Citations

Abstract Background: CD19 CAR T cell therapies have demonstrated high initial complete remission (CR) rates of 70-80% in relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with durable remissions observed in a subset of patients. Despite the remarkable initial CR rate, relapses occur in 20-45% of patients and with increasing use of CD19 CAR T cell therapies in ALL, a key remaining clinical question is the role of post-CAR HCT. Methods: Patients up to 26 years treated with the commercial (i.e., tisagenlecleucel) or investigational CD19 CAR T cell products from 2014 to 2019 in the United States were included. The objectives were to examine the impact of post-CAR HCT on mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), leukemia relapse, GVHD and transplant related mortality among HCT recipients. The intent of HCT was analyzed as consolidation when there was no evidence of post-CAR T cell relapse prior to HCT. Cox regression multivariable analysis used HCT as time-dependent variable along with age, performance status and time from diagnosis to CAR-T cell infusion to evaluate its impact on outcomes. Results: We identified 347 patients who received CD19 CAR T cells from 86 centers. Median age was 13 (range, 0.4-26 years) with 39% of patients from Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin. Patients were high risk and heavily pretreated; 56% had poor cytogenetics, 51% had ≥3 line of prior therapies and 34% had prior HCT. Most of the patients (74%) received tisagenlecleucel. Disease burden at the time of CAR T cell infusion included morphologic disease (≥5% bone marrow blasts) (65%), measurable residual disease (MRD) positive (16%) and negative CR (18%). CRS of all grades was observed in 57.6% and grade 3-4 CRS in 13%; neurotoxicity of all grades was observed in 25% and grade 3-4 in 8%. With a median follow-up of 12.7 months (range, 2.2-60.3), DFS at 3, 6 and 12 months following CAR T cell infusion was 80.9% % (95% CI: 76.6%-84.9%), 71.2% (95% CI: 66.1%-76.0%) and 57.6% (95% CI: 51.8%-63.3%), respectively. OS at 3, 6 and 12 months was 93.6% (95% CI: 90.8%-96.0%), 89.8% (95% CI: 86.4%-92.8%) and 79.4% (95% CI: 74.7%-83.6%), respectively. Incidences of relapse without censoring at subsequent HCT at month 3, 6 and 12 were 18.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-22.8%), 28.2% (95% CI: 23.5%-33.3%), and 40.6% (95% CI: 35.0%-46.3%), respectively. Of the 347 patients who received CD19 CAR therapy, 62 patients (18%) had subsequent HCT in CR as a consolidation post-CAR with a median time from CAR T to HCT of 4.7 months (range, 1.1-18.6). 36% had a prior HCT (i.e., pre-CAR), 87% received myeloablative regimen and among the 57 patients with MRD evaluation 56 were negative (98%). Frequencies of post-CAR HCT did not change during the 5-year study period. Overall, transplant related mortality (TRM) at month 6 was 8.9% (95% CI: 3.6-16.1), and grade 2-4 acute GvHD was observed in 38.0% (95% CI: 28.4-48.2) of patients at month 6. Post-CAR HCT used as a consolidation was associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.37; p=0.037) but no significant impact on mortality (HR 0.75, p=0.51) or DFS (HR=0.46, p=0.057). When accounting for any HCT performed after CAR T cell, HCT was associated with higher mortality (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest clinical series to date examining the impact of post-CAR HCT on clinical outcome of R/R B-ALL patients. We found that 18% of the patients had post-CAR HCT as a consolidation therapy with a favorable safety profile of 8.9% TRM rate despite a prior transplant rate of 36%. Consolidation HCT after CAR T cell resulted in significant reduction in leukemia relapse with a trend towards better DFS. Consolidation HCT seem safe and incurred a benefit by reducing disease relapse. Further studies in understanding the role of consolidation HCT as planned, or post-CAR T cell response-based strategy or treatment for early B-cell recovery are needed to further define the best candidates for HCT after tisagenlecleucel . Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Park: BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Ahmed: Merck: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cairo: Servier: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dholaria: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Grover: Kite: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC: Other: Advisory Board; Tessa: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mussetti: GILEAD: Other: Clinical trials participation, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trials participation. Pulsipher: Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria; Adaptive: Research Funding; Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medexus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other. Reshef: Gilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Rizzieri: Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acrotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution. Schultz: BMS DSMB: Other: payment; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Turtle: Century Therapeutics Ad hoc advisory boards (last 12 months): Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene, PACT Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eureka Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; T-CURX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloid Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArsenalBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Minerva: Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Other; Juno Therapeutics/BMS: Other: Payments, Patents & Royalties: Patent licensed to Juno Therapeutics.; Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Myeloid Therapeutics, ArsenalBio: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Perales: MorphoSys: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is approved across lines of therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) or by intravenous administration (DARA IV). In clinical studies, the administration time ranges from 3-5 minutes for DARA SC versus 3-7 hours for DARA IV, and DARA SC is associated with reduced rates of administration-related reactions (ARRs). These characteristics of DARA SC are associated with benefits for clinics in terms of safety and clinic time. We previously reported DARA administration characteristics at Mayo Clinic infusion centers: DARA SC had shorter total clinic and total chair times compared with DARA IV, and DARA SC was associated with very low rates of ARR-related events (Soefje S, et al. EHA Library. 2021). Based upon this analysis, the treatment plan was modified to reduce the mandated observation time for DARA SC to improve clinic efficiency. Here, we describe updated clinical administration characteristics for DARA SC at Mayo Clinic infusion centers before and after the reduction in procedure-mandated observation time, versus DARA IV, using a novel empirical data extraction approach from Electronic Health Records (EHR). Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with an ICD-9/10 diagnosis code of MM and a first DARA treatment between April 5, 2017 and June 22, 2021 were identified in Mayo Clinic's EHR database. Data were extracted using a scheduling and pharmacy software that tracked patient movement through appointments at a Mayo Clinic infusion center. On May 3, 2021, the Mayo treatment plan was amended to shorten the mandated post-administration observation time for DARA SC from 4 to 2 hours for Dose 1 and from 1 hour to 30 minutes for Doses 2 and 3, with no mandated observation time for Doses 4+. In this analysis, data were captured for patients initiating DARA IV throughout the defined treatment window. For DARA SC, data were captured for patients starting DARA SC therapy on the initial treatment plan (before May 3, 2021; DARA SC initial) and after the change to shorten the mandated post-administration observation time for DARA SC (after May 3, 2021; DARA SC shortened). Time-based measures included: total clinic time (check-in time through patient check-out); total chair time (time from infusion room entry to infusion room exit or check-out time, including order review, pharmacy preparation time, and post-administration observation time); and observation time (time from the end of medication administration to infusion room exit or patient check-out). The medication administration time documented for DARA SC was 0 minutes due to the default duration for SC injections in the EHR. Results: In total, 755 (DARA IV, n=586; DARA SC initial, n=145; DARA SC shortened, n=24) patients received DARA treatment for MM. For all doses combined, the median total clinic time was 2.9 hours shorter for DARA SC compared with DARA IV (DARA IV, 4.9 hrs; DARA SC initial, 2.0 hrs). The median total clinic time for DARA SC and DARA IV was highest at Dose 1 (DARA IV, 9.5 hrs; DARA SC initial, 6.1 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 4.4 hrs) and lower for subsequent doses (Dose 4+: DARA IV, 4.6 hrs; DARA SC initial, 1.7 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 1.6 hrs; Figure). Similarly, the median total chair time was 2.7 hours shorter in the DARA SC group compared with the DARA IV group for all doses combined (DARA IV, 4.1 hrs; DARA SC initial, 1.4 hrs). The median total chair time for DARA SC and DARA IV was highest at Dose 1 (DARA IV, 8.8 hrs; DARA SC initial, 5.6 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 3.9) and lower for subsequent doses (Dose 4+: DARA IV, 3.7 hrs; DARA SC initial, 1.1 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 1.1 hrs). Conclusion: Marked reductions in the amount of time spent both in clinic and in chair were observed with DARA SC compared with DARA IV, with additional time savings observed following the Mayo procedure change to reduce the DARA SC mandated observation time. These favorable DARA SC administration characteristics may indicate a reduction in the burden on both clinical resources and patients in Mayo Clinic infusion centers. These results add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of DARA SC as an efficient and convenient treatment administration option for patients with MM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Soefje: Beigene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Carpenter: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Carlson: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Awasthi: nference Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Janssen: Consultancy. Lin: Janssen: Current Employment. Kaila: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Current Employment. Kayal: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Kirkup: nference Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Path AI: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Wagner: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Gray: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kumar: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Clinical significance of somatic gene variants needs to be comprehensively characterized for their diagnostic, prognostic and/or therapeutic actionability in patient management. However, challenges remain due to discrepancies in interpretation and reporting of these somatic variants among different testing labs. Therefore, standardized curation, clinical interpretation and reporting of somatic variants in hematologic cancers is critical. To address this issue, the Hematologic Cancer Taskforce (HCT), composed of 52 multi-disciplinary experts including oncologists, molecular pathologists, lab directors, genomic scientists and biocurators, was formed in January 2020 within the ClinGen Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG) with a goal to undertake systematic curation and evidence-based clinical interpretation of genes/somatic variants associated with hematologic malignancies. In collaboration with the Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer (CIViC) (civicdb.org) knowledgebase, HCT members curate, edit, and verify Evidence Items for each variant extracted from peer-reviewed publications. Monthly discussions based on these Evidence Items lead to the preparation of variant Assertions, which summarize the state of the field consensus variant interpretation and include tiering based on the AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines (PMID: 27993330). FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) encodes a class III receptor tyrosine kinase expressed in hematopoietic cells. FLT3 mutations, including both internal tandem duplication (ITD) and mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain (TKD), are the most common mutations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), occurring in approximately 30% of all AML cases. Implementing FLT3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in different treatment regimens for FLT3 mutated AML patients has led to significantly improved overall survival. Type I FLT3 inhibitors, including midostaurin, gilteritinib, sunitinib, lestaurtinib, and crenolanib, bind to the ATP-binding site when the receptor is in active conformation. Type II FLT3 inhibitors, including sorafenib, ponatinib, and quizartinib, interact with a hydrophobic region directly adjacent to the ATP-binding domain that is only accessible when the receptor is inactive, which prevents receptor activation. Generally in AML cells, type I FLT3 inhibitors prevent activity for both ITD and TKD mutations, while Type II inhibitors target ITD but lack efficiency against TKD mutations. The development of TKD mutations in AML cells with ITD have proved to be a mechanism of acquired, or secondary resistance to Type II FLT3 inhibitors. The HCT is piloting curation assessments of FLT3 alterations, including ITD, TKD and non-TKD variants, in AML. So far, the HCT has curated 75 evidence items for FLT3 somatic variants. FLT3-ITD, as well as D835 and I836 were asserted as tier 1 level A variants based on the prediction of response to gilteritinib in relapsed/refractory AML (PMIDs: 27993330, 31665578, 28645776, 28516360, 27908881). Recent curation activities are focused on FLT3 D839G and N676K, as clinical trials using large AML patient cohorts are lacking in their ability to validate drug response/resistance associations of these two TKD variants due to their low frequency. Functional studies showed both variants result in increased proliferation and protection from apoptosis, supporting the oncogenic potential of these two variants (PMIDs: 26891877, 2468088). FLT3 D839G combined with ITD confers resistance to pexidartinib and ponatinib, both Type II FLT3 inhibitors (PMIDs: 25847190, 23430109). FLT3 N676K predicts response to the Type I FLT3 inhibitor, gilteritinib, when N676K is present alone or in combination with ITD. Interestingly, FLT3 N676K in the absence of ITD predicts response to sorafenib, a Type II FLT3 inhibitor (PMIDs: 32040554, 32984009). However, these results are mostly derived from in vitro studies. Two separate Tier II, Level D Assertions have been submitted for FLT3-ITD&D839G for its response to pexidartinib and ponatinib, and more evidence is being collected to form an Assertion for FLT3 N676K. The complexity of the prediction of response/resistance associated with FLT3 D839G and N676K supports the importance of evidence-based curation and collection for these variants in the context of the overall mutation profile, disease context and specific FLT3 TKIs to clearly define their clinical impact. Disclosures Pullarkat: Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria.

Small-molecule recruitment of an endogenous nuclease rescues pathologies associated with c9ALS/FTD in vivo by targeting an RNA repeat expansion.

Study Design: This was a narrative review. Objective: This review discusses our current knowledge regarding cellular-based allografts while highlighting the key gaps in the literature that must be addressed before their widespread adoption. Summary of Background Data: Iliac crest bone graft is the gold-standard bone graft material but is associated with donor site morbidity. Commonly utilized bone graft extenders such as demineralized bone matrix and bone morphogenetic protein have conflicting data supporting their efficacy and lack the osteogenic potential of new cellular-based allograft options. Methods: An extensive literature review was performed. The literature was then summarized in accordance with the authors’ clinical experience. Results: There is not widespread evidence thus far that the addition of the osteogenic cellular component to allograft enhances spinal fusion, as a recent study by Bhamb and colleagues demonstrated superior bone formation during spine fusion in an aythmic rat model when demineralized bone matrix was used in comparison to Osteocel Plus. Furthermore, the postimplantation cellular viability and osteogenic and osteoinductive capacity of cellular-based allografts need to be definitively established, especially given that a recent study by Lina and colleagues demonstrated a paucity of bone marrow cell survival in an immunocompetent mouse posterolateral spinal fusion model. Conclusions: This data indicates that the substantially increased cost of these cellular allografts may not be justified. Level of Evidence: Level V.

Abstract Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a life-limiting inherited hemoglobinopathy that results in significant complications and affects quality of life. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is currently the only curative intervention for SCD; however, guidelines are needed to inform how to apply HSCT in clinical practice. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and health professionals in their decisions about HSCT for SCD. Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline panel formed by ASH included 2 patient representatives and was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (through 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 8 recommendations to help patients and providers assess how individuals with SCD should consider the timing and type of HSCT. Conclusions: The evidence review yielded no randomized controlled clinical trials for HSCT in SCD; therefore, all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence. Key recommendations include considering HSCT for those with neurologic injury or recurrent acute chest syndrome at an early age and to improve nonmyeloablative regimens. Future research should include the development of a robust SCD registry to serve as a comparator for HSCT studies.