Citations

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: In October 2021, the FDA approved brexu-cel for the treatment of adults ≥ 18 years old with R/R B-ALL. Following this approval, a consortium of cancer centers was formed across the US to investigate outcomes following commercial brexu-cel use for adults with R/R B-ALL. One area of interest is the toxicity profile of brexu-cel when given in the real-world context, including the respective incidences and severity of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity (ICANS). Methods: Eligible pts included adults ≥ 18 years old who received commercial brexu-cel starting in October 2021 onward at a participating center in the US (N = 25). Retrospective patient data were collected across participating institutions, with the most recent data lock occurring on June 30, 2023. Criteria from the ASTCT were used to grade CRS and ICANS severity. Statistical methods included the use of medians and simple ratios for descriptive outcomes; univariate logistic regression models were used to assess the association of various factors with the probability of CRS and ICANS, and Cox regression was used to examine the association of each with the hazards of mortality and failure for event-free survival (EFS; earliest of progression, relapse, or death). Results: Key demographics and toxicities are described in Tables 1 and 2 (respectively). Of the 152 pts infused with brexu-cel, 82% (N = 125) developed CRS and 56% (N = 85) developed ICANS. CRS and ICANS did NOT develop in 12% (N = 19). Twenty percent of all pts (N = 31) required ICU-level care for management of CAR-related toxicities, with a median LOS in ICU of 4 days (range 1-79). In univariate models, grade 3+ ICANS was most likely to occur in pts with active disease (≥ 5% marrow blasts and/or EMD) at the time of apheresis (OR 2.63, 1.28-5.38, p = 0.008); a numerical increase for grade 3+ CRS (OR 2.35, 0.69-8, p = 0.17) was seen in pts with active disease at apheresis. Therapies received for these CAR-related toxicities included steroids, tocilizumab (toci), and anakinra (Table 2). Among pts who received steroids (N = 94), 37% (N = 34) achieved a sufficient response to the first steroid trial and did not require subsequent therapies; otherwise, toxicities improved with the first steroid course but later worsened in 16% (N = 15); the first trial of steroids was not effective but improved when further steroids were given in 31% (N = 29); there were no responses to any doses of steroids in 10% (N = 9). In pts receiving toci (N = 103), 31% (N = 32) achieved a sufficient response to the first dose and did not require any further therapy; toxicities improved with the first dose but later worsened in 31% (N = 32); the first dose was ineffective but improvement was seen with subsequent doses in 21% (N = 22); 9% (N = 9) did not respond at all to toci. The rate of death within day +28 was 6% (N = 9), and the respective causes were typically multifactorial: CRS was implicated in 3 cases, ICANS in 3, infection in 5, disease relapse/progression in 2, and HLH in 1 case. In total, uncontrolled ICANS was implicated in the death of 6 pts (between day +9 to day +106). HLH was reported in 6 pts: in most cases, this was a biochemical diagnosis, and it either overlapped with concurrent CRS or infection or occurred following CRS/ICANS. The most common infections between day 0 and day +28 included bacteremia in 8% of pts (N = 12), fungal infections in 4% (N = 6), pneumonia in 3% (N = 5), and CMV infections in 3% (N = 4). The fungal infections included 4 instances of invasive sinopulmonary infections (2 due to aspergillus; 2 due to mucormycosis) and 2 cases of candidemia. With both CRS and ICANS treated as a time-varying covariate, the development of grade 3+ CRS was associated with a higher hazard of death (HR 2.38, 1.00-5.66, p = 0.05); grade 3+ ICANS was not associated with a demonstrably higher risk of death (HR 1.11, 0.60-2.05, p = 0.74). The HR of EFS failure for Grade 3+ CRS was 1.81 (0.87-3.79, p = 0.12) and for grade 3+ ICANS HR = 0.93 (0.56-1.53, p = 0.77). Conclusions: In this real-world study of toxicities from brexu-cel use for adults with R/R B-ALL, we observed CRS and ICANS in the majority of pts, and no new safety signals were observed. Rates of severe CRS and ICANS were more common with active disease. Interestingly, though CRS-related mortality was rare, grade 3+ CRS was associated with a higher risk of death. Efforts to identify mechanisms and mitigable risk factors for these toxicities are warranted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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