Citations

Abstract The Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) Clinical Trials Network conducted a phase 3 randomized trial comparing gilteritinib with placebo after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for FLT3-ITD+ acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The primary analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS); however, patients with FLT3-ITD measurable residual disease (MRD) peri-HCT had significantly longer RFS with gilteritinib. This analysis investigates the effect of post-HCT gilteritinib vs placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). HRQOL was measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), FACT-Leukemia (FACT-Leu), and EuroQOL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) at post-HCT randomization; day 29; months 3, 6, 12, 18, 24; and/or end of therapy. HRQOL and clinically meaningful differences were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using mixed model repeated measures to evaluate longitudinal change from baseline and stratified Cox model to evaluate time to improvement. HRQOL completion rate was acceptable (>70%) across all time points and measures. There were no differences in HRQOL scores at any time point between cohorts. Clinically meaningful and time to improvement in HRQOL were similar in both arms. Despite higher treatment-emergent adverse effects with gilteritinib, response to the question of being “bothered by side effects of treatment” did not differ between groups. Subgroup analysis of MRD-positive and negative patients demonstrated no differences in HRQOL between arms. For patients with FLT3-ITD+ AML undergoing HCT, gilteritinib maintenance was not associated with any difference in HRQOL or patient-reported impact of side effects. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02997202.

Abstract Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grading systems that use only clinical symptoms at treatment initiation such as the Minnesota risk identify standard and high-risk categories but lack a low-risk category suitable to minimize immunosuppressive strategies. We developed a new grading system that includes a low-risk stratum based on clinical symptoms alone and determined whether the incorporation of biomarkers would improve the model’s prognostic accuracy. We randomly divided 1863 patients in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) who were treated for GVHD into training and validation cohorts. Patients in the training cohort were divided into 14 groups based on similarity of clinical symptoms and similar nonrelapse mortality (NRM); we used a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm to create three Manhattan risk groups that produced a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 6-month NRM than the Minnesota risk classification (0.69 vs 0.64, P = .009) in the validation cohort. We integrated serum GVHD biomarker scores with Manhattan risk using patients with available serum samples and again used a CART algorithm to establish 3 MAGIC composite scores that significantly improved prediction of NRM compared to Manhattan risk (AUC, 0.76 vs 0.70, P = .010). Each increase in MAGIC composite score also corresponded to a significant decrease in day 28 treatment response (80% vs 63% vs 30%, P < .001). We conclude that the MAGIC composite score more accurately predicts response to therapy and long-term outcomes than systems based on clinical symptoms alone and may help guide clinical decisions and trial design.

Abstract The significance of biomarkers in second-line treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) has not been well characterized. We analyzed clinical data and serum samples at the initiation of second-line systemic treatment of acute GVHD from 167 patients from 17 centers of the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) between 2016 and 2021. Sixty-two patients received ruxolitinib-based therapy, whereas 102 received other systemic agents. In agreement with prospective trials, ruxolitinib resulted in a higher day 28 (D28) overall response Frate than nonruxolitinib therapies (55% vs 31%, P = .003) and patients who received ruxolitinib had significantly lower nonrelapse mortality (NRM) than those who received nonruxolitinib therapies (point estimates at 2-year: 35% vs 61%, P = .002). Biomarker analyses demonstrated that the benefit from ruxolitinib was observed only in patients with low MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs) at the start of second-line treatment. Among patients with a low MAP, those who received ruxolitinib experienced significantly lower NRM than those who received nonruxolitinib therapies (point estimates at 2-year: 12% vs 41%, P = .016). However, patients with high MAP experienced high NRM regardless of treatment with ruxolitinib or nonruxolitinib therapies (point estimates at 2-year: 67% vs 80%, P = .65). A landmark analysis demonstrated that the relationship between the D28 response and NRM largely depends on the MAP level at the initiation of second-line therapy. In conclusion, MAP measured at second-line systemic treatment for acute GVHD predicts treatment response and NRM. The outcomes of patients with high MAP are poor regardless of treatment choice, and ruxolitinib appears to primarily benefit patients with low MAP.

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a major cause of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Algorithms containing either the gastrointestinal (GI) GVHD biomarker amphiregulin (AREG) or a combination of 2 GI GVHD biomarkers (suppressor of tumorigenicity-2 [ST2] + regenerating family member 3 alpha [REG3α]) when measured at GVHD diagnosis are validated predictors of NRM risk but have never been assessed in the same patients using identical statistical methods. We measured the serum concentrations of ST2, REG3α, and AREG by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at the time of GVHD diagnosis in 715 patients divided by the date of transplantation into training (2004-2015) and validation (2015-2017) cohorts. The training cohort (n = 341) was used to develop algorithms for predicting the probability of 12-month NRM that contained all possible combinations of 1 to 3 biomarkers and a threshold corresponding to the concordance probability was used to stratify patients for the risk of NRM. Algorithms were compared with each other based on several metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, proportion of patients correctly classified, sensitivity, and specificity using only the validation cohort (n = 374). All algorithms were strong discriminators of 12-month NRM, whether or not patients were systemically treated (n = 321). An algorithm containing only ST2 + REG3α had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (0.757), correctly classified the most patients (75%), and more accurately risk-stratified those who developed Minnesota standard-risk GVHD and for patients who received posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based prophylaxis. An algorithm containing only AREG more accurately risk-stratified patients with Minnesota high-risk GVHD. Combining ST2, REG3α, and AREG into a single algorithm did not improve performance.

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with AML harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 ( FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202 ) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005]; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387]; P = .575). CONCLUSION Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.

Introduction: Risk stratification approaches using clinical criteria or biomarkers in acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) have traditionally been implemented at diagnosis or initiation systemic treatment with corticosteroids. For patients who require second-line treatment, the significance of biomarkers at salvage therapy and the relationship between biomarker risk and choice of therapy are unknown. Methods: We studied adult patients who received second-line treatment for acute GVHD between January 2016 and December 2021 in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD Consortium (MAGIC) database, which collects clinical data and longitudinal serum samples from allogeneic HCT recipients using a rigorous PRoBE study design. Exclusion criteria included relapse of underlying malignant disease prior to second-line therapy, missing response data, or missing serum sample. Serum samples collected from 7 days prior to 3 days after initiation of second-line therapy met criteria for biomarker analysis. The MAGIC algorithm probability (MAP) was calculated as a single value based on concentrations of ST2 and REG3α and was stratified at a threshold of 0.290 to define high MAP and low MAP groups. The primary objective evaluated the association between MAP and survival for patients receiving second-line therapy for acute GVHD. The key secondary objective was to investigate the MAP and choice of second-line systemic agent on Day 28 overall response rate (ORR) and survival. Results: In total, 316 adult patients received second-line treatment for acute GVHD; 149 patients (47%) were excluded for disease relapse (n=27), missing response data (n=48), or missing sample (n=74).Of the 167 evaluable patients, most had steroid-refractory acute GVHD (n=146, 87%), rather than steroid-dependent (n=8, 5%) or steroid-sensitive (n=14, 8%) disease. 62 patients received ruxolitinib while 102 received other systemic agents (best available therapy: BAT). Baseline clinical characteristics of the study population according to treatment choice were similar, except for donor type (Rux: MRD 15%, MUD 74%, haplo 11%; BAT: MRD 30%, MUD 67%, haplo 3%; P=0.014) and median days from corticosteroids to second-line treatment (Rux: 18, BAT: 12; P=0.02).In total, 81 patients had high MAPs and 86 patients had low MAPs, with similar distribution in each treatment cohort (P=0.53). For the entire cohort, the median follow-up for survivors was 22 months (range, 1.5-27).The MAP separated patients into 2 groups (high vs low) with significantly different mortality (NRM at 2 years, 76% vs 29%, P<.0001) and survival (OS at 2 years, 12% vs 63%, P<.0001). Patients who received ruxolitinib as second-line therapy had lower mortality (NRM at 2 years, 35% vs 60%, P<.002) and improved survival (OS at 2 years, 51% vs 32%, P<.008), compared to those who received other systemic agents. However, the outcomes of patients with high MAP were poor, regardless of second-line treatment choice ( Figure 1A). The MAP (low vs high), time from corticosteroids to second-line treatment (≥14 days vs < 14 days), GVHD grade at second-line (0-2 vs 3-4), and choice of second-line therapy (Rux vs BAT) were all significant (P<0.05) predictors of lower NRM and higher OS in multivariate analysis. The MAP also separated patients into 2 groups with significantly different D28 ORR (low: 49%, high: 30%, P<.0001). In agreement with prospective trials, ruxolitinib resulted in higher D28 response rates compared to other systemic therapies (ORR 54.9% vs 30.5%, P=0.005), which was observed in both low MAP (ORR, 64.5% vs 38.5%, P=0.017) and high MAP cohorts (ORR, 42.9% vs 22.6%, P=0.06) ( Figure 1B). The MAP (low vs high), GVHD grade at second line (0-2 vs 3-4), and choice of second-line therapy (Rux vs BAT) were significant predictors (P<0.05) of higher D28 ORR in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: The MAP measured at the initiation of second-line systemic treatment for acute GVHD predicts NRM and OS, as well as treatment response. The outcomes of patients with high MAP are poor, regardless of second-line treatment choice, and the higher CR rate in low MAP patients may drive higher survival rates. Incorporation of MAP into clinical trials in this setting warrants investigation. The results also support the current use of ruxolitinib as second-line treatment for acute GVHD, particularly in patients with low MAP.

Background: BMT CTN 1506/MORPHO was a randomized study of the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib versus placebo as post-transplant (HCT) maintenance therapy for patients (pts) with FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and then were randomized, in double-blind fashion, to either gilteritinib or placebo for 24 months. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS), and a pre-specified secondary endpoint was the effect of measurable residual disease (MRD) on survival as detected by a highly sensitive assay for FLT3-ITD mutations. In the primary analysis, while RFS was higher for pts randomized to gilteritinib, the difference did not reach the pre-determined threshold for significance (HR: 0.679; 95% CI: 0.459, 1.005; 2-sided p-value: 0.0518). However, in the secondary analysis, the 50.6% of pts who had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT had significantly higher RFS with gilteritinib (HR of relapse or death=0.515, 95% CI: 0.316, 0.838, p = 0.0065). In this post-hoc analysis, we examined 1) the impact on RFS of different levels of FLT3-ITD variant allele frequency (VAF) pre-randomization (immediately before or after HCT but prior to randomization to gilteritinib or placebo); 2) the impact of the presence of multiple mutations detected as MRD pre-HCT; and 3) the eradication of FLT3-ITD clones detected post-HCT during follow up on gilteritinib or placebo. Methods: First-pull marrow aspirates were collected from pts at two time points pre-randomization (pre-HCT and between 30-90 days post-HCT), as well as at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-randomization. For MRD detection (performed at Invivoscribe; San Diego, CA), 700 ng input DNA was amplified by polymerase chain-reaction (PCR) using 25 cycles and primers flanking exons 14 and 15 of FLT3, followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of the amplicons. Variant allele frequency (VAF) was calculated as FLT3 mutant reads/total FLT3 reads. For pts with multiple FLT3-ITD mutations, the VAF used in analysis was the sum of the VAFs for each FLT3-ITD variant. The lower limit of blank (LOB) of the assay is estimated to be 1 x 10 -6 VAF. For terminology, VAF > 1 x 10 -6 and < 1 x 10 -5 is referred to as MRD6, VAF > 1 x 10 -5 and < 1 x 10 -4 is MRD5, VAF > 1 x 10 -4 or greater is MRD4, and MRD0 equals no detectable MRD. Results: MRD was evaluated in 350/356 (98.3%) pts pre-HCT and 347/356 (97.5%) pts post-HCT. MRD was detected in 46% of pts pre-HCT and 19.9% prior to randomization, including 4.5% who did not have detectable MRD pre-HCT. The variant allele frequency (VAF) of detectable MRD ranged from a low of 1.09 x 10 -6 to a high of 3.0 x 10 -1. More than a single mutation was detected in 51 pts pre-HCT. Most of these 51 pts had 2 clones, but the total ranged from 2-9. The presence of more than one mutation detected as MRD immediately pre-HCT was associated with worse RFS compared with all other pts (MRD-positive with only one clone and MRD-negative), irrespective of treatment arm (Figure 1A; HR=2.428, 95% CI: 1.555, 3.792, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in age, mutation length, VAF, or karyotype between pts with more than one mutation and those with single mutations. However, if the VAFs of pts with multiple FLT3-ITD mutations were summed and treated as a single value, then the median VAF for pts with multiple mutations was higher than for those with single mutations (2.14 x 10 -4 vs. 3.12 x 10 -5). The VAF (including the summed VAFs of pts with multiple mutations) at multiple levels correlated very closely with RFS after HCT. To illustrate this quantitative effect of peri-HCT FLT3-ITD VAF on RFS, Kaplan-Meier analysis of pts on the placebo arm grouped by MRD level is displayed in Figure 1B. In the 71 pts with MRD detectable post-HCT, the MRD was eradicated in 69% of pts on gilteritinib versus 44% of pts on placebo. Conclusions Pts with multiple FLT3-ITD mutations have a worse prognosis, which may simply be a reflection of increased disease burden (VAF). The quantity of FLT3-ITD MRD appears to highly correlate with outcome. Gilteritinib appears to augment the effect of HCT, as evidenced by increased eradication of MRD post-HCT. These data illustrate the potential utility of the PCR-NGS FLT3-ITD MRD assay in the management of pts with FLT3-ITD AML.

Introduction Secondary central nervous system (CNS) involvement develops in 2-10% of large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) cases. Current treatment approaches for relapsed or refractory CNS disease generally do not provide durable responses. Limited data suggest efficacy and feasibility of CAR-T therapy in SCNSL. We report here the largest multicenter retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of CD19-directed CAR-T therapy in SCNSL patients. Methods This study included SCNSL patients who received commercial CD19-directed CAR-T therapy at 9 academic institutions in the United States between 2016 and 2022. SCNSL was defined as history of parenchymal and/or leptomeningeal/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) involvement by lymphoma at any time prior to receiving CAR-T therapy. Systemic response was assessed using the Lugano criteria while CNS response was assessed as per International PCNSL Collaborative Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for entire cohort, as well as subsets of patients with and without active CNS disease at the time of CAR-T infusion. Results Ninety patients were included in the analysis, with baseline characteristics shown in Table 1. CAR-T products utilized include axicabtagene ciloleucel (n= 38, 42%), tisagenlecleucel (n=37, 41%) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (n= 15, 14%). Fludarabine/cyclophosphamide was used as lymphodepletion in 84 patients (93%). 28 patients received CNS directed radiation therapy (RT) prior to CAR-T infusion (31%) within a median time of 28.5 days (range 5 - 906) from last day of RT. Amongst all patients at the time of CAR-T infusion 82 (91.1%) had active CNS and/or systemic involvement while 8 (8.9%) had no evidence of disease; 68 (75.5%) had active CNS involvement while 22 (24.5%) had a prior history of CNS involvement but no active at the time of CAR-T infusion. ( Table 1) Median follow up all patients was 0.5 year (range 0.01 - 4.7). 71 patients (79%) developed cytokine release syndrome (CRS; median time to onset 3 days) with 3.3% patients developing Grade 3-4. Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS; median time to onset 5 days) was reported in 55 patients (61%), with 28.8% developing Grade 3-4. No patients died due to CRS or ICANS. At 1-month post CAR-T, 80 patients were evaluable for CNS response and 71 patients in the entire cohort were evaluable for systemic response. Similarly, at 3-months these numbers were 66 and 60, respectively. Objective response rates (ORR) were 75% and 80% at 1-month for CNS and systemic disease respectively, while corresponding ORRs at 3-months were 68% and 76.7%. At 1- and 3-months timepoint 36 (45%) and 33 (50%) patients, respectively achieved CNS complete remission (CR), while 44 (62%) and 42 (70%) patients respectively achieved systemic CR. 1- and 2-year PFS for entire cohort were 25% (95%Cl 15% - 34%) and 16% (95%Cl 8.5% - 28%) respectively, while 1- and 2-year OS were 46% (95%Cl 36% - 59%) and 31% (95%Cl 22% - 46%). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) were 4.6% (95%CI, 1.8% -12%) and 7.2% (95%CI 2.9% - 18%) at 1- and 2-year. Cumulative incidence of relapse at 1- and 2-year were 73% (95%Cl 63% - 83%) and 77% (95%Cl 68% - 88%), respectively. ORRs for CNS response in patients with active CNS disease at 1-month and 3-month interval were 71% (n=45) and 60% (n=31). Similarly, ORR for systemic response with active CNS disease at 1-month and 3-month interval were 85% (n=43) and 74.3% (n=32).The 2-year PFS for patients with and without active CNS disease at CAR-T infusion were 12% (95%Cl 5.4% - 27%) and 28% (95%Cl 12% - 65%) respectively, with a corresponding OS of 25% (95%Cl 15% - 41%) and 58% (95%Cl 37% - 91%). ( Figure 1) The 2-year NRM rates for patients with and without active CNS disease at CAR-T infusion were 4.6% (95%Cl 1.5% - 14%) and 14% (95%Cl 3.6% - 53%) respectively, while the cumulative incidence of relapse in similar order were 83% (95%Cl 73% - 95%) and 58% (95%Cl 39% - 88%). Conclusion In this largest known case series to date, CAR-T therapy appeared safe and feasible in patients with SCNSL, but is associated with high rates of treatment failure, particularly in patients with active CNS disease at CAR-T infusion. This warrants further study of optimal CNS-directed treatment strategies prior to CAR-T, development of novel cellular therapy platforms or consideration of post CAR-T maintenance therapy in these high-risk patients.