Citations

Introduction: ECOG ACRIN E1910 is a randomized phase III trial that showed that adults with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who become MRD negative (<0.01%) after induction chemo who receive blinatumomab with conventional chemotherapy (chemo) have improved survival compared with those who received chemo only (Litzow et al, Blood (2022) 140: Supplement 2, LBA-1). However, not all pts were able to receive all four planned cycles of blinatumomab in consolidation. In this report we assessed outcomes of pts in the blinatumomab arm of the trial who received all 4 cycles of blinatumomab compared to those who received 1-2 cycles. Methods: Patient between the ages of 30 and 70 with newly diagnosed BCR::ABL1 negative B-lineage ALL were enrolled and initially received 2.5 months of combination induction chemo utilizing a BFM-like regimen adapted from the E2993/UKALLXII clinical trial, with pegaspargase (after induction only for patients >=55 years of age) and addition of rituximab for CD20 positive patients. After remission induction (step 1) pts in morphologic complete remission (CR/CRi) received an intensification course of high dose methotrexate with pegaspargase for CNS prophylaxis (step 2). At the conclusion of step 2, remission and MRD status were determined centrally by 6-color flow cytometry with MRD negativity defined as <0.01%. In the primary analysis subset, MRD negative patients were randomized to receive an additional 4cycles of consolidation chemo or 2 cycles of blinatumomab at 28 mcg/day (flat dose) for 28 days each cycle followed by 3 cycles of consolidation chemo, another 4-week cycle of blinatumomab (3rd cycle of blinatumomab) followed by an additional cycle of chemo and then a 4th cycle of blinatumomab (step 3). Following completion of consolidation chemo +/- blinatumomab, pts were given 2.5 years of POMP maintenance therapy timed from the start of the intensification cycle (step 4). Estimates of OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of OS between treatment arms were conducted using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model with age, CD20 status, rituximab use, and whether pts intend to receive HSCT or not as stratification factors. As the number of cycles needed to optimize outcome has not been studied, an unplanned landmark analysis was used to compare OS of pts in the blinatumomab arm who received all 4 cycles o those who received 1-2 cycles. Time 0 was chosen as 9 months post step 3 randomization (the time that patients were supposed to complete 4 cycles of blina). Four pts who received blinatumomab but died within 9 months post step 3 randomization were therefore excluded from this analysis. Results: The study was activated on December 17, 2013 and closed to enrollment on October 15, 2019. 772 pts were screened for the trial and 488 were enrolled on step 1 induction therapy. The median age of the pts was 51 years (range 30-70). 224 MRD negative pts were randomized, 112 pts to each arm. In the blinatumomab arm 12 pts received 1 cycle (11%), 32 pts received 2 cycles (29%), 4 pts received 3 cycles (4%) and 63 pts received 4 cycles (57%). The OS of pts who received 1-2 cycles of blinatumomab was compared to control (Figure 1) The difference was not significant (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.34, p=0.22). Fig 2 compares the survival of those who received 1-2 cycles to those who received 4 cycles ( (HR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.16, p=0.076). Conclusion: The addition of blinatumomab to consolidation chemotherapy resulted in a significantly better overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone in pts with newly diagnosed B-lineage ALL who were MRD negative after intensification. This represents a new standard of care for pts aged 30-70 years with BCR::ABL1 negative ALL. The optimal dose and number of cycles is however unknown. In this unplanned subgroup analysis we demonstrate that a survival benefit can only be confirmed in patients who receive the intended 4 cycles of blinatumomab during consolidation. Further studies will be needed to determine if fewer cycles can provide a similar benefit.

Introduction: Preclinical studies have suggested synergism between lenalidomide (LEN) and ibrutinib (IBR) in multiple myeloma (MM). Both downregulate IRF4, a master transcriptional factor that regulates myeloma cell survival. Single agent oral IBR combined with dexamethasone proved well tolerated and active in advanced, steroid refractory relapsed MM as part of a large Phase1/2 study in 60 patients, with durable stabilization and minimal response seen in most evaluable patients (Richardson PG et al, BJH 2018). LEN is considered a standard of care in newly diagnosed MM, as maintenance and in relapsed disease, and a backbone of oral therapy in the MM treatment paradigm (Laubach JP et al, Leukemia 2016). Methods: We therefore conducted a 3+3 phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IBR in combination with LEN + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM who had at least 2 prior lines of therapy. Three dose levels (DL) were planned. Cycle length was 28 days. IBR was administered orally daily at 560mg on DL1-2 and 840mg on DL3, LEN orally days 1-21 at 15mg on DL1 and 25mg on DL2-3, and DEX orally days 1, 8, 15, and 22 at 40 mg if age < 75 or 20 mg if ≥75 for DL1-3. Patients with GFR ≥ 30 and < 60 were treated according to manufacturer's instructions with lenalidomide dosed at 10mg/d. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) included grade 4 thrombocytopenia; grade 4 neutropenia lasting more than 5 days or febrile neutropenia; grade 4 nausea, vomiting or diarrhea; grade 3 thrombocytopenia with bleeding or platelet transfusion; grade 3-4 hyperglycemia or thrombotic/embolic event, treatment delays ≥ 21 days for toxicity; and treatment related death. Due to changes in standard of care during the study, eligibility was modified to allow the enrollment of patients with RRMM who had at least 1 prior line of therapy. Response was assessed using IMWG/Uniform Criteria. Results: Fourteen patients (DL1-6 pts; DL2-3 pts; DL3-5 pts) registered to the study from March 2019 to May 2023, prior to its closure due to slow accrual. One patient on DL3 cancelled participation prior to start of treatment due to disease progression (PD). The remaining 13 patients are included in summary of toxicities and response but 2 patients on DL3 are excluded from determination of MTD due to discontinuing cycle 1 treatment due to COVID and receiving 280 mg/day of IBR instead of assigned 840 mg/day dose during cycle 1, respectfully. Twelve patients were evaluable for response. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range: 2-9), reflecting a heavily pretreated relapsed and refractory population. One of the 6 patient on DL1 developed a DLT, grade 3 non-viral hepatitis. None of the 3 patients on DL2 or the 2 patients on DL3 had a DLT. One patient on DL1 remains on treatment with stable disease for 42+ cycles. The median number of cycles administered was 3 (range: 1-42+). Severe toxicities reported included grade 3 lymphocytopenia (3), anemia (2), alanine aminotransferase increase (1), aspartate aminotransferase increase (1), blood bilirubin increase (1), hypocalcemia (1), hypokalemia (1) hypophosphatemia (1), febrile neutropenia (1), chronic kidney disease (1), non-viral hepatitis (1), soft tissue infection (1), and fatigue (1); grade 4 lymphocytopenia (1), and grade 5 sepsis (1). End of treatment reasons included: PD (7), toxicity (2), death [soft tissue infection that turned into sepsis considered to be likely related to DEX] (1), and concomitant conditions (2). Stable disease (SD) or better was achieved in 10 of 12 evaluable patients (83%), including one patient who achieved disease control for over 3.5 years. One patient (8%) on DL3 had a complete response (CR) but stopped treatment after 2 cycles due to reversible toxicity and comorbid conditions, based upon physician advice and patient choice. Conclusions: The combination of lenalidomide with Ibrutinib as an all-oral approach in RR MM proved feasible and generally tolerable, with the majority of discontinuation seen in this Phase I study due to disease progression. No COVID related - mortality was seen. SD or better was achieved in 83% of patients, including one CR. Potential future directions include combination approaches with next generation IMids such as pomalidomide, as well as other orally bioavailable novel agents with potent immune activating properties, such as CelMoDs. Support: AFT; Pharmacyclics; Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702725

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology focuses on considerations for the comprehensive care of AYA patients with cancer. Compared with older adults with cancer, AYA patients have unique needs regarding treatment, fertility counseling, psychosocial and behavioral issues, and supportive care services. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology addresses additional aspects of caring for AYA patients, including risk factors, screening, diagnosis, and survivorship.

7500 Background: The Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) ibrutinib +/- anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab (IO) is a standard frontline regimen for older adults with CLL. BTKi alone do not often lead to complete response (CR) or undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), thus are given indefinitely. Smaller trials showed that IO plus venetoclax (IVO) can induce uMRD CRs which may allow successful discontinuation. Methods: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041702 is a multicenter trial designed to evaluate if IVO with response-guided discontinuation of I improves progression free survival (PFS) versus IO with indefinite I in treatment-naïve, older CLL pts. IO is given in standard fashion, and in the IVO arm V is added at C3D1 and continued until C14D28. After 14 cycles, pts undergo response evaluation including CT scans and bone marrow biopsy with central MRD assessment by flow cytometry. Pts in IVO arm with uMRD CR discontinue I; all others continue I until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Eligible pts were age ≥70 years (amended to ≥65). Pts had CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no other life-limiting intercurrent illness. Pts were stratified based on Rai stage and +/- del17p13.1 by FISH, and randomized 1:1 to IO:IVO. With 431 evaluable pts, the trial had 90% power to detect significant improvement in PFS using a one-sided log-rank test with one-sided type 1 error rate of 2.5%. The Alliance DSMB approved release of data on Nov 4, 2022 after meeting the protocol defined futility threshold at the second planned event-driven interim analysis. Data were locked on December 15, 2022. Results: Between January 4, 2019 and July 15, 2022, 465 pts were registered (IO:232, IVO:233). Median age was 74; 67% of pts were men. Rai stage 3-4 was seen in 55% and del17p in 13%. With median follow-up of 14 months, PFS of IO was 87.5% compared to 85% on IVO. Events were observed in 29 pts on IO (4 progressions, 23 deaths, 2 pts started other therapy) and 35 on IVO (7 progressions, 28 deaths). The predefined futility boundary was crossed, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.20 (95% CI: 0.73-1.97) in favor of IO. COVID-19 was the leading cause of death in both arms, (11 COVID-19 deaths on IO, 19 on IVO), with 13 and 11 additional deaths from other causes, respectively. Censoring pts with COVID-19 related deaths, PFS HR is 0.82 (95% CI: 0.44-1.53) in favor of IVO. Grade 3+ toxicity and discontinuation in year 1 of therapy were similar between arms. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PFS for IVO is not superior to IO for treatment-naive older CLL pts in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Study treatment is ongoing, and long-term follow-up will determine if there are advantages to IVO, with special attention to MRD and therapy discontinuation. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03737981 .

7006 Background: Older adult patients (pts) with Philadelphia-chromosome-negative (Ph-) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have poor survival with chemotherapy. The α-CD22 Ab-drug conjugate inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) and α-CD19/CD3 T-cell engager blinatumomab (blina) were each superior to chemotherapy in Phase III studies in relapsed/refractory B-ALL. Because InO induces high CR rates and blina can induce durable remissions in low burden disease, we conducted a Phase II trial of induction InO then blina for older adults with newly-diagnosed (ND), Ph-, B-ALL. Methods: Eligible were pts ≥60 years old with ND, Ph-, CD22+ (≥20% of blasts) B-ALL without plan for allogeneic HCT (alloHCT). Pts with CNS leukemia or liver disease were excluded. Induction IA was InO 0.8 mg/m 2 day (d) 1, 0.5 mg/m 2 d8, d15 IV on a 21d cycle. Pts with adequate cytoreduction (marrow blasts by ≥50% or cellularity ≤20%) after IA went to IB if in CR/CRi (InO 0.5 mg/m 2 d1, d8, d15 IV; 28d cycle) or IC if no CR/CRi (InO 0.8 mg/m 2 on d1 and 0.5 mg/m 2 on d8 and d15 IV; 28d cycle). Those without cytoreduction to IA started course II blina. Pts without events in IA/B/C received course II blina CIV (9 mcg/d x 7d then 28 mcg/d x 21d; 14d break; 28 mcg/d x28d). Pts with CR/CRi to InO received 2 more 28d cycles of blina, others received 3 more. CNS prophylaxis was methotrexate 15 mg intrathecal x 8. The primary endpoint was 1-yr event-free survival (EFS) with a lower limit of a 90% CI for 1-yr EFS >10% defined as success. EFS was the time from therapy start to failure to achieve CR/CRh/CRi by end Course II, progression, relapse, or death, whichever occurred first. Results: Thirty-three eligible pts were treated (1 ineligible, 2 nd malignancy). The median age was 71 years (range 60-84). Median WBC count was 3,200/mcl (range 6-38,000). Median CD22 expression was 92% (range 21-100%). Eight pts had therapy-related ALL. The cumulative CR rates through Course IA/B/C and Course II were 85% and 97%, respectively (Table). With median follow up of 22 mo, the 1-yr EFS was 75% (95% CI 61-92%). The 2-sided 90% CI was 63-89% for 1-yr EFS with lower bound above 10% indicating regimen success. Twelve pts had events: 9 relapses, 2 deaths in remission (1 after alloHCT), and 1 death without remission from respiratory failure with sinusoidal occlusion syndrome of liver. The 1-yr OS was 84% (95% CI 72-98%). Nine pts have died, 6 after relapse. Conclusions: InO induction then blina consolidation is highly active for ND, Ph-, CD22+ B-ALL. The regimen is an option for older adults and a comparator regimen for future studies. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820 https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03739814 . N=33 I A/B/C II Composite CR* 28 ( 85%) 32 ( 97%) CR 15 (45%) 19 (58%) CRh 11 (33%) 12 (36%) CRi 2 (6%) 1 (3%) Refractory 3 (9%) † - 1-yr EFS 75% (95% CI 61-92%) 1-yr OS 84% (95% CI 72-92%) *CR+CRh+CRi † 1 completed IA only

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the clinical outcomes of patients with TP53‐mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are dismal, subsets of patients eligible for curative‐intent therapies may fare better. Because racial disparities are known to affect outcome in hematologic malignancies, the authors sought to explore disparities among patients with TP53‐mutated AML.MethodsA multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in a cohort of 340 patients who had TP53‐mutated AML (275 non‐Hispanic White [NHW] and 65 non‐Hispanic Black [NHB]) to analyze differences in treatment and outcome among NHW and NHB patients.ResultsThe median patient age was comparable between NHW and NHB patients (p = .76). A higher proportion of NHB patients had therapy‐related AML (31% vs. 20%; p = .08) and had co‐mutations (74% vs. 61%; p = .06). A higher proportion of NHW patients received intensive chemotherapy compared with NHB patients (47% vs. 31%; p = .02). Conversely, a higher proportion of NHB patients received low‐intensity chemotherapy (9% vs. 5.5%; p = .02) or best supportive care (22% vs. 7%; p < .001). The complete response rate (including complete responses with or without complete count recovery) was 31% versus 24.5% (p = .39) in NHW and NHB patients, respectively. Only 5% of NHB patients received allogeneic stem cell transplantation compared with 15.5% of NHW patients (p = .02). The proportion of patients who were event‐free (18.5% vs. 8.5%; p = .49) or who remained alive (24.9% vs. 8.3%; p = .13) at 18 months was numerically higher in NHW versus NHB patients, respectively, but was not statistically significant.ConclusionsThe current study highlights disparities between NHW and NHB patients with TP53‐mutated AML. Efforts are warranted to eliminate treatment disparities in minority populations.

Abstract We conducted a multi-center study to analyze factors predicting survival among patients with TP53-mutated (m) AML receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) in the recent era. Among 370 patients, 68 (18%) patients were bridge to allo-HSCT. The median age of the patients was 63 years (range, 33–75), 82% of patients had complex cytogenetics and 66% of patients had multi-hit TP53m. Forty three percent received myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and 57% received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC). The incidence of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) was 37% and chronic GVHD was 44%. The median event-free survival (EFS) from the time of allo-HSCT was 12.4 months (95% CI: 6.24–18.55) and median overall survival (OS) was 24.5 months (95% CI: 21.80-27.25). In multivariate analysis utilizing variables that showed significance in univariate analysis, complete remission at day 100 post allo-HSCT retained significance for EFS (HR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10–0.57, p = 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.10–0.50, p = < 0.001). Similarly, occurrence of chronic GVHD retained significance for EFS (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.09–0.46, p = < 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15–0.75, p = 0.007). Our report suggests that allo-HSCT offers the best opportunity to improve long-term outcome among patients with TP53m AML.