. Criteria for high-risk myeloid neoplasms included acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with ≥1 of the following (complex or monosomal karyotype, TP53, WT1, FLT3 ITD+/NPM1-, active disease, MRD+, secondary AML), Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with ≥1 of the following (complex karyotype, monosomal karyotype, TP53, RAS pathway mutation, marrow blast of 10% or more) or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse incidence (RI) were calculated using competing risk analysis. Factors with P<0.10 in univariate analysis were included in multivariate analysis Results: Out of 552 alloSCTs, 108 (19.5%) patients met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-two (66.6%) received TAC/MTX, and 36 (33.3%) received PTCy. The median follow-up time was 26 months (range 3-68). The median age at transplant was 65 years (range 62-69) with age comparable between the two groups (p=0.6). Haploidentical transplant accounted for 33.3% of PTCy, while the remainder had matched related or matched unrelated transplant (MRD/MUD). Compared to TAC/MTX group, the PTCy group had more frequent NRAS mutation (19.4% vs 8.3%, p=0.094), but fewer patients with hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) ≥ 3(41.7% vs 61.1%, p=0.056). AML MRD+ was more prevalent in the PTCy group (22.2% vs 8.3%, p=0.098). The two groups were otherwise well-balanced in terms of disease distribution, disease risk index, TP53 mutation, and complex monosomal karyotype (CK and MK). The 1-yr OS, DFS, and GRFS for PTCy vs TAC/MTX were 78.7% vs 72.8% (p=0.9), 53.6% vs 67.9% (p=0.2), 38% vs 40%, (p=0.4), respectively. The 1-yr cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was higher in PTCy compared to TAC/MTX (37.6% vs 11.1%, p=0.01). Both haploidentical and MRD/MUD in the PTCy group had similar 1-yr RI (34.7 vs 38.3% p=0.7). Limiting the analysis to MRD/MUD, the PTCy group had a higher risk of relapse compared to TAC/MTX (34.7% vs 10.2%, P=0.007). Sub-analysis showed a higher 1-yr-CIR in the PTCy cohort for secondary AML (40% vs 0.0%, p=0.01), TP53 mutation (44.4% vs 18.1%, p=0.02), CK/MK (71.4% vs 22.2%, P=0.008), and chromosome 17 abnormality (60% vs 10%, P=0.001), compared to TAC/MTX. Despite of the increased CIR in the PTCy group, only patients with chromosome 17 abnormality receiving PTCy had an inferior DFS compared to TAC/MTX (median 5 vs. 14 months, p=0.008). In multivariate analysis for 1-yr CIR that included TP53, chromatin modifiers mutations, complex karyotype, high/very high DRI, and PTCy, both PTCy (HR 4.56, 95% CI 1.1-18.07, p=0.031) and high/very high DRI (HR 12.745, 95% CI 1.5-103.4, p=0.017) were independently predictive of post-transplant relapse. However, these factors were not significantly associated with 1-year OS. Conclusion:In patients with high-risk MN following RIC/NMA alloSCT, those receiving PTCy as GVHD PPX had a higher risk of relapse compared to TAC/MTX, irrespective of the donor source. Notably, an inferior DFS was observed only in patients with chromosome 17 abnormality who received PTCy. Despite of the increased relapse risk in the PTCy group, OS, DFS, and GRFS were comparable to TAC/MTX, likely due to higher risk of GVHD and NRM in the latter group.

Introduction Age correlates with survival in patients (pts) with DLBCL, which has a median age at diagnosis of 67 y. Recent therapeutic advances, including bispecifics and cell therapy, have promising efficacy, but safety and accessibility continue to be limited for older pts. The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) with brentuximab vedotin (BV) + lenalidomide (Len) + rituximab (R; BV+Len+R) vs placebo+Len+R in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Here, we present safety and efficacy in pts aged ≥65 y. Methods In ECHELON-3, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with R (375 mg/m2) q3w and Len (20 mg) once daily. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was required in all cycles. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. Other secondary endpoints included detailed safety and tolerability. This subgroup analysis comprises pts aged ≥65 y. P values are descriptive. Results A total of 155 pts aged ≥65 y were enrolled from April 2021 to November 2023 and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=79) or placebo+Len+R (n=76). The median age was 75 y (range, 65-89 y); 54% of pts were male, 59% were White, and 19% were Asian. Twenty-three percent and 54% had Ann Arbor stage III and IV disease, respectively, and 64% had high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index scores (3-5) at enrollment. The most common DLBCL subtype was DLBCL not otherwise specified (58%). Twenty-nine percent of pts had transformed DLBCL. Approximately half (49%) of pts had primary refractory disease, and 81% had disease refractory to their most recent prior line of therapy. Seventy percent of pts had <1% CD30 expression via IHC; 48% of cases had germinal center B-cell origin. Prior CAR-T was reported in 21.9% of pts. At a median follow-up of 16.8 mo (95% CI, 14.3-19.5 mo), median OS was 15.9 mo (95% CI, 11.7 mo-not estimable [NE]) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 mo (95% CI, 5.5-11.5 mo) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.540; 95% CI, 0.351-0.830; P=.0043). Median PFS was 5.7 mo (95% CI, 4.1-12.7 mo) with BV+Len+R vs 2.8 mo (95% CI, 1.9-4.1 mo) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.478; 95% CI, 0.318-0.718; P=.0003). ORR was 70.9% (95% CI, 59.6%-80.6%) with BV+Len+R vs 46.1% (95% CI, 34.5%-57.9%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0020); complete response (CR) rate was 45.6% vs 19.7%, respectively. Median time to CR was 1.61 mo with both BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R (range, 1.2-7.3 vs 0.7-4.6 mo, respectively). Median duration of CR was 18.9 mo (95% CI, 12.4 mo-NE) with BV+Len+R vs 5.4 mo (95% CI, 2.8 mo-NE) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.416; 95% CI, 0.139-1.250). In total, 154 pts were evaluable for safety analysis (75 pts in placebo+Len+R group). The median number of cycles was 5 (range, 1-34) vs 3 (range, 1-31) in the BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R groups, respectively. The percentage of pts with any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar between groups (97% with BV+Len+R and 99% with placebo+Len+R); grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 89% of pts in the BV+Len+R group and 76% in the placebo+Len+R group. Serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to death were reported more frequently in the BV+Len+R group (62% and 13%, respectively) than the placebo+Len+R group (47% and 8%, respectively). More pts discontinued study treatment due to TEAEs in the BV+Len+R group than the placebo+Len+R group (20% vs 8%). In total, 39% of pts on BV+Len+R had a peripheral neuropathy event vs 27% of pts on placebo+Len+R; however, the majority of cases were grade 1 (22% and 17%, respectively). Additional information on older pts will be presented. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes in pts aged ≥65 y, which is consistent with the overall ECHELON-3 population (median age 74 y; 70.5% of pts aged ≥65 y in BV+Len+R group). Differences in some safety endpoints are likely attributable to longer duration of treatment in the BV+Len+R group. No clinically meaningful safety trends in pts aged ≥65 y were identified. These results suggest that BV+Len+R may be an effective treatment option in older pts with R/R DLBCL.

Introduction Patients (pts) with progressive disease after ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy are unlikely to derive additional benefit from current salvage immunochemotherapies, and survival declines significantly with each subsequent treatment. Pts with refractory disease following second-line therapy have worse outcomes, with reported overall response rates (ORRs) of 1% to 14% and overall survival (OS) of 5 months (Blood. 2017;130[16]:1800-1808). While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has become a preferred strategy in the second- and third-line settings, pts with R/R disease following CAR-T experience dismal survival, with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS as low as 3 and 5 months, respectively, and no agreed standard of care post CAR-T (Blood. 2022;140[24]:2527-2529). The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) was conducted in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or CAR-T. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, refractory disease, or prior CAR-T. Methods In these subgroup analyses of ECHELON-3, eligible pts had 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, disease refractory to the last prior therapy, or prior exposure to CAR-T. Pts could qualify for ≥1 subgroup and were analyzed separately. Refractory disease was defined as stable or progressive disease as best overall response to last line of treatment or relapse ≤6 months from the end of treatment. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with rituximab (R; 375 mg/m2) q3w and lenalidomide (Len; 20 mg) once daily. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. P values are descriptive. Results In total, 230 pts were enrolled in ECHELON-3 from April 2021 to November 2023, with a median follow-up of 16.4 months (range, 0.1-31.5 months). Overall, 94 pts with 2 prior lines of systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=48) or placebo+Len+R (n=46). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-not estimable) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.8 months) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.557; 95% CI, 0.317-0.977; P=.0388). Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-12.6 months) with BV+Len+R vs 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.0 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.462; 95% CI, 0.279-0.764; P=.0020). ORR was 68.8% (95% CI, 53.7%-81.3%) with BV+Len+R vs 43.5% with placebo+Len+R (95% CI, 28.9%-58.9%; P=.0216); complete response (CR) rate was 52.1% vs 13.0%, respectively. Additional data for pts by lines of therapy received will be presented. In total, 194 pts with disease refractory to the most recent systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=98) and placebo+Len+R (n=96). Median OS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.8-16.3 months) with BV+Len+R vs 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.5 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.566; 95% CI, 0.396-0.808; P=.0015). Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.4 months) with BV+Len+R vs 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.6 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.363-0.712; P<.0001). ORR was 59.2% (95% CI, 48.8%-69.0%) with BV+Len+R vs 29.2% (95% CI, 20.3%-39.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P<.0001); CR rate was 34.7% vs 11.5%, respectively. Overall, 67 pts who received prior CAR-T were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=32) and placebo+Len+R (n=35). Median OS was 15.6 months with BV+Len+R vs 4.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.2-0.75). Median PFS was 3.0 months with BV+Len+R vs 1.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76). ORR was 65.6% (95% CI, 46.8%-81.4%) with BV+Len+R vs 25.7% (95% CI, 12.5%-43.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0014); CR rate was 37.5% vs 11.4%, respectively. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes, including CR and OS, in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, disease refractory to prior treatment, or prior CAR-T. This treatment benefit was generally consistent with that observed in the overall ECHELON-3 study population. Therefore, BV+Len+R has the potential to address an unmet need for effective and tolerable therapy in heavily pretreated pts, as described above.

Introduction: Myeloma response to treatment can be biochemical, pathological, or radiological, with pathological assessments being invasive. Next-generation blood flow (PBF) for assessment of circulating tumor plasma cells (CTCs) has shown promising results as a prognostic in Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients. CTC detection via PBF has a potential to serve as non-invasive method for assessing pathological burden of disease and response to treatment. Comparing CTC responses to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria will further help to understand PBF's utility in predicting response to therapy. Patients and Methods: The study conducted is a retrospective observational study. We included patients with MM treated at Mayo Clinic from 01/01/2011 to 12/31/2019 with CTC records available at the time of best response (BR) to frontline therapy. The CTC values were expressed as the number of plasma cell events per 150,000 Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells (CD38, CD138, CD19, CD45, Kappa, Lambda). The CTC levels were compared across all response(IMWG Criteria) groups at BR, and at baseline. The CTC response was expressed as % CTC decrease at BR from baseline. Time-to-event analyses utilized the Kaplan Meier method and Cox-proportional hazards models, with comparisons made using the log-rank test. Results: We identified 621 patients with CTC data at the time of BR to frontline therapy. Of these, 148 (24%) had baseline CTC data from diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 62.3 (27.2-83.7). The median follow-up was 66.15 months; the distribution of patients by treatment class is as follows- Alkylator: 0.8%, PI(Proteasome Inhibitor)+Cyclophosphamide: 27.4%, IMid: 12.7%, PI+IMid(Immunomodulator): 55.9%, PI+IMid+antiCD38: 3.2%; 378 patients (78.8%) underwent an autologous transplant. BR to initial therapy was sCR/stringent Complete Response (10, 1.6%), CR (230, 36.9%), VGPR/Very Good Partial Response (224, 36.1%), PR (123, 19.8%), MR/Minimal Response (12, 1.9%), SD/Stable Disease (14, 2.3%), PD/Progressive Disease (8, 1.3%). In the study, 64 patients (10.31%) had detectable CTCs at their BR. The distribution of CTCs across the different response categories was as follows: none (0%) in sCR, 3 patients (1.3%) in CR, 18 patients (8%) in VGPR, 24 patients (19.5%) in PR, 8 patients (66.7%) in MR, 6 patients (42.9%) in SD, and 5 patients (62.5%) in PD. The median CTC counts and their interquartile ranges for these categories showed significant variability: CR had a median of 46 (IQR: 28.5, 923), VGPR had 39.5 (IQR: 15.5, 111.25), PR had 47 (IQR: 22.75, 82.5), MR had 55 (IQR: 28.5, 85), SD had 96.5 (IQR: 22.25, 218.75), and PD had 317 (IQR: 57, 415). This Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for response-wise distribution of CTC was <0.01. Response was dichotomized as PR and above for sCR, CR, VGPR, PR and less than PR for MR, SD and PD. Median Overall Survival(OS) for PR and above was 127.8 months (vs less than PR 56.7 months, p=0.01). Median OS for CTC+ at BR was 56.7 months (vs 134.8 for CTC negative, p=0.01). On multivariate analysis, presence of CTC at best response (Hazards Ratio = 2.9, n=1.1-2.9), RISS staging at diagnosis (Hazards Ratio = 2.35, n=1.5-3.05), less than PR (Hazards Ratio =1.8, 1.1-2.9) were independent predictors of inferior OS. In patients with data for CTC available at both baseline and at BR to frontline therapy (n=148), 110 had CTC detectable at diagnosis. Among patients in various response categories, a complete disappearance of CTCs was observed in sCR (n=3, 75.0%), CR (n=36, 69.2%), VGPR (n=38, 64.4%), and PR (n=14, 60.9%). CTC responses greater than 90% were noted in VGPR (n=3, 5.1%), PR (n=2, 8.7%), and SD (n=2, 40.0%). No CTC response was reported in sCR (1, 25.0%), CR (16, 30.8%), VGPR (2, 3.4% and 13, 22.0%), PR (3, 13.0% and both 2, 8.7%), SD (1, 20.0% and both 2, 40.0%), MR (1, 50.0%), and PD (1, 33.3% and 1, 50.0%, respectively). The median OS for those with a CTC response was 112.4 months vs 28.2 months for no response. (p=0.01). Conclusion: The presence of CTC at best response is an independent prognostic marker for inferior OS. Depth of response to frontline therapy correspond to a high rate of clearance of CTCs. Presence of CTC at best response provides independent prognostic value beyond the depth of response. A complete clearance of CTC at best response is associated with improved OS. CTC levels have not been corrected for WBC counts and may not be applicable in all settings.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec) received regulatory approval for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on the MajesTEC-1 study. The risk of CRS and ICANS with Tec is well established with a manufacturer's recommendation of inpatient observation for 48-hours for CRS/ICANS monitoring after the initial 3 step up doses. There are limited real-world data on the characteristics of and risk factors for CRS and ICANS with Tec. Such data could inform management of Tec patients (pts), including patient selection for inpatient or outpatient step-up dosing. Methods: RRMM pts treated with standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in this analysis. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. CRS and ICANS classification was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the effects of covariates on CRS and ICANS events, with a particular focus on grade ≥2 CRS, any-grade ICANS, and the combination of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS. Results: 385 pts were included in the analysis, with a median of 6 lines of prior therapy. Median age was 68 years (range 31-92), 88 patients (25% of pts with available data) had ECOG ≥2, and 301 pts (78%) would have been ineligible for MajesTEC-1. 48 (33%) of 145 evaluable pts with a baseline bone marrow (BM) prior to Tec had >50% BM plasma cells, 139 pts (36%) had extramedullary disease (EMD) (either paraskeletal or true-EMD) and 5 pts (1%) had plasma cell leukemia prior to start of Tec. 224 pts (59%) received Tec with an accelerated step-up dosing regimen, defined as having at least one step-up dose interval of ≥ 2 days. 220 pts (57%) developed any-grade CRS [Grade 1: 46% (N=179), grade 2: 10% (N=37), grade 3: 0.8% (N=3), grade 4: 0.3% (N=1)]. Median time to CRS from start of Tec was 3 days (range, 0-15). Fifty-four pts (14%) developed any-grade ICANS [Grade 1: 7% (N=26), Grade 2: 5% (N=18), grade 3: 3% (N=10), grade 4: none]. There were no grade 5 CRS or ICANS events. Median time to onset of ICANS from start of Tec was 4 days (range, 0-25). There was one case of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the entire cohort. 38% of pts received tocilizumab and 17% of pts received corticosteroids. In univariate analysis (UVA), baseline platelet <50, triple-class refractory, penta-refractory status, and EMD prior to start of Tec were associated with increased risk for CRS grade ≥2 (p-values <0.1) and incorporated in MVA. Baseline platelet <50, age >60, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, and ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile were associated with increased risk for any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Baseline platelet <50, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile, and prior BCMA exposure were associated with increased risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Accelerated step-up dosing, renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min) and baseline LDH in the upper quartile were not associated with an increased risk of either CRS or ICANS in UVA. Baseline BM plasma cells >50% was excluded from multivariable analysis (MVA) due to high number of missing data, since most pts (62%) did not undergo BM biopsy prior to start of Tec. In MVA, risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 included baseline platelet <50 at the start of Tec treatment (OR: 2.35, 95% CI 1.08-5.08; p=0.03) and penta-refractory disease (OR: 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.45; p=0.02). Risk factors for any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 4.18, 95% CI 1.88-9.28; p=0.0004), age >60 (OR: 7.54, 95% CI 1.63-34.89; p=0.01) and CRP in the upper quartile (OR: 2.51, 95% CI 1.16-5.43; p=0.02). Risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 2.65, 95% CI 1.42-4.94; p=0.002) and ECOG ≥2 (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.19-3.61; p=0.01). Conclusions: This real-world analysis of RRMM pts treated with Tec revealed comparable rates CRS and ICANS relative to the MajesTEC-1 study, and these were mostly limited to grade 1/2. MVA demonstrated a significantly higher risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in pts with baseline platelet <50 and/or ECOG ≥2, the former may reflect BM disease burden. These results may help identify pts who are at higher risk for IEC related toxicities with Tec that would warrant inpatient monitoring during initial step-up dosing. OP, AA, & LF: co-first authors. AG, HCL & JK: co-senior authors

Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN) have shown encouraging clinical efficacy in single arm clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (Garcia JS et al. ASH 2023, Zeidan AM et al. Am J Hematol. 2023). Many centers have started utilizing HMA-VEN in the clinical management of MDS due to unmet need, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial (VERONA) using this combination. However, real world studies with large sample size investigating the use of these agents in MDS, practice patterns and clinical outcomes are lacking. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of 13 US academic medical centers. We included contemporary cohorts of adults (age≥18 years) with MDS who were treated with upfront combination of HMA-VEN, upfront HMA monotherapy, or VEN added after inadequate response or progression on HMA (post-HMA failure VEN). Outcomes analyzed includes clinical response, adverse events (AE) of interest, dose administration and survival. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Overall survival and event free survival (EFS: progression, leukemic transformation, death as events) analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier method. Determinants of outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression models. All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: Among 454 patients included, 258 patients received VEN in combination with HMA [upfront HMA-VEN (n=175), post-HMA failure VEN (n=83)] and 196 patients received HMA monotherapy. Median age was 69 (59-77) years and majority of patients had MDS with excess blasts (75%), high risk (31.9%) or very-high (41.8%) risk disease by IPSS-R, 23.7% had therapy related disease, 33% had deletion17p or TP53 mutation and 40.9% underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation. VEN was predominantly started in outpatient setting (78.6%) with tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis and VEN doses ranged from 70-400mg, adjusted for concomitant antifungal drugs. Incidence of TLS was minimal (No TLS- 92.9%, lab-only TLS 6.2%, 1 pt with clinical TLS). Neutropenic fever was the main AE noted [upfront VEN-HMA (34.2%), HMA monotherapy (22.5%), post-HMA VEN (44.5%)]. In the upfront setting, response rate was significantly higher with HMA-VEN than HMA monotherapy (CR: 33% vs 12%; marrow CR: 40% vs 27%, p<.001). VEN given in the post HMA failure setting also resulted in encouraging response rates (CR 10%, marrow CR 32%). After adjusting for covariates in multivariable analysis, patients treated with HMA-VEN in the upfront setting had significantly improved event free survival as compared to HMA monotherapy (HR 0.59, HR 0.44-0.78, p<0.01), but overall survival did not reach statistical significance (overall survival HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.57-1.04, p=0.08). Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective analysis from US academic medical centers, we found that VEN in combination with HMA resulted in encouraging clinical outcomes and was effectively administered in the outpatient setting with minimal TLS. Infection risk management and supportive measures would be important to improve the ability to use this treatment widely, pending results of the ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial. Updated results with additional variables will be available at the main meeting.

Background: Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a rare disease characterized by neoplastic mast cell (MC) infiltration of extracutaneous tissues. Nonadvanced SM (NonAdvSM) is associated with debilitating symptoms which may significantly reduce health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In up to 95% of patients (pts), SM is driven by the somatic KIT c.2447 A>T (p.D816V) missense mutation. Bezuclastinib (bezu; CGT9486) is an oral, potent, small molecule, selective type 1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with activity against KIT D816V. Results from Part 1 of the 3-part Summit trial demonstrated that bezu is well-tolerated and is associated with encouraging clinical activity, including both reduced MC burden and improvement in symptoms over a 12-week (wk) period vs placebo (PBO). Based on safety, PK, biomarker, and efficacy results, a dose of 100mg QD bezu (optimized formulation) was selected for Summit Part 2. Trial Design and Methods: Summit (NCT05186753) is a multi-center, Phase 2, double-blind, PBO-controlled RCT of bezu in pts with NonAdvSM who have inadequate control of symptoms despite treatment with best supportive care (BSC). A novel pt-reported outcome measure, the Mastocytosis Symptom Severity Daily Diary (MS2D2), was designed to assess disease-specific symptom severity in NonAdvSM pts. Eleven symptoms are included in the MS2D2 Total Symptom Score (TSS). Summit Part 1a randomized pts 1:1:1 to PBO, 100mg, or 200mg, original formulation while Part 1b randomized 1:1:1 to PBO, 100mg, or 150mg, optimized formulation. Pts completing Part 1 of the Summit trial were allowed to receive bezu in the open-label extension (OLE) Part 3 of the trial. Results: As Part 2 will evaluate safety and efficacy of 100 mg bezu at 24 wks, this abstract reports on pts treated with both bezu formulations at 100mg in Parts 1a or 1b, which had similar PK exposures. The presentation will focus on 24-wk outcomes in pts receiving the selected 100 mg bezu dose and participating in the OLE. In Summit Part 1, 19 pts received PBO and 18 received 100 mg bezu for 12 wks. At baseline (BL), the symptoms identified as most severe were within the skin and fatigue domains. At BL, pts were managing their symptoms of NonAdvSM with 2 (43%), 3 (24%), or ≥4 (32%) BSC medications. At the 12-wk assessment in Part 1 (datacut 18Dec2023), the safety and tolerability profile was encouraging, with the majority of TEAEs low grade and reversible without dose modification. The most common TEAEs (>10% in 100 mg bezu) included hair color changes, nausea, diarrhea, peripheral edema, GERD, taste disorder, and neutropenia. There were no reported bleeding or cognitive impairment events. Of 37 pts randomized to PBO or 100 mg QD bezu, 36 (97%) received bezu in the OLE; one pt randomized to the 100 mg original formulation dose reduced and subsequently discontinued due to TEAE of ALT increase. All 19 PBO pts (100%) crossed over to receive bezu in the OLE; of these, 9 were randomized to the 100mg QD bezu dose. Reduction in MC burden was robust among those treated with 100mg bezu - 94.4%, 100%, and 92.3% of pts had at least a 50% reduction in basal serum tryptase, KIT p.D816V variant allele frequency, and bone marrow MCs, respectively. Pts treated with 100 mg bezu had reduction in MS2D2 TSS by 49.1% vs 21.1% with PBO. On a 0-10 scale, the most severe MS2D2 symptom mean change from BL was -3.03 from a BL mean of 7.6 with bezu vs -1.04 from a BL mean of 7.7 with PBO. Individual symptoms of the MS2D2 TSS, as well as others not in the TSS including diarrhea and brain fog, improved more with bezu than with PBO; mean change from BL ranged from -1.66 to -2.69 with bezu vs. a range of -0.52 to -1.58 with PBO. LS mean change from BL in quality of life (Mastocytosis (MC)-QoL, a disease-specific measure) was -22.05 in pts treated with 100mg bezu versus -10.71 in pts treated with PBO. Objective measurements of skin lesions, including centrally adjudicated longitudinal assessments of skin photography, also significantly reduced on bezu. Conclusions: In Part 1 (12 wk assessment), treatment with 100mg bezu resulted in favorable safety and tolerability, significant and deep reductions across all markers of MC burden, and clinically meaningful reduction in all individual MS2D2 TSS symptoms and across domains. The presentation will report on durability and safety/tolerability data beyond 12 wks for those pts randomized to 100 mg in Part 1 and pts who crossed over from PBO in Part 1 to 100mg in Part 3. Summit Part 2 is actively enrolling.

Background: PV is a myeloproliferative neoplasm that leads to excessive production of erythrocytes and increased platelet and leukocyte counts. The current standard of care is to use therapeutic phlebotomy (TP) with or without cytoreductive therapy (CRT) to treat PV. Over time, the CRT dose often needs to be increased to treat PV progression. Preliminary results from the phase 2 REVIVE study (NCT04057040) demonstrated that rusfertide was superior to placebo in achieving hematocrit (Hct) levels <45% and reducing or eliminating the need for TP in patients who were phlebotomy-dependent prior to study entry (Kremyanskaya et al. EHA2023. [Abstract LB2710]; Kremyanskaya et al. New Engl J Med 2024;390:723-35).Final data from REVIVE will be presented. Methods: In Part 1 (Weeks 1-29), subcutaneous rusfertide (starting dose: 20 mg q1w) was initiated and titrated to control Hct to <45%. In Part 2 (Weeks 29-41; blinded randomized withdrawal phase), patients were randomized to receive rusfertide or placebo. Randomized patients were eligible to participate in the open-label extension (OLE) portion of the study (Part 3), in which all patients could receive rusfertide and investigators could make CRT dose adjustments. Results: In Part 1, 70 patients were enrolled; 59 were randomized in Part 2. Fifty-eight patients continued to Part 3. As of 9 July 2024, 50 (71.4%), 37 (52.9%), and 17 (24.3%) patients received rusfertide for ≥2, ≥2.5, or ≥3 years, respectively.Overall, median (range) patient age was 57.5 years (27-77); the majority were male (70%) and had high-risk disease (55.7%). Overall, 52.9% and 47.1% of patients were treated with TP alone or TP plus CRT, respectively. Prior to enrollment, the estimated average (mean) phlebotomy rate (EAPR) in patients who enrolled on study was 8.5/year, which was reduced to <1.0/year in Part 1. In Part 2, the EAPR was <1.0/year and 6.6/year in the rusfertide and placebo groups, respectively. For patients who continued onto Part 3 and received rusfertide, the EAPR remained at <1.0/year. In Parts 1, 2, and 3, the mean (SD) weekly average rusfertide dose was 30.7 mg (12.2), 38.5 mg (21.3), and 44.9 mg (20.3), respectively. Rusfertide consistently maintained Hct <45%, including in patients receiving therapy for ≥3 years. Platelets increased following initiation of rusfertide therapy and stabilized over time; mean leukocyte counts remained stable. Prior to enrollment, iron-related parameters were consistent with systemic iron deficiency. Throughout the study, rusfertide resulted in the normalization of mean serum ferritin levels, increased mean transferrin saturation, and increased mean serum iron levels. Overall, mean corpuscular volume increased slightly over the duration of the study. Throughout the study, there was no evidence of increased markers of inflammation (eg, C-reactive protein or interleukin 6). The most common (≥20%) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were injection site reactions (85.7%), fatigue (38.6%), COVID-19 (32.9%), pruritus (34.3%), arthralgia (30.0%), dizziness (30.0%), nausea (24.3%), headache (24.3%), and anemia (21.4%). Grade 3 TEAEs occurred in 25.7% of patients.There were no Grade 4 or 5 TEAEs. One patient developed acute myeloid leukemia after treatment discontinuation. After more than 150 patient-years of rusfertide exposure, malignancies (most of which were skin cancers) were reported in 11 patients (all had risk factors that may have contributed to the development of these malignancies). There was no obvious correlation between increasing exposure to rusfertide and malignancies reported. Six thrombotic events (5 arterial and 1 venous) occurred in 5 patients with high-risk PV. Conclusions: In REVIVE, rusfertide added to TP with or without CRT provided long-term durable control of Hct and decreased the need for TP. Patients are eligible to roll over to the phase 2 THRIVE OLE study (NCT06033586), which will continue to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of rusfertide for a total period of up to 5.8 years. The randomized phase 3 VERIFY study (NCT05210790) is ongoing and will evaluate rusfertide vs placebo in PV patients.