Citations

Background: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is an established, prognostic indicator for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), including Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) ALL. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between MRD and long-term outcomes (event-free survival [EFS] and overall survival [OS]) in adult patients with Ph+ ALL receiving first-line therapy. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify eligible studies, including interventional and observational studies reporting survival outcomes by MRD status in adults ≥18 years of age with Ph+ ALL receiving first-line therapy. Key outcomes and data elements of interest were EFS, OS, and MRD or MRD-negative complete remission (CR) at end of induction (EOI). Aggregate study-level and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses were conducted. The IPD approach included a log-level MRD analysis to evaluate the concordance of deepening levels of molecular response with long-term EFS or OS in patients with CR and an analysis evaluating the utility of MRD-negative CR over CR alone. The analyses were conducted using frequentist and Bayesian approaches with fixed-effects and random-effects models. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests was used for survival analysis. Where applicable, Cox regression method with and without adjustment for prognostic factors were applied. Results: The SLR identified 19 publications (18 unique studies), 10 (9 unique studies) of which had sufficient MRD and EFS/OS data. Nine studies (n=704) were included in the aggregate study-level analysis; 3 of the 9 studies (Phase II AP24534-11-001 [Jabbour et al. 2015], Phase II GIMEMAINCB 84344-201 [Martinelli et al. 2017], and Phase III GRAAPH-2005 RCT [Chalandon et al. 2015]) had IPD available. MRD was assessed by polymerase chain reaction in all 9 studies. Findings from the aggregate study-level meta-analysis demonstrated a significant long-term survival benefit (EFS and OS) in favor of patients with MRD-negative CR. This significant benefit was generally consistent across analysis types (base-case or sensitivity analyses), analytic models (fixed- or random-effects), and approaches (frequentist or Bayesian). Evidence from the IPD analysis, based on patients with CR, was mostly consistent with the aggregate study-level meta-analysis, supporting MRD-negative CR at the EOI as being predictive of EFS or OS. Log-level MRD analysis showed that patients who are in CR with deeper molecular response ( BCR::ABL1/ABL1 ≤0.01%) at EOI have significantly better long-term EFS and OS compared with patients with other levels of MRD (ie, BCR::ABL1/ABL1 >0.01%). This significant long-term survival benefit was also demonstrated in patients with MRD-negative CR ( BCR::ABL1/ABL1 ≤0.01%) at EOI compared with patients who were MRD-positive ( BCR::ABL1/ABL1 >0.01%) ( Table 1) or based on achievement of CR alone (regardless of BCR::ABL1/ABL1 values). Results from the IPD analysis standardized for outcome definition, with and without adjustment for prognostic factors (age, gender, white blood cell count at baseline, and stem cell transplant), were consistent with the findings from the log-level MRD analysis. The analysis showed a significant association between MRD-negative/MRD-negative CR status (ie, BCR::ABL1/ABL1 ≤0.01% threshold) at EOI with improved long-term EFS and OS. The results were significant for EFS in both the adjusted and unadjusted models. The OS results were significant only in the unadjusted model. Conclusions: These analyses indicate that a deeper molecular response at EOI results in better long-term EFS and OS; MRD-negative CR has a greater prognostic value than CR and is strongly associated with long-term EFS and OS in patients with Ph+ ALL. Acknowledgement: The authors acknowledge APHP, who provided the individualized patients data for the GRAAPH study.

Background: Ph-like ALL is a high-risk subset of B-lineage ALL that responds poorly to standard chemotherapy regimens. While allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is routinely recommended for patients with Ph-like ALL, large multicenter data addressing its role is limited. Here, we conducted a multicenter study to evaluate the role of HCT in adolescent and young adult (AYA) and adult patients (pts) with Ph-like ALL and compare their outcomes to pts with Ph-pos and Ph-neg (non-Ph-like) ALL. Methods: The study included pts (age ≥18) with B-lineage ALL who received HCT in first complete remission (CR1) at 3 academic centers (MD Anderson Cancer Center, City of Hope and Mayo Clinic) between 2006 and 2021. Pts were divided into 3 main subgroups: Ph-like, Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL. Ph-like ALL cases were identified using cumulative data obtained by targeted RNA sequencing, conventional cytogenetics, FISH studies, whole genome chromosomal microarray and flow cytometry. Measurable residual disease (MRD) prior to HCT was measured using flow cytometry with a sensitivity of 0.01% for Ph-neg and Ph-like ALL, and with a PCR assay for BCR::ABL1 for Ph-pos ALL. MRD-negativity was defined as <0.01%. Predictors of relapse were evaluated in univariate and multivariate analysis using Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard models considering non-relapse mortality (NRM) as a competing risk. Results: 673 patients were identified, 83 (12.3%) had Ph-like ALL, of which 73% had CRLF2-alterations. The remaining patients were classified either as Ph-pos (N=271, 40.3%) or Ph-neg ALL (N=319, 47.4%). Patients with Ph-like ALL were younger (median age 40 years vs 48 and 46 years for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively, p=0.01), more likely to be of Hispanic ethnicity (69% vs 32% and 48% for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL respectively, p<0.001). Patients with Ph-like ALL were also more likely to have induction failure (24% vs 2% and 11% for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively, p=0.001). A summary of pts characteristics for each subgroup can be found in Table 1. The median follow-up was 30, 52 and 48 months for patients with Ph-like, Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively. In univariate analysis, 3-yr OS and PFS did not differ significantly (66% and 59% vs 59% and 54%, p=0.1) between patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL, respectively. Similarly, the cumulative incidence of relapse was comparable between patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL (22% vs 20%, respectively, p=0.7). In contrast, the 3-yr OS (75%, p<0.001) and PFS (70%, p=0.001) were significantly higher and relapse rate significantly lower (12%, p=0.003) in pts with Ph-pos ALL compared with Ph-like or Ph-neg ALL (Figure 1). The inferior survival in patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL was likely attributable to higher relapse rates (22% and 20% vs 12%, respectively, p=0.003) compared to Ph-pos ALL. Finally, the 3-yr NRM rate in patients with Ph-like ALL was comparable (20% vs 18% and 23%, respectively, p>0.1) to Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL. We confirmed that the relapse rate in patients with Ph-like ALL was comparable to the rate in pts with Ph-neg ALL (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.6-1.8, p=0.9) on multivariate analysis (MVA). Ph-pos ALL was associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with Ph-neg ALL (HR=0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, p<0.001). MRD positivity prior to allo-HCT was the only additional significant predictor for relapse on MVA (HR=2.9, 95% CI 1.8-4.7, p<0.001). Conclusions: HCT appears to overcome the poor prognosis of patients with Ph-like ALL. Despite higher induction failure rates, patients with Ph-like ALL undergoing HCT in CR1 had similar outcomes to other Ph-neg ALL subsets. The impact of effective salvage therapy leading to MRD-negativity in CR1 in this group is under investigation and will be reported. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of different Ph-like alterations on HCT outcomes. Outcomes for patients with Ph-pos ALL are significantly better than other groups, likely due to the use of TKIs pre- and post-HCT.

Background: Oral decitabine/cedazuridine (ASTX727) is a fixed dose combination of decitabine (35 mg) and the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine (100 mg) given once daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle producing pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure equivalent to the standard intravenous (IV) decitabine regimen of 20 mg/m 2 daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle. This was demonstrated in the pivotal ASCERTAIN study (Garcia-Manero, et al, ASH 2019) as it provided a PK bridge to existing decitabine data and demonstrated median OS was 31.7 mo. (Savona,et al. Intl. MDSF International Congress on MDS, 2021). Subjects were initially classified by the International Prognosis Scoring System (IPSS) for historical reasons, however IPSS-R and IPSS-M are enhancements to IPSS that provide dynamic risk assessment for predicting clinical outcomes in MDS. Here, the objective was to re-classify the MDS subjects enrolled on the ASCERTAIN study by IPSS-R and IPSS-M and measure the impact of informing patient outcomes based on re-calculated risk assessment. Methods: One hundred thirty-three subjects with MDS/CMML (chronic myelomonocytic leukemia) were enrolled in ASCERTAIN and were randomly assigned either IV decitabine for cycle 1 and oral decitabine/cedazuridine for cycle 2 or the opposite treatment sequence. All subjects continuing beyond cycle 2 received oral decitabine/cedazuridine for all subsequent cycles until treatment discontinuation for disease progression, toxicity, patient's decision, or HSCT. Whole blood collected prior to treatment was used for DNA isolation and molecular abnormalities identified using next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematologic malignancy panel of 179 genes including all genes commonly mutated in MDS. In the initial analysis of clinical outcomes, subjects were classified by IPSS with response assessment by IWG 2006 IPSS low and Int-1 risk levels were categorized as lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS), whereas IPSS Int-2 and high-risk categories were categorized as higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS). Subjects with sufficient data based on (e.g., available heme parameters, cytogenetics, NGS etc.) were reclassified by IPSS-R and IPSS-M. Subjects with IPSS-R score of ≤3.5 or IPSS-M of either very low, low, or moderate low were categorized as LR-MDS. Similarly subjects with IPSS-R score of >3.5 or an IPSS-M categorization of either moderate high, high, or very high were categorized as HR-MDS. Reclassified subjects were reassessed for CR (Complete Response), OS, and LFS and Harrell's concordance index (c-index) was used to describe the level of agreement between each scale and outcomes. Results: Based on the available data, the number of MDS subjects in the different risk classifications were the following: IPSS: 117, IPSS-R: 104, and IPSS-M: 105. Thirteen and 12 subjects on the IPSS could not be reclassified in the IPSS-R and IPSS-M, respectively, including 5 Int-1 and 2 low-risk MDS cases. CMML subjects were excluded from these analyses. Re-classification generally resulted in the upgrade of the subjects from LR-MDS to HR-MDS (Fig. 1). Thirty-one (26.5%) subjects from IPSS were reallocated in the IPSS-R to different risk categories; 3 (9.7%) were downgraded and 28 (90.3%) were upgraded. Similarly on reclassification with IPSS-M 34 (32.4%) of the patients reclassified; 5 (14.8%) were downgraded and 29 (85.3%) were upgraded. For IPSS LR-MDS, 23.2% of patients achieved CR, and 22.9% in the IPSS HR-MDS. Similarly, 21.6% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-R LR-MDS, and 23.9% in the IPSS-R HR-MDS; 26.3% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-M LR-MDS, and 20.9% in the IPSS-M HR-MDS. The c-index for the IPSS was .64 (OS) and .67 (LFS), IPSS-R was .70 (OS) and .71 (LFS), and .75 (OS) and .78 (LFS) for the IPSS-M (Table1). Conclusion: Reclassification from IPSS to IPSS-R or IPSS-M upgraded multiple subjects from a LR to a HR category, describing the ASCERTAIN patient population as a majority higher risk population with worse prognosis than previously assumed based on the IPSS. The efficacy as measured by the CR rates did not change when the LR and HR categories were defined by the different risk stratification systems. In contrast, the c-index improves with migration from IPSS to IPSS-R to IPSS-M, indicating an increased discriminatory ability of IPSS-M score in comparison to IPSS and IPSS-R, to predict patient outcomes.

Background In unfit patients (pts) with newly diagnosed (ND) AML, long-term survival remains short (mOS 14.7 months) despite improved responses (CR 37% and CR/CRi 66%) with azacitidine (AZA) and venetoclax (VEN) (VIALE-A, DiNardo NEJM 2020). In a pooled analysis of AZA-VEN in ND AML pts with poor risk cytogenetics the response rates were higher in TP53wt pts (CR/CRi 70%) compared with TP53mut pts (CR/CRi 41%) (Pollyea Clin Cancer Res 2022). The measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative rate was 41% in AZA-VEN treated pts in VIALE-A which was associated with improved survival (Pratz JCO 2022). Pivekimab sunirine (PVEK, IMGN632) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising a high-affinity CD123 antibody, cleavable linker, and an indolinobenzodiazepine pseudodimer (IGN) payload. The novel IGN payload alkylates DNA and causes single strand breaks without crosslinking (Kovtun Blood Adv 2018). Methods This is an ongoing, open-label, multicenter, Phase 1b/2 study of PVEK in combination with AZA +VEN in adults with ND CD123-positive AML (any CD123+ expression by local flow cytometry or IHC). Pts received the recommended phase 2 dose of PVEK 0.045 mg/kg IV on D7 + AZA 75 mg/m 2 SC or IV daily on D1-7 + VEN up to 400 mg PO daily for 14 to 28 days (based on cohort assignment) in a 28-day cycle. Bone marrow assessment was performed at D14 (cohort 1) or D21 (cohort 2) of cycle 1 to determine VEN duration. The primary endpoints are composite CR rate (CCR [CR+CRh+CRp+CRi]), MRD rate (assessed centrally [Hematologics, Inc.] by flow cytometry; <0.1% defined as negative) and duration of remission. Key secondary endpoints are safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. Responses were determined using ELN 2017 criteria (with the addition of CRh) and a 14-day post-marrow count recovery window. Results As of July 17, 2023, data is available for 50 ND pts (n=25 per cohort) treated with PVEK+AZA+VEN and are aggregately reported here. The median age was 74 years (range, 46-83), 42% were ≥ 75 years old, 26% had secondary AML, 64% were ELN 2017 adverse risk, and 38% had a TP53mut. The most common non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) (all grades [grade 3+]) seen in > 20% of all pts were febrile neutropenia (44% [38%]), constipation (42% [2%]), peripheral edema (36% [4%]), diarrhea (36% [2%]), hypophosphatemia (32% [0%], nausea (28% [4%]), and hypokalemia (24% [2%]). No veno-occlusive disease (VOD) events were reported. In responders, the median time to achieve absolute neutrophil count ≥500/µL and platelet count ≥50,000/µL was 35.5 days (range, 20-55) and 22 days (range, 20-55), respectively. The median post-remission cycle delay (beyond cycle day 28) was 14 days. Two pts discontinued PVEK due to a TEAE (edema; marrow aplasia). The 60-day mortality was 4%. In the ITT population (N=50) the CR rate was 52% (26/50), and the CCR rate was 66% (33/50). In pts ≥ 75 years old, the CCR rate was 76% (16/21). In pts known to be TP53wt, both the CR and CCR rate was 88% (22/25). Additional response subsets in Table 1. Twenty-one pts received 9-14 days of VEN, 9 pts received 15-21 days of VEN and 20 pts received ≥ 22 days of VEN in cycle 1; of those who received ≤ 14 days of VEN the CR rate was 71% (15/21) and the CCR rate was 76% (16/21). Of the 26 pts who achieved CCR and had an MRD-evaluable sample, 73% (19/26) achieved MRD negativity (CCR MRD-, <0.1% residual blasts); notably all had undetectable MRD levels (lower level of detection is 0.02%). MRD-negativity was achieved rapidly with a median of 1.7 months (range, 0.8-4.5). CCR MRD- rates were high across major molecular subsets, including FLT3 (ITD/TKD) at 100% (7/7), IDH1/2 at 89% (8/9), and NPM1 at 89% (8/9), as well as ELN risk groups (intermediate 80% [8/10]; adverse 64% [9/14]). Conclusion With a manageable safety profile in pts with ND AML, the PVEK+AZA+VEN triplet demonstrated anti-leukemia activity with robust CR rates and early MRD negative responses in a cohort enriched for adverse disease characteristics (64% ELN adverse risk; 38% TP53mut). Encouraging CCR MRD- rates were observed across cytogenetic/molecular subsets, and the majority of responding pts achieved early and deep remissions, which may translate to improved clinical outcomes. The regimen was well tolerated with no new safety signals, and the addition of PVEK to the AZA-VEN backbone did not appear to meaningfully prolong count recovery.

Abstract Acute myeloid leukemia (AML), an aggressive malignancy with unmet medical need, lacks immunotherapeutic options. CD123, the cellular receptor for interleukin-3, expressed in AML is an attractive target for tumor-specific therapy. Vibecotamab (XmAb14045), a humanized bispecific antibody, monovalently binds both CD3 and CD123 to recruit cytotoxic T cells to kill CD123+ tumor cells. This phase 1 study’s primary objectives were safety and tolerability and identification of a maximum tolerated dose/recommended dose for use as monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory AML. Identification of a recommended phase 2 vibecotamab dose comprised 3 step-up doses (Week 1), which were noted to reduce cytokine response syndrome (CRS), followed by weekly dosing (1.7 μg/kg, Cohort -1D). In 16 of 120 patients, at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event was classified as a dose-limiting toxicity. CRS, the most common adverse event (59.2%), managed with premedication, were mostly ≤grade 2. A secondary objective was assessment of efficacy in patients with CD123-expressing leukemias. A total of 10 of 111 (9.0%) efficacy-evaluable patients with AML achieved an overall response of morphologic leukemia-free state or better with an overall objective response rate (ORR) of 9.0%. Response was only observed in patients receiving a target dose of 0.75 μg/kg or higher (n = 87) in which the efficacy-evaluable ORR was 11.5%. Response was associated with lower baseline blast counts in blood and bone marrow (<25%) suggesting potential benefit. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02730312.