Citations

BackgroundThe availability of novel agents (NAs), including blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), has improved the outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Because of the relative effectiveness, it is often a challenge for clinicians to determine how to best sequence these NAs with respect to efficacy and toxicity.MethodsIn this multicenter, retrospective study of patients with RR ALL treated with blinatumomab, InO, or both, their efficacy as a first or second NA was compared.ResultsAmong 276 patients, 221 and 55 received blinatumomab and InO, respectively, as a first NA therapy. The complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi) rate was 65% and 67% for the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively (P = .73). The rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was 4% and 7% in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. Ninety‐two patients (43%) in the blinatumomab group and 13 patients (29%) in the InO group proceeded with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The median overall survival (OS) was 15 and 11.6 months in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. A subset analysis was performed for 61 patients who received both NAs (blinatumomab and then InO [n = 40] or InO and then blinatumomab [n = 21]). The CR/CRi rate was 58% for patients who received InO as the second NA and 52% for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA. The median OS was 10.5 for patients who received InO as the second NA and 5.9 months for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA (P = .09).ConclusionsAlthough the limited power of this study to detect a significant difference between subgroups is acknowledged, the data suggest that blinatumomab and InO may have comparable efficacy as a first or second NA therapy in RR ALL.

Key Points Systemic immune microenvironment signatures in CMML indicate an altered T- and natural killer cell balance. CMML bone marrow dendritic cell aggregates associate with disease progression and systemic regulatory T-cell phenotypic switch.

Background: Somatic mutations in the IDH genes are common in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Mutations occur at active site arginine residues in IDH1 (R132) and IDH2 (R140, R172). IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2), have shown improved clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory IDH-mutant AML and are approved for use in this setting, while investigations in combination with chemotherapy are underway in de novo AML. The prognostic significance of IDH mutations remains controversial. We hypothesize that refining our understanding of IDH-mutated AML will contribute to risk-adapted treatment strategies, including optimal use of IDH-targeted agents. The objective of our study was to identify characteristics that affect outcome in de novo IDH-mutated AML across the age spectrum utilizing a large cohort of patients enrolled on several pediatric and adult trials. Methods: The total cohort (N=3588) included patients age <1 month - 88 years. Pediatric and young adult (YA) patients were treated on recent CCG/COG AML trials (CCG2961, COG 03P1, 0531, 1031, N=2231) and YA/adult patients were treated on SWOG S0106 (N=396), ECOG E1900 AML trials (N=398), Beat AML (N=363), or included in the TCGA biology study (N=200; outcomes not evaluated for this group). Patients were analyzed according to three defined age groups: "younger" 0-29 years of age (N=2401), "intermediate" 30-59 years of age (N=819) and "older" 60 years of age and above (N=319). Data regarding clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were collected and evaluated according to the standard practices of each cooperative or research groups for the respective studies. Mutational profiling was performed by targeted sequencing for patient samples from COG trials, Beat-AML, ECOG, and SWOG; whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing for the TCGA cohort. Prevalence of IDH mutations, co-occurring mutations, and outcomes (5-year event-free survival [EFS]) were analyzed across the defined age groups. Results: The prevalence of IDH mutations among the entire cohort was 8.6% (N=276). Analysis according to mutation type demonstrated that IDH2 mutations comprised 57% (N=158) and IDH1 mutations 43% (N=118). The prevalence of IDH mutations was strongly correlated with increased age (Fig 1A); according to the age-defined cohorts was 4.0% (N=82) in younger, 15.2% (N=126) in intermediate, and 20.3% (N=65) in older patients (p<0.001). The co-occurring mutational profile demonstrated that IDH mutations commonly co-occurred with NPM1,DNMT3A, and FLT3-ITD mutations (Fig 1B). Among IDH-mutant patients, 48% (N=132) harbored dual mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut); 11.6% (N=32) triple mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut), the latter particularly prevalent in intermediate-aged adults (N=27/32, 85%). Analysis of the cohort with outcome data (N=2824) demonstrated that IDHmut and IDH-WT patients experienced similar EFS of 39% vs. 40%, respectively (p=0.723). Given the favorable prognostic significance of NPM1, we subsequently analyzed outcomes of this dual mutant group and found that NPM1 mutations retained favorable prognostic impact in the context of IDH mutant patients (Fig 2A). Notably, this effect was age-dependent, as those with IDHmut/NPM1mut had a favorable EFS compared to IDHmut/NPM1-WT for younger (76% vs. 24%, p<0.001) and intermediate patients (43% vs. 15%, p=0.001, Fig 2B) but this favorable effect was lost in older patients (29% vs. 34%, p=0.456, Fig 2C). Among intermediate age patients, outcome was further stratified by DNMT3A status, and IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut patients experienced an inferior EFS of 25% vs. 57% in IDHmut/NPMmut (p=0.003, Fig 2D). Conclusion: Analysis of this large patient cohort provides the most comprehensive description of IDH mutations in AML across the age spectrum. We confirm age-associated prevalence of IDH mutations and frequent co-occurrence with NPM1 mutation in all ages and in further combination with DNMT3A mutation in intermediate-aged adults. We definitively demonstrate that IDH mutation status is not an independent prognostic determinant of outcome in any age group. Co-occurrence of NPM1 and IDH mutations favorably impacts outcome in patients < 60 years of age with AML, particularly in the absence of DNMT3A mutation. Our data support that IDH inhibitors may be of particular interest in older adults and in patients <60 according to co-occurring NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations. Disclosures Othus: Marck: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Radich:Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Abdel-Wahab:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Envisagenics Inc.: Current equity holder in private company; H3 Biomedicine Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; BioSight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Rafael: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioline rx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding. Atallah:Jazz: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy. Luger:Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Loxo Oncology: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cooper:Celgene: Other: Spouse was an employee of Celgene (through August 2019).

Background: The FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitor gilteritinib (Gilt) improves survival compared with standard salvage chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory (R/R) FLT3-mutated (FLT3mut+) acute myeloid leukemia (AML); however, relapses are common and long-term survival remains poor. Combination therapies of FLT3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with agents that induce apoptosis have demonstrated preclinical synthetic lethality and enhanced cytotoxicity against FLT3mut+ clones. This may delay or prevent drug resistance. We present updated data from the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts of an ongoing, multicenter, open-label, Phase 1b trial (NCT03625505) of Gilt in combination with B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor venetoclax (Ven) in patients (pts) with R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Methods: Pts with R/R AML with ≥1 prior line of therapy and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 were eligible. The expansion cohort required FLT3mut+ R/R AML at enrollment. Pts received the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of Ven 400 mg in combination with Gilt 120 mg daily in 28-day cycles, following a 3-day ramp-up of Ven. Pts with prior Gilt were excluded from expansion, and none were enrolled in dose escalation; prior Ven or other FLT3 inhibitor was permitted. Concurrent use of moderate or strong CYP3A4 inhibitor was allowed. Interruptions of Ven or both drugs simultaneously were permitted for management of adverse events (AEs), and subsequent cycles could include dose adjustments to minimize myelosuppression or other drug-related AEs. The primary endpoint was modified composite complete remission (mCRc; complete response [CR] + CR with incomplete platelet recovery [CRp] + CR with incomplete blood count recovery [CRi]) + morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS). Responses were graded by the International Working Group (IWG) for AML criteria (with adapted CRi criteria as presented in the ADMIRAL trial) for comparison with composite CR (CRc) used in Gilt development. All criteria for response used by IWG were maintained in these response definitions. Secondary endpoints included CR + CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) and duration of response (DOR) of mCRc. Results: At data cutoff, April 15, 2020, 39 R/R pts started therapy at the RP2D (internal tandem duplications [ITD] only [n=32]; tyrosine kinase domain [TKD] mutation only [n=5]; both TKD and ITD [n=2]). Median age was 63 years (range 23-85) and the majority had an ECOG status of 1-2 (87.2%). Most pts (n=29; 74.4%) had received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including ≥1 FLT3 TKI (n=25, 64.1%; midostaurin, n=19; sorafenib, n=5; crenolanib, n=1). Twelve pts (30.8%) had prior stem-cell transplant (SCT); 3 (7.7%) had received prior Ven. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported in 37 pts (94.9%), and 28 (71.8%) reported serious AEs. The only Grade 3/4 nonhematologic TEAE reported in >20% of pts was febrile neutropenia (48.7%). Four pts (10.3%) experienced a fatal AE, including colitis, disease progression, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (all n=1). AEs leading to Ven and Gilt interruptions occurred in 19 pts (48.7%) and 18 pts (46.2%), respectively, and AEs leading to dose reductions occurred in 2 pts (5.1%) for each treatment. Six pts (15.4 %) and 5 pts (12.8%) discontinued Ven and Gilt, respectively, owing to AEs. mCRc was achieved by 83.8% of pts (n=31/37; Table). With median duration of follow-up of 2.9 (range 0.8−11.0) months in all pts, median event-free survival was 5.1 (95% confidence interval: 2.8, 8.3) months but administrative censoring after short follow-up for a large number of recently enrolled patients limits interpretation; median DOR has not been reached. Eight pts (21.6%), all ITD only, proceeded to SCT. CR + CRh was achieved by 7 pts (18.9%). Conclusions: Ven plus Gilt achieved a very high overall rate of marrow and blood blast elimination and mCRc rate (84%) in this expansion cohort of heavily pretreated FLT3mut+ pts, the majority of whom had prior FLT3 TKI exposure. Using similar response assessment criteria, the high mCRc rate here suggests substantially greater antileukemic activity from Ven plus Gilt compared with single-agent Gilt. Cytopenias were prominent but manageable with dose interruption/modification on subsequent cycles. Nonhematologic toxicities were modest, and the combination was well tolerated. Disclosures Daver: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novimmune: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trillium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Altman:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Fujifilm: Research Funding; Astellas: Other: Advisory Board, Speaker (no payment), Steering Committee (no payment), Research Funding; Agios, Theradex, Abbvie: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas, Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety and monitoring committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board - no payment but was reimbursed for travel; Kura Oncology: Patents & Royalties: Scientific Advisory Board - no payment accepted; Biosight: Other: No payment but was reimbursed for travel . Levis:Menarini: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; FujiFilm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ritchie:Abbvie: Honoraria; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. McCloskey:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Smith:Abbvie: Other: Research Support, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Astellas Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Research Support, Research Funding; FujiFilm: Other: Research support, Research Funding; Revolution Medicines: Other: Research Support, Research Funding; Daiichi Sanyko: Consultancy, Honoraria. Schiller:Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Kaiser Permanente: Consultancy; Genentech-Roche: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; DeltaFly: Research Funding; Deciphera: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Mateon: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Gamida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Stemline: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ono Pharma: Consultancy; Forma: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau. Bradley:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Tiu:Astellas Pharma Global Development: Current Employment; Eli Lilly & Company: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Hong:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment. Tong:AbbVie, Inc.: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or other options. Qin:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or other options. Dilley:AbbVie Inc.: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or stock options. Perl:Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.: Other; AbbVie Inc, Astellas, Actinium, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo Inc, FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals USA Inc: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc, Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo Inc, FORMA Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company, NewLink Genetics: Other; AbbVie Inc, Arog Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo Inc: Consultancy; Astellas, AbbVie Inc, Daiichi Sankyo, Actinium, Forma, Syndax, Loxo: Consultancy, Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor approved in combination with azacitidine, or decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adults who are age 75 years or older, or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy. Gilteritinib is a kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients who have relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3 mutation as detected by an FDA-approved test.

Background The relative benefits of haploidentical HCT using PTCy compared to traditional matched-sibling donor, traditional unrelated donor and umbilical cord blood (UCB) allogeneic HCT for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is still being defined. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database comparing post-HCT outcomes of haploidentical donors with PTCy to HLA-identical sibling donors, 8/8 HLA-MUDs, 7/8 HLA-MUDs, and UCB. Outcomes were overall survival (OS) leukemia-free survival (LFS), relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM), grade 2-4 and grade 3-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), and chronic GVHD (cGVHD). Eligible patients were adults with ALL in complete remission (CR1, CR2, or CR3) undergoing first allogeneic HCT from 2013 to 2017. Key exclusion included not receiving PTCy for haploidentical HCT and ex vivo T-cell depleted or CD34-selected grafts. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression analysis was used to compare the treatment groups. Results 4201 patients were studied: 393 haploidentical donor (92 centers), 1627 HLA-identical sibling donor (206 centers), 1646 8/8 HLA-MUD (181 centers), 230 7/8 HLA-MUD (90 centers), and 305 UCB (79 centers). Groups were well matched, however, notable differences between included race, time from diagnosis to HCT (CR1 only), conditioning regimen intensity, donor age, graft source for non-cord (peripheral blood or bone marrow), GVHD prophylaxis modality, and the use of in vivo T-cell depletion. Compared to other groups, haploidentical HCT had the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic white patients (43% vs. 49-74%), was more likely to use reduced-intensity conditioning (42% vs 17-25%), and was more likely to use bone marrow (41% vs. 14-29%). In multivariate analysis comparing haploidentical to matched-sibling donor HCT, no differences were observed in OS, LFS, NRM, relapse, or aGVHD. Compared to haploidentical HCT, the risk of cGVHD was significantly higher with matched-sibling donor HCT (D/R sex match F/M, HR 2.59, P<0.001, D/R sex match, other, HR 1.37, P=0.003). Comparing haploidentical to 8/8 HLA-MUD HCT, no differences were seen in OS, LFS, relapse, or Grade 2-4 aGVHD but 8/8 HLA-MUD HCT was associated with increased incidences of NRM (HR 1.42, P=0.02), grade 3-4 aGVHD (HR 1.59, P=0.005), and cGVHD (HR D/R sex match F/M, HR 2.91, P<0.001, D/R sex match, other, HR 1.38, P=0.001). Comparing haploidentical to 7/8 HLA-MUD HCT, no differences were seen in LFS or relapse but 7/8 HLA-MUD HCT was associated with worse OS (HR 1.38, P=0.01) and increased incidences of NRM (HR 2.13, P=<0.001), grade 2-4 aGVHD (HR 1.33, P=0.04) , grade 3-4 aGVHD (HR 1.86, P=0.003), and cGVHD (HR 1.72, P=<0.001). Comparing haploidentical to UCB HCT, no differences were seen in late OS (>18 months), late LFS, relapse, or cGVHD. Compared to haploidentical HCT, UCB HCT was associated with worse early OS (≤18 months, HR 1.93, P<0.001), worse early LFS (HR 1.40, P=0.007) and increased incidences of NRM (HR 2.08, P<0.001), grade 2-4 aGVHD (HR 1.83, P<0.001), and grade 3-4 aGVHD (HR 1.97, P<0.001). Similar outcomes were observed in sensitivity analyses restricting cohorts to (1) MA conditioning with peripheral blood stem cells and (2) calcineurin inhibitor-based GVHD prophylaxis for matched-sibling, unrelated donor, and UCB HCT. Conclusions For OS and LFS, haploidentical HCT using PTCy for adult ALL was superior to traditional HCT using 7/8 HLA-MUDs and UCB but equivalent to traditional HCT using matched-sibling donors and 8/8 HLA-MUDs. Results were consistent across all subgroups. Haploidentical HCT had a lower incidence of aGVHD compared to 8/8 HLA-MUD, 7/8 HLA-MUD, and UCB HCT and a lower incidence of cGVHD compared to matched-sibling donor, 8/8 HLA-MUD, and 7/8 HLA-MUD HCT. Based on these data, haploidentical HCT with PTCy results in similar survival with less GVHD compared to traditional matched-sibling and 8/8 HLA-matched donor HCT and is the superior alternative donor option for adult patients with ALL needing allogeneic HCT in CR. Figure Disclosures Wieduwilt: Leadiant: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Macrogeneics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de Lima:Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; BMS: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees, advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kadmon: Other: Personal Fees, Advisory board. Kebriaei:Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Jazz: Consultancy. Hourigan:Merck: Other: Research Support (CRADA); Sellas: Other: Research Support (CRADA). Weisdorf:FATE Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding.

Background: Gilteritinib is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML and FLT3-mutation (FLT3mut+). However, the gilteritinib phase 3 ADMIRAL study (Perl et al NEJM 2019) enrolled prior to widespread adoption of either midostaurin as a component of standard intensive induction and consolidation or post-transplant FLT3inhibitor (FLT3i) maintenance. Some mechanisms of drug resistance can be shared across FLT3i's, suggesting response to gilteritinib might differ in patients treated with frontline FLT3i. A better understanding of how prior therapy modulates response to gilteritinib is necessary to clarify this novel agent's role in the current FLT3-mutated AML treatment algorithm. Methods: This is an ongoing multi-institutional analysis from 13 US centers identifying patients who received gilteritinib alone or as combination therapy for the treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Patients who received gilteritinib as a part of an ongoing trial were excluded. Response criteria were identical to the ADMIRAL trial. For patients with available data and a composite complete remission (CRc), we defined clinically measurable residual disease (cMRD) negative status by bone marrow flow cytometry using a cutoff of <1 x 10x105 cells as well as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for FLT3 mutation with a minimum sensitivity of 5%. Survival from the time of gilteritinib initiation was recorded. Multivariate analysis included all variables collected to determine interaction with patient outcome (CR and survival data). Kaplan-Meier curves and log rank test were used for survival analysis after gilteritinib initiation. Results: 72 patients treated with prior FLT3i exposure received gilteritinib for treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Patient characteristics are presented in table-1 with 46 (64%) previously receiving midostaurin, 19 (26%) sorafenib, and 7 (10%) other FLT3i. 8 (11%) received more than one prior TKI. NGS at diagnosis were available in 66 patients (92%) and co-mutations in DNMT3A, NPM1 and NRAS were observed in more than 10% of patients. Average duration of gilteritinib therapy was 5.7 months (range: 0.2-25 months). 27 (37.5%) received stem cell transplant (SCT) before gilteritinib and 15 (21%) underwent SCT after gilteritinib. The composite CR rate (CRc, defined as CR + CRi + CRp) was 51.4% (n= 37 patients). With regard to specific FLT3i's, we found no significant difference in median survival (7.1 months and 6.4 months for midostaurin and sorafenib, respectively) or remission rates (CRc 54% and 47% for prior midostaurin and sorafenib, respectively). The CRc rate for patients who received only prior 7+3 and midostaurin with or without consolidation was 58% with a median survival of 7.8 months. A trend toward higher CRc rate was noted in patients treated with gilteritinib in combination regimens rather than as a single agent (64% vs 43%, respectively, p=0.09 using Chi-square test). No survival advantage for combination therapy was seen over single agent. Survival was longest in patients who obtained a CR, particularly a cMRD negative response; this remained significant after censoring at the time of SCT (figures 1&2). Patients who received SCT after gilteritinib had significantly longer survival than non-transplanted patients (9.3 months vs 5.6 months, respectively, HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.2-0.8)(figure-3). Patients with concurrent mutations of NPM1/DNMT3A had a trend toward a higher CRc compared to FLT3 mutation alone (71% vs 50%, p= 0.2) but similar survival. With regard to mutations associated with drug resistance to other FLT3i's, patients with both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-D835 mutation had similar response and survival to FLT3-ITD alone. However, patients with MAPK pathway activating mutations (e.g. NRAS and PTPN11) had lower CRc (37.5% vs 59.5%) and poorer median survival than other patients (3.3 months vs 7.5 months) (HR 2.2- 95% CI 1.1-4.4) p value <0.01(figure-4). Conclusions: In this multi-center, retrospective analysis, gilteritinib remains a clinically active agent after treatment failure of prior FLT3i's (midostaurin or sorafenib). Mutations activating MAPK pathway have been implicated in secondary gilteritinib resistance but are seldom co-mutated at initial FLT3mut+ AML diagnosis. While further study is required, we hypothesize that their detection after frontline FLT3i therapy may represent treatment-emergent clones with propensity for pan-FLT3i resistance. Disclosures Zeidan: Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aprea: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; CCITLA: Other; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Yilmaz:Pint Pharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Daicho Sankyo: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy. Daver:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Syndax: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novimmune: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trillium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Perl:Novartis: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Other; FORMA Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Honoraria, Other; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: writing/editorial support, travel costs for meeting presentations related to study, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Writing/editorial support, travel costs for meetings, Research Funding; Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Beat AML: Consultancy; Arog Pharmaceuticals Inc: Other: uncompensated consulting, travel costs for meetings; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel costs for meeting. Altman:Kartos: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Amphivena: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Syros: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; ASH: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety and monitoring committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board - no payment but was reimbursed for travel; Kura Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board - no payment accepted, Research Funding; BioSight: Other: No payment but was reimbursed for travel , Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Agios: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Theradex: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Other: Advisory Board, Speaker (no payment), Steering Committee (no payment), Research Funding; PrIME Oncology: Consultancy; PeerView: Consultancy; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; France Foundation: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Some of the patients we are reporting on received gilteritinib in combination with other agents which is off-label use.

Introduction Clonal cytopenias of undetermined significance (CCUS) is defined by the presence of somatic driver mutations/copy number variations in hematopoietic cells in patients with low blood counts, in the absence of morphological evidence for myeloid neoplasms. Patients with CCUS are often symptomatic and can be transfusion dependent (TD), with high rates of progression to myeloid neoplasms, especially myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). In addition, similar to MDS, there are reports of CCUS patients responding to hypomethylating agents. Due to the lack of a formal diagnosis/morphological dysplasia, CCUS patients are often denied therapies or clinical trial enrollment. We carried out this study to validate our hypothesis that CCUS shares similar clinical and survival characteristics with lower risk MDS (LR-MDS). Methods CCUS patients were prospectively identified from the clonal hematopoiesis clinic, whereas LR-MDS patients were retrospectively identified from our institutional database. LR-MDS was defined as very low, low and intermediate risk MDS based on the R-IPSS categorization. Baseline demographics, blood counts, bone marrow (BM) morphology, cytogenetics, and NGS results were abstracted. Transfusion dependency was defined as requiring at least one unit of red cell or platelets every 4 weeks. The Mann-Whitney-U and Fischer's exact test were used to compare quantitative and qualitative data in subgroups. Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) estimates were used for survival analysis and compared using the log-rank test. Results 186 patients were included in the study; 74 (40%) with CCUS and 112 (60%) with LR-MDS, median age 66 years, with 63% being male (Table 1). In the CCUS group, 93% had one or more mutations (67% >1 mutation) detected by NGS, while 7% had clonal cytogenetic abnormalities. Common mutations in CCUS included TET2 (30%), SRSF2 (20%), DNMT3A (13%) and ASXL1 (11%); with 28% of patients being red cell TD and 15% being platelet TD. On application of the R-IPSS stratification, 40%, 45%, 12% and 3% were in the very low, low, intermediate and high risk categories, respectively. LR-MDS subtypes included MDS-RS (50%), MDS-MLD (21%), MDS-EB (10%), MDS del5q (7%), and MDS-U (12%). SF3B1 mutations were seen in 67% (95% of MDS-RS), while TET2 and DNMT3A mutations were seen in 29% and 21%, respectively. 60% of LR-MDS patients had >1 mutation. 44% were red cell TD, while 10% were platelet TD. In comparison to patients with CCUS, LR-MDS patients were more likely to have higher white blood cell counts (p=0.002), higher neutrophil counts (p=0.009), higher platelet counts (p<0.001), be red cell TD (p=0.031), have BM ring sideroblasts (p<0.001), have higher BM blast% (p=0.004) and carry SF3B1 mutations (p<0.001); whereas CCUS patients were more likely to have higher monocyte counts (p=0.009) and more likely to carry IDH1 (p=0.005), ZRSR2 (p=0.005) and ATM (p=0.012) mutations. Importantly there were no differences with regards to R-IPSS cytogenetic risk groups, R-IPSS prognostic categories, platelet TD, and mutations involving TET2, DNMT3A, SRSF2 and ASXL1 and TP53. Notably signal pathway mutations and mutations involving tumor suppressor genes were infrequent (<5%) in both groups. The LR-MDS patients had a longer median follow up (53 vs 15 months) and at last follow up 72 (64%) and 11 (15%) deaths had been documented in the LR-MDS and CCUS groups respectively. 13 (18%) CCUS patients progressed to MDS (10) and AML (3) over a median of 15 months, while 9 (8%) LR-MDS patients progressed to higher grade MDS (1) and AML (8), respectively (median follow up 53 months). There was no difference in the median survival between CCUS (median OS not reached) versus LR-MDS (median OS 8.3 years) (p=0.372, Figure 1). Conclusion In spite of subtle phenotypic/molecular differences between LR-MDS and CCUS, both entities had similar prognostication, distribution of high risk mutations and survival outcomes. Within a short follow-up, 18% of CCUS patients progressed to MDS/AML, indicating that regardless of the absence of dysplasia these entities are a continuum of myeloid neoplasms. In order to improve access to treatments and clinical trial opportunities, we recommend that close consideration be given to consider CCUS as a MDS subtype. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy.

Background Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) is a newly described entity with a high probability to progress into myeloid disorders upon follow-up (Malcovati et al, Blood 2017). Little data is known on how to effectively treat patients with CCUS. We hereby describe a single institution experience in managing symptomatic CCUS patients. Methods Patients who had CCUS and underwent active treatment were identified after receiving IRB approval. CCUS diagnosis was rendered if patients had non-diagnostic bone marrow biopsy evaluation combined with evidence of pathogenic myeloid somatic mutation using our institution next generation sequencing (NGS) panel (OncoHeme, Mayo Clinic). "Symptomatic patients" is determined by patients who need therapy beyond blood transfusion. Treatment type is based on physicians' choice. Clinical and lab results were collected. Response and progression were graded based on the MDS IWG 2006 criteria. The date of treatment initiation was used for overall survival (OS) and progression (either to myeloid neoplasm or worsening cytopenias) free survival (PFS) calculation. Stata 14.1(StatCorp) was used for data analysis. Results 1) Cohort characteristics: Between 2015 and 2020, 24 patients met inclusion criteria with median age of 72 years (range: 24-87). Twenty (83%) were men. 15 (63%) were white, 1 (4%) African American, 1 (4%) Native American and 7 unknown (33%). Eighty percent had ECOG PS≤1. Four (17%) patients had prior other hematology disorders and 3 (13%) had solid tumor. Two (8%) patients had previous radiation therapy, 2 (8%) received chemotherapy and 1 (4%) received allogeneic stem cell transplantation. At the time of treatment, the median of hemoglobin was 8.9 (range 6.8-13.7) g/dL, white blood cell 2.9 (range 1.4-12.3) *109/L, and platelet 76 (range 8-407) *109/L. Red blood cell (RBC) and platelet transfusion dependency rate were 54% and 29%, respectively. We identified 23 different mutations. Most common mutations occurred in SRSF2 (N=5, 21%), TET2 (N=5, 21%), U2AF1 (N=5, 21%), and TP53 (N=4, 17%). Ten (42%) patients had 1 mutation, and 14 (58%) had ≥2 mutations. Treatment included hypomethylating agents (HMA) (N=10, 42%), growth factors (N=11, 46%), steroid (N=4, 17%), testosterone (N=2, 8%), cyclosporine (N=2, 8%), rituximab (N=1, 4%), immunoglobulin (N=1, 4%), vitamin B12 and iron (N=1, 4%). Seven (29%) patients received ≥2 treatments. Median follow up duration was 17.5 months (range 8.9-26.1). Median time from the diagnosis to treatment was 2.1 months (range 0-26.8). 2) Molecular correlation with response The overall response rate (RR) was 50% (hematological or symptomatic improvement). Most responders (67%) were treated with HMA (p=0.013). HMA treatment effect was not significantly associated with DNA methylation genes (DNMT3A, IDH1, IDH2 and TET2, all p>0.05). The RR was 100% for the three patients with IDH1 mutation (treated with HMA, steroid and erythropoietin stimulating agent (ESA), respectively). The RR was 100% for the 3 patients with ZRSR2 mutation (2 HMA, 1 testosterone). The RR was 0% for 3 patients with SF3B1 mutation (1 testosterone and ESA, 1 vitamin B12 and iron, and 1 HMA). The number of mutations had no impact on RR (p=0.41). Table demonstrates the RR for each treatment. 3) Survival and progression outcome At the last day of follow up, RBC and platelet transfusion dependency rate were 38% and 25%, respectively. The median PFS was 16.9 months (95% CI: 7.5-65.3). Six patients (25%) progressed to myeloid malignancy with 4 myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and 2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Five patients progressed with worsening cytopenias. Among the 4 MDS patients, they had SF3B1, TET2, and ASXL1 mutations at the diagnosis of CCUS. Within the 2 AML pts, 1 had RUNX1 mutation, 1 had BCOR, DNMT3A, PHF6, RUNX1, SF3B1, STAG2, and TET2 mutations at the diagnosis of CCUS. The median OS was not reached with an estimated 2 year OS 77%. Three (13%) patients progressed with cytopenia and died. Their NGS at CCUS diagnosis showed ASXL1, TP53 and U2AF1 mutations, respectively. Conclusion Patients with CCUS responded to available treatments used for myeloid diseases. HMA were effective in this cohort. Mutation profile may have an impact on treatment response. Studies of larger cohorts are needed to validate our findings. Additionally, development of response and progression criteria would be helpful for such patients for reporting treatment outcomes. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy.

Background: Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is driven by the activity of the oncogenic BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase, which can be effectively inhibited by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) leading to prolonged overall and disease-free survival. Despite their effectiveness, disease can progress on TKI therapy, and lifelong treatment with TKI can have substantial negative effects on quality of life and financial health. Studies assessing the safety of TKI discontinuation in CML patients in molecular remission showed that TKIs can be discontinued in up to 45% of patients without disease recurrence. Programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) is an inhibitory immune checkpoint receptor expressed by T-cells that can be inhibited by the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab. Preclinical data have shown that PD-1 is highly expressed on CML-specific cytotoxic T-cells and PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) is present on CML cells. In murine CML models, the administration of anti-PD-L1 antibodies prolonged survival. As these studies suggest that disease relapse might be due to PD-1/PD-L1 mediated immune escape by CML cells, we designed the BLAST MRD CML 1 trial to study whether adding pembrolizumab to TKI is safe, increases the rate of conversion to undetectable minimal residual disease (UMRD) and allows a higher rate of TKI discontinuation. Methods: The primary endpoint of this ongoing national, ECOG-sponsored, single-arm pilot phase II clinical trial is to assess the proportion of CML patients on stable-dose TKI who convert to UMRD during or within 2 years of initiating pembrolizumab therapy (NCT#03516279). Secondary endpoints are (I) the proportion of CML patients who maintain UMRD for 6 months and 12 months, (II) the proportion of CML patients who discontinue TKI after achieving UMRD, (III) the proportion of patients who maintain UMRD off TKI at 2 years after first determined UMRD, and (IV) the incidence of grade 3 or 4 immune related adverse events related to pembrolizumab treatment during the first 2 years after registration. UMRD state is defined as an undetectable BCR-ABL using the central RQ-PCR assay with a sensitivity of 4.5 [MR4.5] on 2 consecutive occasions separated by at least 4 weeks with the date of achievement of UMRD constituting the date of first test. Immune related and other adverse events will be assessed according to CTCAE v 5.0 terminology and grading. Adult (≥18 years) patients with pathologically-confirmed CML and who have achieved major molecular response (MR3) but not UMRD at time of screening are eligible. Eligibility was recently expanded to allow third line TKI. Therefore, currently eligible patients must have been on first, second, or third line TKI therapy with either dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib, or bosutinib for at least 2 years prior to enrolment. Patients with accelerated or blast phase CML or who have received prior allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant or anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy are excluded. Patients will continue a standard dose of TKI therapy and receive pembrolizumab at 200 mg IV every 21 days (Figure 1). MRD status will be assessed centrally every 4 cycles. Patients who achieve UMRD at or prior to cycle 17 will discontinue TKI and pembrolizumab. If MRD remains positive prior to cycle 17, TKI and pembrolizumab will be continued for an additional 18 cycles. If MRD is still detectable after the second year of combined therapy, patients will come off study. If patients are in an UMRD state by the end of year 1 or 2 of pembrolizumab therapy, pembrolizumab will be discontinued. Patients who remain in UMRD status for one year after the first UMRD result will discontinue TKI therapy. Once TKI is discontinued, BCR-ABL will monitored q4 weeks for the first six months post TKI discontinuation, then q8 weeks for the subsequent six months, then q12 weeks for another year. Assuming that the addition of pembrolizumab to TKI will increase the conversion rate to UMRD from 20% to 40%, enrollment of 36 patients (40 patients to allow for 10% drop-out) would give this trial 91% power with a one-sided type-I error of 0.089. The combination therapy will be considered promising if 11 or more patients meet the criteria for TKI discontinuation. Toxicity will be monitored and reviewed every six months. Disclosures Zeidan: Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; CCITLA: Other; Astex: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Radich:Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bhatt:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Tolero: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Partnership for health analytic research: Consultancy; Jazz: Research Funding; National Marrow Donor Program: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Other. Gore:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Luger:Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Loxo Oncology: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding.

Background: Allogeneic HCT continues to be the optimal consolidation strategy for many patients with AML. Cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities are known to influence post-transplant outcomes. We tested the prognostic ability of a modified (mELN) classification system based on available CIBMTR genetic data, to predict post-transplant outcomes. Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of AML in first complete remission (CR1) with available pre-transplant cytogenetic and molecular mutational data, receiving a first allogeneic HCT from 2013-2017, were included. Patients were stratified according to mELN genetic classification in three distinct groups: favorable (Fav), intermediate (IM) and adverse (Adv). Clinical outcomes following HCT were compared among groups after adjusting for significant patient, disease, and transplant-related variables. The primary endpoint was disease free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), cumulative incidence of relapse, acute GVHD, and chronic GVHD. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare endpoints among mELN risk groups, age groups and genetic subsets within the adverse-risk group. Results: Demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1. 2289 patients (Fav, n=181; IM n=1185; and Adv n=923) met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for survivors was 35 months. Importantly, 41% of transplant recipients (n=936) were >60 years, 76% (n=1743) had de novo AML and 48% (n=1111) received a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Univariate analysis (UVA) demonstrated significant differences in 2-year OS (Fav: 67.7%, IM: 64.9% and Adv: 53.9%; p<0.001); DFS (Fav: 57.8%, IM: 55.5% and Adv: 45.3; p<0.001) and relapse (Fav: 28%, IM: 27.5% and Adv: 37.5%; p<0.001) There were no significant differences in NRM (p=0.467) or the incidence of acute (p=0.423) and chronic GVHD (p=0.442) among mELN groups. Initial multivariate analysis (MVA) of mELN risk groups indicated that there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the Fav and IM risk groups. Thus, these groups were combined for subsequent analyses. Adv risk (vs. Fav/IM) led to significantly worse OS (HR 1.39 [1.24-1.57] p=<0.001), DFS (HR 1.32 [1.18-1.48] p=<0.001), and relapse (HR 1.42 [1.23-1.63] p=<0.001) (Table 2). This mELN classification effectively stratified both younger (<60 y/o) and older (>60 y/o) patients for OS (Adv vs. Fav/IM HR for <60: 1.43 [1.21-1.69] p<0.001; >60: 1.44 [1.21-1.72] p<0.001), DFS (Adv HR for <60: 1.31 [1.12-1.53] p<0.001; >60: 1.41 [1.19-1.66] p<0.001) and relapse (Adv HR for <60: 1.44 [1.20-1.74] p<0.001, >60: 1.42 [1.15-1.76] p=0.001). NRM was higher for older patients (>60 y/o) in both the Fav/IM (HR 1.40 [1.10-1.78] p=0.007) and Adv-risk cohorts (HR 1.59 [1.18-2.13] p=0.002). Genetic subset comparisons within the adverse-risk group showed that patients carrying monosomy 5, del(5q) or monosomy 7 had inferior 2-year OS (42.6%, p<0.001) and DFS (35.2%, p<0.001), as well as higher rates of relapse (45%, p= 0.002) when compared to other patients within the Adv-risk cohort (OS 60%, DFS 50.8%, relapse 33.5%). Conclusion: Stratification using mELN criteria resulted in clear prognostic separation of OS, DFS and relapse in this large cohort of AML patients undergoing allogeneic HCT. While Fav and IM groups had similar OS, DFS and relapse rates; patients in the Adv risk group had the highest risk of relapse and inferior DFS/OS. However, the majority of patients in all cohorts had favorable outcomes for HCT in CR1. Our findings confirm the value of a combined genetic prognostic model in the AML HCT setting and justify the use of this stratification system in future HCT trials. Correlation of genetic subtypes with other important transplant variables, such as conditioning intensity and pre-transplant MRD status deserves further evaluation. There remains a subset of Adv-risk patients for which post-transplant outcomes continue to be poor, even when transplanted in CR1. Novel peri-transplant pre-emptive/therapeutic strategies are urgently needed for this high-risk cohort. Disclosures de Lima: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees, advisory board, Research Funding; BMS: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Kadmon: Other: Personal Fees, Advisory board. Komanduri:Kiadis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Jazz: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board. Bhatt:National Marrow Donor Program: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Other; Jazz: Research Funding; Agios: Other: Personal Fees; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees; Partner Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees; Pfizer: Other, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Other: Drug support for a trial; Partnership for health analytic research, LLC: Other: Personal Fees; Omeros: Other: Personal Fees; Abbvie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding. Saad:Orcabio: Other: research support; Kadmon: Other: research support; Amgen: Other: research support; Incyte Pharmaceuticals: Other: Personal Fees; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees. Copelan:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Nishihori:Karyopharm: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Other: Research support to institution. Weisdorf:Incyte: Research Funding; FATE Therapeutics: Consultancy.