Citations

e19007 Background: While clinical outcomes of patients (pts) with TP53 mutated (m) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are dismal, subsets of pts with eligibility to curative intent therapies can do better. As racial disparities are known to impact outcome in hematological malignancies, we sought to explore disparities in TP53m AML. Methods: We conducted a multicenter study of 304 TP53m AML pts, divided into 2 groups, White (n= 240) and Black/Hispanic (n=64), to compare difference in disease characteristics and clinical outcome. We grouped Black and Hispanic together as the number of pts were small in each group and our aim was to evaluate outcome in under-represented races/ethnicities. Results: Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table. The median age of the pts was comparable between White and Black/Hispanic (p= 0.97). A significantly higher proportion of Black/Hispanic pts (23%) had diabetes mellitus when compared with White (14%) pts (p= 0.02). A higher proportion of Black/Hispanic pts had therapy-related AML (33% vs. 20%, p= 0.03), complex cytogenetics (98% vs. 87%, p= 0.003) and co-mutations (70% vs. 57%, p= 0.02). The proportion of pts who received hypomethylating agent + venetoclax (29% vs 20%, p= 0.20) or CPX-351 (22% vs 20%, p= 0.13) were comparable between White and Black/Hispanic, respectively. A higher proportion of Black/Hispanic pts received supportive care (17% vs. 4%, p= 0.002). White pts had higher rates of complete remission with or without count recovery (25% vs. 19%, p= 0.07). Only 6% of Black/Hispanic pts received allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) compared to 16% for White pts (p= 0.01). The median event free survival was 2 months (mo) (95% CI;1.52-2.41) and 2.5 mo (95% CI:1.62-3.31) in White and Black/Hispanic pts, respectively (p= 0.71). The median overall OS was shorter for Black/Hispanic (6.37 mo [95% CI:2.88-9.85]) than for White (6.90 mo [95% CI:5.55-8.24] [p= 0.009]). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates poorer OS in Black/Hispanic pts with TP53m AML. Potential drivers of this disparity include lower alloHCT rates, higher rates of pts receiving supportive care, and higher-risk disease in Black/Hispanic pts.[Table: see text]

TPS7070 Background: Outcomes of adults with relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remained poor. CD38 is a transmembrane glycoprotein with several important functions including its role in immune escape of tumor cells [Chillemi A et al. Front Immunol 2017, Furano A et al. J Immunol 1990]. Several studies have demonstrated that CD38 is expressed in T-ALL and AML and is targetable with CD38 blocking agents [Naik J et al. Haematologica 2019, Bride KL et al. Blood 2018, Tembhare et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020]. XmAb18968 is a novel CD38-CD3 bi-specific T-cell engager with Fc domain modified to minimize Fcγ receptor binding and non-selective T-cell activation resulting in reduced cytokine release without compromising target cell killing. We hypothesize that targeting CD38 in relapsed/refractory T-ALL and AML would be safe and feasible using XmAb18968. Methods: This is an investigator-sponsored multi-institutional phase I study evaluating the safety and tolerability of XmAb18968. Patients aged 18 years or above with relapsed/refractory T-ALL or AML (including measurable residual disease relapse), CD38 expression ≥ 20% by flow cytometry, and adequate organ function will be eligible. Major exclusion criteria are hematopoietic cell transplantation within 6 months of enrollment, active acute graft-versus-host disease, and acute promyelocytic leukemia. The primary objective is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of XmAb18968. The secondary objectives include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory objectives include correlation of responses with genomic profile, characterizing changes in serum cytokines and phenotypic expression of activated T-cells and leukemic cells, correlation of the phenotypic expression with changes in the transcriptome at the single-cell level, proteomics evaluation of cytokine secretion at the single-cell level and correlation of response with N-glycan profiling, quantitative site-occupancy and direct glycopeptide analysis. The study will follow 3+3 design. Dose escalation will proceed in two separate groups: Group A for subjects with T-ALL and Group B for subjects with AML. Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level [0.8mg cohort, 1mg cohort, 1.3mg cohort, 1.5mg cohort). The observation period for dose-escalation will be 28-days. RP2D will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the 6 treated subjects’ experiences a dose limiting toxicity. A minimum of 24 and a maximum of 60 patients will be enrolled. The study is being conducted at 6 sites in United States and is currently open for enrollment. Clinical trial information: NCT05038644.

Abstract Background: Outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory AML (RR-AML) have remained poor. Therapy with venetoclax based combinations in this setting leads to CR/CRi rates of 21-49% (DiNardo CD et al. Am J Hematol 2018, Aldoss I et al. Haematologica 2018, Stahl M et al. Blood Adv 2020). Preclinical studies with BCL-2 inhibitors indicate potential mechanisms of drug resistance including overexpression of the anti-apoptotic protein MCL-1 (Konopleva et al. Cancer Cell. 2006). Pevonedistat is a first in class inhibitor of Nedd8 activating enzyme that induces the pro-apoptotic protein NOXA leading to neutralization of MCL-1 and apoptosis. Preclinical studies evaluating the combination of pevonedistat and venetoclax against AML cell lines have demonstrated a synergistic effect (Knorr KL et al. Cell Death Differ. 2015). Hence, we designed a phase I study to assess the safety and tolerability of adding pevonedistat to the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax in patients with RR-AML. Study design and methods: We conducted a phase I study with the combination of pevonedistat, venetoclax and azacitidine in patients with RR-AML. Patients aged 18 years or above with morphologically documented RR-AML, ECOG performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function were eligible. Major exclusion criteria were isolated extramedullary relapse, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 100 days of enrollment, and active acute GVHD. Previous therapy with hypomethylating agents (HMA) or venetoclax was not an exclusion criterion. The dose escalation phase was conducted using 3+3 design. Treatment included azacitidine (75 mg/m 2 daily x 7 days), venetoclax (400 mg daily x 28 days), and pevonedistat in escalating doses (10-20 mg/m 2 IV days 1,3,5 of each cycle) with a cycle length of 28 days. Pevonedistat was given at 10 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 1, 15 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 2 and 20 mg/m 2 dose in cohort 3. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of pevonedistat, azacitidine and venetoclax. Other endpoints included determination of response rates, duration of response, survival, pharmacokinetics, correlation of response rates with AML genomic profile, correlation of pretreatment levels of BCL2, BCLXL, MCL1, BAX or BAK with response, determination of changes in NOXA (PMAIP1) mRNA and protein expression pre-and post-pevonedistat treatment, evaluation of BH3 mimetic profiling on bone marrow samples by flow cytometry and assessing the sensitivity of leukemia and leukemic stem/progenitor cells to pevonedistat ex vivo. Results: Thirteen patients participated in the dose escalation phase, 12 of whom were evaluable. Median age was 69 years (61-91), 30.8% had secondary/therapy related AML, 69.2% with adverse risk disease, 53.8% previously received venetoclax/HMA and 23.1% had relapse after prior allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) (Table 1). Seven patients were enrolled into cohort 1 (pevonedistat 10 mg/m 2 dose) of which one was not evaluable, three patients enrolled into cohort 2 (pevonedistat 15 mg/m 2 dose), and three patients enrolled into cohort 3 (pevonedistat 20 mg/m 2 dose). Grade 3 or higher AEs included febrile neutropenia (23%), infection (15%), anemia (38%), neutropenia (54%), thrombocytopenia (38%). There was 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in cohort 1 (atrial fibrillation) that triggered cohort expansion. However, subsequent patients did not experience DLT despite planned dose escalation. Of the 12 evaluable total patients, CR/CRi was observed in 5 (41.6%) patients. Notably, patients with RR-AML who were venetoclax/HMA naïve had a CR/CRi 83.3% (5/6 patients). The response rates for each cohort are summarized in Table 2. Three of the five patients with CR/CRi (60%) achieved MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Four patients who achieved CR/CRi proceeded to allogeneic HCT after therapy. Median OS of the cohort was 5.4 months (1.8-14) and median OS was not reached in patients with CR/CRi. Conclusions: The addition of pevonedistat to venetoclax and azacitidine backbone is safe and well tolerated in patients with RR-AML. Dose escalation yielded encouraging efficacy in venetoclax/HMA naïve RR-AML patients. The study is currently in the dose expansion phase. Details on correlative studies examining mechanisms of therapeutic efficacy and resistance will be reported in the main meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Cardinal health: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; Qessential: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remain a therapeutic challenge, especially in elderly patients(pts) or those with T-cell immunophenotype. Inhibition of apoptosis is an increasingly recognized mechanism for resistance to conventional chemotherapy. Recently, the oral bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) has shown remarkable activity in a variety of hematologic malignancies. Preclinical data in both B- and T-ALL suggests synergy of VEN with vincristine(VCR). Liposomal VCR (L-VCR) is FDA approved for relapsed ALL having progressed following 2 or more antileukemia therapies. We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L-VCR and VEN for pts with r/r B-or T-cell ALL or LL. Here, we report for the first time the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644). Methods: This open-label phase I/II study enrolled pts age>=18 with ALL or LL who were R/R to multiagent chemotherapy. Subjects could have received prior VCR or VEN . In a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design, subjects were given a two week lead-in phase of single agent VEN in the following schedule: dose level 1 - 20, 50, 100, 200 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 400 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; dose level 2 - 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; and dose level 3 ‒ 100, 200, 400, 600 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 800 mg on days 5 ‒ 42. Weekly L-VCR 2.25mg/m 2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1, and starting day 1 for subsequent cycles (cycle 2+ = 28 days). For cycle 2 and beyond, VEN 400mg, 600mg, or 800mg based on dose level was given starting on day 1 of the cycle. Primary objective of the phase I portion was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of VEN in combination with L-VCR. Secondary objectives included determining preliminary response rates. Results: EA9152 was activated on April 26, 2018 and the phase I portion closed to accrual on March 2, 2021. Among the 18 pts in dose escalation (Table 1), the median age was 42 years (22-77). The majority of pts were male (56%), white (80%), and with a performance status (PS) of 1 (78%). Among 13 pts with disease diagnosis reported, 9 had ALL and 4 had LL. Seventeen of 18 (94%) reported previous chemotherapy, two of which had previous stem cell transplant. Median treatment cycles received is 1 (range 1-11). One patient, having received 11 cycles, remains on study at the time of data analysis. Grade >=3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated pts, with neutrophil count decreased (67%), white blood cell decreased (56%), and anemia (50%) as the most common. One pt experienced grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome. Twelve pts were considered evaluable for MTD determination. Six pts were considered not evaluable for toxicity analysis on account of withdraw of consent for treatment (n=4) or rapid disease progression (n=2). Two pts (2 of 3) at dose level 3 experienced DLTs, one each of hypokalemia and heart failure. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 - VEN 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42 and for subsequent cycles, with L-VCR 2.25mg/m2 IV weekly. In regards to best overall responses observed (Table 2) 4 of 18 pts (22%) achieved complete response (CR), 4 patients (22%) had stable disease, and 7 (39%) had progressive disease. Two patients in CR were found to be measurable residual disease (MRD) negative as well. Conclusions: In the phase 1 portion of this study, the combination of VEN and L-VCR was found to be safe for patients with ALL and LL. The MTD of the combination was found to be VEN 600mg daily with encouraging preliminary efficacy seen including MRD negative responses. The phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with VEN 600mg daily starting C1D1. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palmisiano: Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Foundation One: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Claxton: Astellas: Other: Clinical Trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Park: BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Podoltsev: Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Dinner: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Webster: AmGen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Litzow: AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inihibitor, is not FDA-approved for use in ALL.

Abstract Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the outcomes of patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Many older patients (pts) are not good candidates for intensive chemotherapy and are treated with TKIs plus corticosteroids or low intensity chemotherapy. Although the remission rates with this approach have been high, the median disease-free survival (DFS) has been short. Therefore, novel treatment strategies are needed. This trial evaluated the feasibility of combining the TKI dasatinib with prednisone and blinatumomab in older pts with Ph+ ALL. Methods: This trial was activated through the NCTN in January 2015 and closed to accrual in April 2021. Pt eligibility included: age ≥ 65 years; Ph+ or Ph-like ALL (with dasatinib-sensitive fusions or mutations); newly diagnosed or relapsed/ refractory; no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease; and adequate organ function. Treatment: For induction, pts received dasatinib 140 mg/d orally (PO) Days 1-56 along with prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d PO Days 1-24. Pts achieving complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (Day 28 or Day 56) continued dasatinib until Day 84 followed by 3 cycles of post-remission therapy (PRT) with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Pts not achieving CR or CRi by Day 56 received re-induction with blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Day 35 of blinatumomab. Pts not achieving CR/ CRi could receive a second cycle of blinatumomab. This was followed by 3 cycles of PRT with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Maintenance therapy consisted of prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d x 5 days every 28 days for a total of 18 cycles along with dasatinib 140 mg po qd indefinitely. CNS prophylaxis included intrathecal (IT) methotrexate every 4-6 weeks x 8 doses. IT methotrexate was given at least 2 days apart from blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Days 28, 56, 84 and additional time points were dependent on response. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed centrally by multi-color flow cytometry at Day 28. Statistics: 9 eligible/ evaluable pts receiving PRT were to be evaluated before enrolling additional pts. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined as: > Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities with the exception of nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea (if manageable with supportive care measures) or Grade 4 neutropenia lasting > 42 days with possible relationship to dasatinib or blinatumomab. If due to unexpected accrual, 12 pts were evaluable for DLT, the following rules would apply. If > 4 of the 12 pts experienced a DLT, the study would be temporarily closed pending review. Upon re-opening, 8 additional eligible and evaluable pts would be enrolled for a total of 20 pts receiving blinatumomab. Results: Due to rapid accrual, 16 pts enrolled before accrual was paused to assess feasibility and safety. Twelve pts were evaluable for DLT and 4 experienced a DLT: Grade 3 dyspnea and gastrointestinal pain (n=1), Grade 3 hypertension (n=1), Grade 3 dyspnea (n=1), Grade 3 hyperglycemia (n=1). These adverse events were deemed acceptable by the NCI and FDA and the study re-opened. A total of 25 eligible pts were accrued. The median age was 73 years (range 62-87). All pts were newly diagnosed. One pt was Ph-like, with the remainder being Ph+; 89% of Ph+ pts had additional cytogenetic abnormalities. During induction, 2 pts experienced treatment-related non-hematologic Grade 4 toxicities. No Grade 4 or higher treatment-related non-hematologic toxicities occurred during post-remission therapy or maintenance. Twenty-three out of 25 pts (92%) achieved a CR during dasatinib-based and prednisone induction therapy. Four did not receive PRT (2 due to adverse events, 1 to receive transplant, 1 because of insurance issues). Sixteen pts who achieved CR had MRD data. Five out of 16 pts (31%) were MRD negative at Day 28. One pt remains on PRT and 10 are on maintenance. The median follow up for pts who are alive is 1.7 years. The median overall survival (OS) and DFS have not been reached as of July 8, 2021. Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimates of OS and DFS are 85% (95% CI 58%-95%) and 80% (95% CI 55%-92%), respectively (Figure). Conclusions: This trial demonstrates the feasibility of combining dasatinib and blinatumomab in Ph+ ALL. In addition, with 1.7 years of follow up, outcomes are encouraging with high estimated 3-year DFS and OS. Longer follow up will be needed to determine the durability of these results. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Advani: Kite Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; OBI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moseley: BioSight Ltd: Consultancy. Wood: Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Juno, Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Other: Laboratory Services Agreement. Park: Intellia: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Wieduwilt: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Reata: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Jeyakumar: Jazz: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Atallah: Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Gerds: PharmaEssentia Corporation: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Constellation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Othus: Celgene: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Merck: Consultancy; Biosight: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Stone: Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Consultancy; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee.

Abstract Background: TP53 mutations occur in 10-20% of patients with AML, constitute high-risk disease as per ELN criteria, and confer poorer prognosis. Venetoclax combination therapies and CPX-351 were recently approved for AML treatment and lead to improved outcomes in subsets of high-risk AML, however the most effective approach for treatment of TP53-mutated (m) AML remains unclear. In this study we explored the clinical outcome of TP53m AML patients treated over the last 8 years as novel therapies have been introduced to our therapeutic armamentarium. Methods: We conducted a multicenter observational study in collaboration with 4 U.S. academic centers and analyzed clinical characteristics and outcome of 174 TP53m AML patients diagnosed between March 2013 and February 2021. Mutation analysis was performed on bone marrow specimens using 42, 49, 199, or 400 gene targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panels. Patients with an initial diagnosis of AML were divided into 4 groups (GP) based on the progressive use of novel therapies in clinical trials and their approvals as AML induction therapy during different time periods: 2013-2017 (GP1, n= 37), 2018-2019 (GP2, n= 53), 2019-2020 (GP3, n= 48) and 2020-2021 (GP4, n= 36) to analyze difference in outcome. Results: Baseline characteristics were not significantly different across different GP, as shown in Table 1. Median age of patients was 68 (range [R], 18-83), 65 (R, 29-88), 69 (R, 37-90) and 70 (R, 51-97) years in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.40). The percentage of patients with de novo AML/secondary AML/therapy-related AML in GP1-4 was 40/40/20, 36/29/24, 37.5/37.5/25 and 28/52/20, respectively (p=0.82). The proportion of patients with complex cytogenetics (CG) was 92%, 89%, 96% and 94% in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.54). The median TP53m variant allele frequency (VAF) was 48% (range [R], 5-94), 42% (R, 5-91), 45% (R, 10-94) and 60% (R, 8-82) in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.38). Four (11%), 13 (24.5%), 10 (21%) and 9 (25%) patients had multiple TP53 mutations in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.33). The proportion of patients who received 3+7 (30%, 16%, 6% & 8%; p=0.01), HMA only (11%, 18%, 2% & 8%; p=0.06), venetoclax-based (2.5%, 12%, 48%, & 61%; p <0.01) and CPX-351 induction (16%, 40%, 28% & 5%; p<0.001) were varied in GP1-4, respectively. The rate of CR/CRi was 22%, 26%, 28% and 18% in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.63). Treatment related mortality during induction was observed in 3%, 7%, 10% and 17% of patients in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.18). Overall, 28 (16%) patients received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) after induction/consolidation: 22%, 15%, 17% and 11% in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.67). In subset analysis, there was no difference in the rate of CR/CRi with venetoclax-based regimens vs. others (39% vs 61%, p=0.18) or with CPX-351 vs. others (25% vs 75%, p=0.84). The median progression-free survival was 7.7, 7.0, 5.1 and 6.6 months in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.60, Fig 1A). The median overall survival (OS) was 9.4, 6.1, 4.0 and 8.0 months in GP1-4, respectively (p=0.29, Fig 1B). In univariate analysis for OS, achievement of CR/CRi (p<0.001) and alloHCT in CR1 (p<0.001) associated with favorable outcome, whereas complex CG (p=0.01) and primary refractory disease (p<0.001) associated with poor outcome. Multiple TP53 mutations (p=0.73), concurrent ASXL1m (p=0.86), extra-medullary disease (p=0.92), ≥ 3 non-TP53m mutations (p=0.72), TP53m VAF ≥ 40% vs. < 40% (p=0.25), induction with CPX-351 vs. others (p=0.59) or venetoclax-based regimen vs. others (p=0.14) did not show significance for favorable or poor OS in univariate analysis. In multivariable analysis, alloHCT in CR1 (hazard ratio [HR]=0.28, 95% CI: 0.15-0.53; p=0.001) retained an association with favorable OS and complex CG (HR 4.23, 95%CI: 1.79-10.0; p=0.001) retained an association with dismal OS. Conclusion: We present the largest experience with TP53m AML patients analyzed by NGS. Although outcomes were almost universally dismal, alloHCT appears to improve the long-term survival in a subset of these patients. Effective therapies are warranted to successfully bridge patients to alloHCT and to prolong survival for transplant ineligible patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Litzow: Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Shallis: Curis: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Goldberg: Celularity: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aptose: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah: BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Foran: revolution medicine: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; actinium: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Outcomes of adults with relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoma (T-ALL or T-LBL respectively) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remained poor despite the availability of newer agents. CD38 is a 45 kDa transmembrane glycoprotein expressed by lymphoid and myeloid cells with several important functions including a role in immune escape from tumor cells [Chillemi A et al. Front Immunol 2017, Furano A et al. J Immunol 1990]. Several studies have demonstrated that CD38 is expressed in tumor cells of patients with T-ALL and AML and potentially targetable using CD38 blocking agents [Naik J et al. Haematologica 2019, Bride KL et al. Blood 2018, Tembhare et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020, Farber M et al. ASH 2018]. XmAb18968 is structurally distinct CD3-CD38 bi-specific T-cell engager with a full fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain modified to minimize Fcγ receptor binding and non-selective activation of T cells and other immune effector cells. XmAb18968 has optimized relative affinities for both CD3 and CD38 which results in reduced cytokine release without compromising target cell killing. We hypothesize targeting CD38 in relapsed/refractory- T-cell ALL/LBL and AML is safe and feasible using XmAb18968, a novel CD3-CD38 bispecific antibody. Study design and methods: This is an investigator-sponsored multi-institutional phase I study evaluating the safety and tolerability of XmAb18968. Patients aged 18 years or above with T-ALL, T-LBL or AML (including undifferentiated leukemia and bi phenotypic leukemia), in relapsed/refractory status (at least one line of prior therapy) including measurable residual disease relapse, CD38 expression ≥ 20%, and adequate organ function will be eligible. Major exclusion criteria are hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 6 months of enrollment, active acute GVHD, veno-occlusive disease, and acute promyelocytic leukemia. The study is planned to be conducted at 6 sites in United States. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of XmAb18968. The secondary endpoints include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include correlation of responses with genomic profile, assessment of serum cytokine response, identifying the changes in phenotypic expression of activated T-cells and leukemic cells, correlation of the phenotypic expression with changes in the transcriptome at the single-cell level, proteomics evaluation of cytokine secretion at the single-cell level and correlation of response with N-glycan profiling, quantitative site-occupancy and direct glycopeptide analysis. The study will follow 3+3 design for dose escalation and de-escalation in case of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Dose escalation will proceed in two separate groups: Group A for subjects with T-ALL and T-LBL and Group B for subjects with AML. Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level, starting with the first dose level. The DLT observation period for dose-escalation will be 28-days. RP2D will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the first 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the first 6 treated subjects experience a DLT. A minimum of 24 and a maximum of 60 patients will be needed for the dose escalation phase. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Qessential: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Cardinal health: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Johnson: Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding. Stock: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; amgen: Honoraria; agios: Honoraria; jazz: Honoraria; kura: Honoraria; kite: Honoraria; morphosys: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pluristeem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shah: Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Servier Genetics: Other; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Leonard: Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pratz: Agios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Research Funding; University of Pennsylvania: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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.