scholarly journals KIR-HLA Interactions Lack Clinical Utility in Matched Unrelated Donor Transplantation for AML: An Analysis of the CIBMTR and DRST Registries

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 419-419
Author(s):  
Joshua A Fein ◽  
Roni Shouval ◽  
Elizabeth Krieger ◽  
Henning Baldauf ◽  
Katharina Fleischhauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Unrelated Donor ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Relapse Risk ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory ◽  
Hla Ligands ◽  
Kir Genotypes

Abstract Background: The interaction between donor killer immunoglobulin-like receptor (KIR) and recipient HLA has been postulated to enhance the graft-versus-leukemia effect in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Historically, analyses of individual interactions between single KIR and their respective HLA ligands have yielded conflicting findings, and the clinical importance of these interactions in the matched unrelated donor (MUD) setting remains controversial. Here, we applied a systematic approach, studying both a wide range of KIR and class I HLA interactions at the single-receptor level as well as the most prevalent KIR genotypes in a large cohort of AML patients undergoing MUD transplantation. Methods: We included adult AML patients in complete remission transplanted from an 8/8-HLA MUD between 2010 and 2016 and reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Donor-KIR and respective recipient-HLA ligand interactions were assessed in multivariable Cox proportional hazard models for standard transplantation outcomes. To account for the compound effect of simultaneous KIR/HLA interactions, we applied a combinatorial approach to identify aggregate KIR genotypes based on combinations of individual KIR genes. The most frequently observed donor-KIR genotypes, in combination with recipient ligands, were evaluated for association with relapse using multivariable regression. Those associated (p < 0.01) with relapse risk were evaluated for differential relapse in a DRST (German stem-cell registry)/Collaborative Biobank cohort of donors/patients with similar inclusion criteria. Results: A total of 2,036 transplantations from the CIBMTR were included. Most patients were treated in first complete remission (78%) and received myeloablative conditioning (59%). We first studied eight known interactions between donor KIR and their respective HLA ligands (Figure A). Only donor-KIR-2DL2+/recipient-HLA-C1+ was associated with reduced relapse (compared to donor-KIR-2DL2-/recipient-HLA-C1+, hazard ratio [HR] 0.80 [95% confidence interval 0.67-0.94], p=0.008). However, no difference was found when comparing HLA-C group pairs among KIR-2DL2+ recipients, suggesting this finding is confounded by co-occurrence of other receptors. There are hundreds of possible KIR gene combinations (i.e. genotypes), which are typically clustered into two primary haplotypes, A and B. To study the cumulative effect of donor KIR, we investigated nine prevalent KIR genotypes (Figure B) and identified three significantly associated with relapse risk. (1) Donor KIR genotype 5 in all recipients irrespective of their HLA (Figure C, n = 138/2,036) and (2) genotype 3 in HLA-Bw4/x recipients (Figure D, n = 51/1,198) had significantly decreased relapse risk (HR 0.53 [0.37-0.78], p=0.002 and 0.34 [0.15-0.75], p=0.008, respectively). (3) KIR genotype 2 was associated with greater relapse in HLA-C1-homozygous recipients (Figure E, n = 87/836, HR 1.62 [1.14-2.30], p=0.007). These findings were not confirmed in the external European dataset (n = 796, Figure 1C-E); however, this cohort differed in ways that might affect the importance of KIRs, such as the higher frequency of reduced intensity conditioning (74% vs. 41%) and in-vivo T-cell depletion (79% vs. 37%). Conclusion: Our systematic investigation in two large AML cohorts receiving MUD allogenic HCT did not validate any association between individual KIR-HLA interactions and clinical outcomes. A combinatorial approach identified combinations potentially protective against relapse, however these could not be confirmed in a second dataset. Overall, our findings do not support KIR-informed donor selection using the approaches outlined here. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Shouval: Medexus: Consultancy. Kroeger: AOP Pharma: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Horowitz: Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Mesoblast: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding. Malmberg: Merck: Research Funding; Vycellix: Consultancy; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Miller: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ONK Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vycellix: Consultancy; GT Biopharma: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Wugen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mohty: Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria. Romee: Crispr Therapeutics: Research Funding; Glycostem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schetelig: Roche: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; BMS: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees . Weisdorf: Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Koreth: Biolojic Design: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Mallinckrodt: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Cugene: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Moderna: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; EMD Serono/Merck: Consultancy; Gentibio Inc.: Consultancy; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Clinigen Labs: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Equillium: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Conventional Immunochemotherapy (R-CHOEP) Vs High-Dose Immunochemotherapy (R-MegaCHOEP) in Younger Patients with High-Risk Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma: 10-Year Long-Term Follow-up of a German Lymphoma Alliance (GLA) Study

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1589-1589
Author(s):  
Fabian Frontzek ◽  
Marita Ziepert ◽  
Maike Nickelsen ◽  
Bettina Altmann ◽  
Bertram Glass ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Introduction: The R-MegaCHOEP trial showed that dose-escalation of conventional chemotherapy necessitating autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) does not confer a survival benefit for younger patients (pts) with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma in the Rituximab era (Schmitz et al., Lancet Oncology 2012; 13, 1250-1259). To describe efficacy and toxicity over time and document the long-term risks of relapse and secondary malignancy we present the 10-year follow-up of this study. Methods: In the randomized, prospective phase 3 trial R-MegaCHOEP younger pts aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk (aaIPI 2-3) aggressive B-cell lymphoma were assigned to 8 cycles of CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubcine, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone) or 4 cycles of dose-escalated high-dose therapy (HDT) necessitating repetitive ASCT both combined with Rituximab. Both arms were stratified according to aaIPI, bulky disease, and center. Primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). All analyses were calculated for the intention-to-treat population. This follow-up report includes molecular data based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC (IHC: 31/92 positive [40-100%], FISH: 14/103 positive), BCL2 (IHC: 65/89 positive [50-100%], FISH: 23/111 positive) and BCL6 (IHC: 52/86 positive [30-100%], FISH: 34/110 positive) and data on cell of origin (COO) classification according to the Lymph2CX assay (GCB: 53/88; ABC: 24/88; unclassified: 11/88). Results: 130 pts had been assigned to R-CHOEP and 132 to R-MegaCHOEP. DLBCL was the most common lymphoma subtype (~80%). 73% of pts scored an aaIPI of 2 and 27% an aaIPI of 3. 60% of pts had an initial lymphoma bulk and in 40% more than 1 extranodal site was involved. After a median observation time of 111 months, EFS at 10 years was 57% (95% CI 47-67%) in the R-CHOEP vs. 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP arm (42-61%) (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8, p=0.228), overall survival (OS) after 10 years was 72% (63-81%) vs. 66% (57-76%) respectively (p=0.249). With regard to molecular characterization, we were unable to detect a significant benefit for HDT/ASCT in any subgroup analyzed. In total, 16% of pts (30 pts) relapsed after having achieved a complete remission (CR). 23% of all relapses (7 pts) showed an indolent histology (follicular lymphoma grade 1-3a) and 6 of these pts survived long-term. In contrast, of 23 pts (77%) relapsing with aggressive DLBCL or unknown histology 18 pts died due to lymphoma or related therapy. The majority of relapses occurred during the first 3 years after randomization (median time: 22 months) while after 5 years we detected relapses only in 5 pts (3% of all 190 pts prior CR). 11% of pts were initially progressive (28 pts) among whom 71% (20 pts) died rapidly due to lymphoma. Interestingly, the remaining 29% (8 pts) showed a long-term survival after salvage therapy (+/- ASCT); only 1 pt received allogeneic transplantation. The frequency of secondary malignancies was very similar in both treatment arms (9% vs. 8%) despite the very high dose of etoposide (total 4g/m2)in the R-MegaCHOEP arm. We observed 2 cases of AML and 1 case of MDS per arm. In total 70 pts (28%) have died: 30 pts due to lymphoma (12%), 22 pts therapy-related (11 pts due to salvage therapy) (9%), 8 pts of secondary neoplasia (3%), 5 pts due to concomitant disease (2%) and 5 pts for unknown reasons. Conclusions: This 10-year long-term follow-up of the R-MegaCHOEP trial confirms the very encouraging outcome of young high-risk pts following conventional chemotherapy with R-CHOEP. High-dose therapy did not improve outcome in any subgroup analysis including molecular high-risk groups. Relapse rate was generally low. Pts with aggressive relapse showed a very poor long-term outcome while pts with indolent histology at relapse survived long-term. Secondary malignancies occurred; however, they were rare with no excess leukemias/MDS following treatment with very high doses of etoposide and other cytotoxic agents. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Figure Disclosures Nickelsen: Roche Pharma AG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: advisory board; Roche: Honoraria. Truemper:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Held:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board. Viardot:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenwald:MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lenz:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy. Schmitz:Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals Identification of Two CAR T-Cell Populations Associated with Complete Response or Progressive Disease in Adult Lymphoma Patients Treated with Axi-Cel

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 779-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zinaida Good ◽  
Jay Y. Spiegel ◽  
Bita Sahaf ◽  
Meena B. Malipatlolla ◽  
Matthew J. Frank ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cells ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Car T Cells ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Car T ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL). Long-term analysis of the ZUMA-1 phase 1-2 clinical trial showed that ~40% of Axi-cel patients remained progression-free at 2 years (Locke et al., Lancet Oncology 2019). Those patients who achieved a complete response (CR) at 6 months generally remained progression-free long-term. The biological basis for achieving a durable CR in patients receiving Axi-cel remains poorly understood. Here, we sought to identify CAR T-cell intrinsic features associated with CR at 6 months in DLBCL patients receiving commercial Axi-cel at our institution. Using mass cytometry, we assessed expression of 33 surface or intracellular proteins relevant to T-cell function on blood collected before CAR T cell infusion, on day 7 (peak expansion), and on day 21 (late expansion) post-infusion. To identify cell features that distinguish patients with durable CR (n = 11) from those who developed progressive disease (PD, n = 14) by 6 months following Axi-cel infusion, we performed differential abundance analysis of multiparametric protein expression on CAR T cells. This unsupervised analysis identified populations on day 7 associated with persistent CR or PD at 6 months. Using 10-fold cross-validation, we next fitted a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (lasso) model that identified two clusters of CD4+ CAR T cells on day 7 as potentially predictive of clinical outcome. The first cluster identified by our model was associated with CR at 6 months and had high expression of CD45RO, CD57, PD1, and T-bet transcription factor. Analysis of protein co-expression in this cluster enabled us to define a simple gating scheme based on high expression of CD57 and T-bet, which captured a population of CD4+ CAR T cells on day 7 with greater expansion in patients experiencing a durable CR (mean±s.e.m. CR: 26.13%±2.59%, PD: 10.99%±2.53%, P = 0.0014). In contrast, the second cluster was associated with PD at 6 months and had high expression of CD25, TIGIT, and Helios transcription factor with no CD57. A CD57-negative Helios-positive gate captured a population of CD4+ CAR T cells was enriched on day 7 in patients who experienced progression (CR: 9.75%±2.70%, PD: 20.93%±3.70%, P = 0.016). Co-expression of CD4, CD25, and Helios on these CAR T cells highlights their similarity to regulatory T cells, which could provide a basis for their detrimental effects. In this exploratory analysis of 25 patients treated with Axi-cel, we identified two populations of CD4+ CAR T cells on day 7 that were highly associated with clinical outcome at 6 months. Ongoing analyses are underway to fully characterize this dataset, to explore the biological activity of the populations identified, and to assess the presence of other populations that may be associated with CAR-T expansion or neurotoxicity. This work demonstrates how multidimensional correlative studies can enhance our understanding of CAR T-cell biology and uncover populations associated with clinical outcome in CAR T cell therapies. This work was supported by the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. Figure Disclosures Muffly: Pfizer: Consultancy; Adaptive: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Miklos:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mackall:Vor: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Roche: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Adaptimmune LLC: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Glaxo-Smith-Kline: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Allogene: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apricity Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Obsidian: Research Funding; Lyell: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: Founder, Research Funding; Nektar: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; PACT: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bryologyx: Other: Scientific Advisory Board.

scholarly journals Central Nervous System Involvement By Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2426-2426
Author(s):  
Nicole McLaughlin ◽  
Jonas Paludo ◽  
Yucai Wang ◽  
David J. Inwards ◽  
Nora Bennani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cns Involvement ◽  
Extranodal Involvement ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Abstract Background: While extranodal involvement by mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is relatively common, involvement of the central nervous system (CNS) is rare (<5% of cases), with limited treatment options. We report the outcomes of 36 patients (pts) with CNS involvement compared to 72 matched control MCL pts without CNS involvement. Methods: MCL pts with CNS involvement seen at Mayo Clinic between 1/1995-9/2020 were identified using the Mayo Data Explorer tool. CNS involvement was defined by tissue biopsy confirmed CNS MCL, CSF analysis demonstrating lymphoma cells, and/or neuroimaging findings compatible with CNS involvement. A 2:1 control group of MCL pts without CNS involvement, matched by age (+/- 2 years) and year of diagnosis (+/- 1 year), was selected among all MCL cases. Medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, treatment modalities, and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time to event analysis. Wilcoxon test was used to compare continuous variables and Chi square test was used for categorical variables. Results: Out of 1,753 pts with MCL, 36 (2%) had evidence of CNS involvement, including 4 pts with CNS involvement at initial MCL diagnosis. Baseline characteristics of pts with CNS involvement (CNS MCL group) and those without CNS involvement (control group) are shown in Table 1. At MCL diagnosis, non-CNS extranodal involvement was seen in 30 (83%) pts in the CNS MCL group (24 pts with 1 site and 6 pts with ≥ 2 sites), with bone marrow being the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=24, 67%). For the control group, 54 (75%) pts had extranodal involvement (44 pts with 1 site and 10 pts with ≥ 2 sites), and bone marrow was also the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=50, 69%). Notably, advanced stage disease (stage 3-4) was more commonly seen in the CNS MCL group (n=32, 97%) than in the control group (n=59, 83%) (p=0.04) at MCL diagnosis. Blastoid variant was present in a higher proportion of pts in the CNS MCL group (n=11, 31%) compared to the control group (n=8, 11%) (p=0.02). The CNS MCL group also presented with a higher median serum LDH at diagnosis (239 U/L [range 153-1901] vs. 187 U/L [range 124-588], p=0.02), and higher Ki-67 (40% [range 15-100] vs. 30% [range 10-90], p=0.04) compared to the control group. The most common frontline treatment regimen was anthracycline-based therapies (i.e. R-CHOP, Nordic regimen, R-hyperCVAD) for both groups (58% in CNS MCL group and 56% in control group). 14 (39%) pts in the CNS MCL group underwent autologous stem cell transplant in CR1 vs. 31 pts (43%) in the control group. Similar use of rituximab maintenance was seen in both groups (31% in CNS MCL group and 25% in control group). Median total lines of therapy from initial MCL diagnosis was 3 (range 1-9) in CNS MCL group and 2 (range 1-9) in the control group. The median follow-up from MCL diagnosis was 134 months (95% CI:119-163) for the entire cohort. Median OS from MCL diagnosis was 50.3 months (95% CI: 20.9-71.1) for the CNS MCL group compared to 97.1 months (95% CI: 82.6-192.7; p=<0.001) for the control group (Figure 1). Median time from MCL diagnosis to CNS involvement was 25 months (range 0-167). Median OS from CNS involvement was 4.7 months (95% CI: 2.3-6.7). At last follow up, 31 (86%) pts were deceased from the CNS MCL group, compared to 38 (52%) pts in the control group. For the CNS MCL group, the causes of death were CNS lymphoma in 10 (32%) pts, systemic lymphoma in 9 (29%) pts, treatment-related complication in 7 (23%) pts, and other/unknown in 5 (16%) pts. For the control group, the causes of death were systemic lymphoma in 15 (39%) pts, treatment-related in 2 (5%) pts, and other/unknown in 21 (55%) pts. Conclusion: In pts with MCL, CNS involvement is associated with worse outcomes as evident by a shorter median OS from initial MCL diagnosis (50 months vs. 97 months). Involvement of the CNS by lymphoma is an important contributor for the shorter OS as suggested by the median OS of only 5 months from CNS involvement. Advanced stage, blastoid variant, elevated LDH, and elevated Ki67 at MCL diagnosis were features more commonly seen in the CNS MCL cohort. Validation of risk factors at initial MCL diagnosis associated with CNS involvement and exploring the role of CNS prophylaxis are important topics for further investigation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Phase I Trial Using CD19/CD22 Bispecific CAR T Cells in Pediatric and Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 744-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liora M Schultz ◽  
Lori S Muffly ◽  
Jay Y. Spiegel ◽  
Sneha Ramakrishna ◽  
Nasheed Hossain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cells ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Car T Cells ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Car T ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells targeting either CD19 or CD22 have yielded striking complete remission (CR) rates of 70%-90% in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but CD19 negative and CD22 low relapse limits the curative potential of these single-antigen CAR T cell approaches. We hypothesized that a bivalent CAR-T construct that can target CD19 and/or CD22 would prevent antigen negative/low relapse. Here we present the combined single institution experience to date of pediatric and adult patients with R/R ALL treated with this novel bispecific CAR. Methods: We conducted parallel Phase I clinical trials of CD19/CD22 bispecific CAR T cells in pediatric and adult patients with relapsed/refractory ALL. We utilized lentiviral transduction of a bivalent CAR construct incorporating the fmc63 CD19 and m971 CD22 single chain variable fragments (scFvs) and a 41BB costimulatory endodomain. After lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, patients were infused with fresh or cryopreserved CAR T cells manufactured using a 7-11 day process. Two dose levels were tested during dose escalation: Dose level 1 was 1x106 CAR T cells/kg and dose level 2 was 3x106 cells/kg. Primary objectives assessed the ability to successfully manufacture CAR19/22 CAR T cells and safety while response at Day 28 post-infusion was a secondary objective. Blood, bone marrow and cerebrospinal fluid samples were obtained at protocol defined intervals for correlative biology studies. Results: Nineteen patients have been enrolled (10 pediatric; 9 adult) with a median age of 23 years (range, 2-68) and median of 4 (range, 2-11) prior lines of leukemia-directed therapy. Ten patients received prior HCT, 9 were treated with prior Blinatumomab, 3 with prior CD19 directed CAR T cells and 4 with prior Inotuzumab. Fourteen patients (8 pediatric, 6 adult) have been infused to date with CD19/CD22 bispecific CAR T cells; 7 were treated at dose level 1 (DL1) and 7 at dose level 2 (DL2). Successful manufacturing of cells at target dose levels was achieved in all patients. Twelve patients have reached day 28 and are included in the safety and response analysis presented here. Nine of 12 (75%) experienced cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and 2/12 (17%) developed immune-effector cell neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). The CRS and ICANS were all grade 1 or 2 across both dose levels and across pediatric and adult patients except for one adult with high disease burden who experienced grade 4 CRS and grade 4 ICANS, both of which were reversible. No differences in toxicities were seen across the patient age spectrum and there were no cases of treatment-related mortality within 28 days following CAR T infusion. Eleven of 12 (92%) patients achieved a CR, 10 of whom achieved CR at day 28 and one with a PR of extramedullary disease at day 28 which improved to CR by day 180 without further leukemia-directed intervention. One patient had primary progressive disease prior to day 28. Peak CAR expansion as detected by peripheral blood flow cytometry reached a median level of 11.13% (DL1) and 29.1% (DL2) CAR T of CD3+ cells with a range of 0.7-22.54% and 3.8-86.96%, respectively. To date, 3 patients (1 pediatric and 2 adult patients) have relapsed, all with retention of CD19. Post-remission practice differed across pediatric and adult patients; Six pediatric patients reaching day 28 underwent consolidative hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) whereas no adult patients received subsequent HCT. One patient died from complications post HCT while in remission. Therefore, the overall survival for all infused patients was 92% with a median follow-up of 9.5 months from time of infusion (range, 1-20). Conclusion: The combined pediatric and adult phase I trials of bispecific CD19/CD22 targeting CAR T cells in relapsed/refractory ALL demonstrates safety and tolerability at two dose levels. Expanded accrual at dose level 2 is ongoing and clinical outcomes will be updated. This work additionally demonstrates feasibility of delivering unified B-ALL CAR T cell therapy across age boundaries. Multi-parametric CyTOF studies permitting CAR T cell phenotyping in conjunction with single cell TCR tracking, proteomics, epigenomics and cytokine profiling are ongoing and will be used to further characterize persisting CAR T cells and define inter-product and inter-patient variability. Disclosures Muffly: Pfizer: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy; Adaptive: Research Funding. Majzner:Xyphos Inc.: Consultancy; Lyell Immunopharma: Consultancy. Feldman:Octane Biotech, Inc.: Employment; Personalized Medicine Initiative Science: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Miklos:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mackall:Obsidian: Research Funding; Lyell: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Other: Founder, Research Funding; Nektar: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; PACT: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bryologyx: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Vor: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Roche: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Adaptimmune LLC: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Glaxo-Smith-Kline: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Allogene: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apricity Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI) and Validation of a Proposed Novel Risk Model (BALL Score) in Real-World Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) CLL Patients Receiving Idelalisib and Rituximab

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5485-5485
Author(s):  
Massimo Gentile ◽  
Gianluigi Reda ◽  
Francesca Romana Mauro ◽  
Paolo Sportoletti ◽  
Luca Laurenti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

The CLL-IPI score, which combines genetic, biochemical, and clinical parameters, represents a simple worldwide model able to refine risk stratification for CLL patients. This score, developed in the era of chemo-immunotherapy, has not been gauged extensively in R/R-CLL patients treated with novel targeted agents, such as BCR and BCL2 inhibitors. Soumerai et al (Lancet Hematol 2019) assembled a novel risk model for OS in the setting of R/R-CLL receiving targeted therapies in clinical trials. This model, consisting of four accessible markers (β2M, LDH, Hb, and time from initiation of last therapy; BALL score), is able to cluster 3 groups of CLL patients with significantly different OS. This multicenter, observational retrospective study aimed to validate the proposed Soumerai (BALL) and/or CLL-IPI scores for R/R-CLL real-world patients treated with idelalisib and rituximab (IDELA-R). The primary objectives were to determine whether: i) the CLL-IPI retains its prognostic power also in R/R patients treated with IDELA-R; ii) the BALL score is of prognostic value for IDELA-treated R/R-CLL patients, and iii) the BALL score is predictive of PFS. This study, sponsored by Gilead (ISR#IN-IT-312-5339), included CLL patients collected from 12 Italian centers, who received IDELA-R (idelalisib 150 mg b.i.d. and a total of 8 rituximab infusions intravenously) outside clinical trials as salvage therapy with available data for the calculation of the CLL-IPI and BALL scores at the time of treatment start. OS was estimated for all subgroups of both scores. Additionally, risk-specific PFS was assessed. Kaplan-Meier curve, log-rank test, and Cox regression analyses were performed. The prognostic accuracy of the predictive model was assessed by Harrell's C-index. Overall, 120 CLL patients were included in this analysis. The majority of patients were Binet stage B and C (94.2%). The median age was 75 years and 83 cases (69.2%) were male. The median number of previous therapies was 3 (range 1-9) Baseline patient features are listed in Table 1. After a median follow-up of 1.6 years (1 month to 5.8 years), 33 patients had died and 39 experienced an event (death or progression). CLL-IPI scoring (115/120 evaluable cases) indicated that 6 patients (5.2%) were classified as low-risk, 24 (20.9%) as intermediate-risk, 58 (50.4%) as high-risk, and 27 (23.5%) as very high-risk. Stratification of patients according to the CLL-IPI score did not allow prediction of significant differences in OS. Thus, low-risk patients had a 2-year OS probability of 75% (HR=1), with an intermediate-risk of 68% (HR=2.9, 95%CI 0.37-23.3, P=0.3), high-risk of 83% (HR=1.58, 95%CI 0.2-12.5, P=0.66), and very high-risk of 63% (HR=5.9, 95%CI 0.78-45.2, P=0.86). Next, we tested a modified CLL-IPI by assigning a more balanced score to the original CLL-IPI variables (Soumerai et al, Leukemia Lymphoma 2019), partially overlapping previous results. Specifically, modified CLL-IPI high-risk group showed a significantly different OS as compared with intermediate- and low-risk groups. However, differently from the original report no difference was observed between low- and intermediate-risk). According to the BALL score (120/120 evaluable cases), 33 patients (27.5%) were classified as low-risk, 68 (56.7%) as intermediate-risk, and 19 (15.8%) as high-risk. Stratification of patients according to the BALL score predicted significant differences in terms of OS. Thus, low-risk patients had a 2-year OS probability of 92% (HR=1), intermediate-risk of 76% (HR=5.47, 95%CI 1.3-23.7, P=0.023), and high-risk of 54% (HR=15.1, 95%CI 3.4-67, P<0.0001) (Figure 1). Harrell's C-statistic was 0.68 (P<0.001) for predicting OS. To note, BALL score failed to significantly stratify patients in terms of PFS. As for Soumerai et al (Leukemia Lymphoma 2019), the original CLL-IPI score did not retain discriminative power in term of OS in R/R-CLL patients receiving IDELA-R. The modified CLL-IPI failed to stratify low- and intermediate-risk groups, likely due to the number of cases analysed in the current cohort and the heterogeneous IDELA-containing regimens included in the Soumerai study (Soumerai et al, Leukemia Lymphoma 2019). The CLL-IPI was designed for CLL patients treated with first-line chemo-immunotherapy. Herein, we confirm the prognostic power of the BALL score in this real-world series for OS, while losing the predictive impact of patient outcomes in terms of PFS. Disclosures Mauro: Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coscia:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Varettoni:ABBVIE: Other: travel expenses; Roche: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: travel expenses. Rossi:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Janseen: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Scientific advisory board. Gaidano:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Myeloablative Fractionated Busulfan Conditioning Regimen with Sorafenib in Patients with AML: Results of Phase I Clinical Trial

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 556-556
Author(s):  
Uday R. Popat ◽  
Roland Bassett ◽  
Peter F. Thall ◽  
Amin M. Alousi ◽  
Gheath Alatrash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
License Agreement ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Post Transplant ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Abstract Background: Myeloablative conditioning can be given safely to older patients by administering busulfan over a longer period (fractionated busulfan regimen) than the standard four-day regimen. (Popat, et al Lancet Haematology 2018). This longer conditioning regimen duration allows the addition of oral targeted agents like sorafenib, which may be synergistic with conditioning chemotherapy and thus further improve disease control. Therefore, we added sorafenib to fludarabine and fractionated busulfan regimen (f-bu) in a phase 1 dose-finding trial studying 4 different doses of sorafenib with f-bu (NCT03247088). Here we report the results of this trial. Methods: Between 3/2018 and 6/2021, 24 patients with AML aged 18 to 70 years with adequate organ function and 8/8-HLA matched related or unrelated donors were enrolled prospectively. The dose of sorafenib was varied among the four values 200, 400, 600, and 800 mg administered from day -24 to -5. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade 3 or higher regimen-related non-hematologic, non-infectious, non-GVHD toxicity occurring between day -24 and day 3. The Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method (BMA-CRM) with target DLT probability 0.30 was used to choose doses for successive cohorts of 3 patients. The first cohort was treated at the lowest sorafenib dose 200, with all successive cohorts' doses chosen adaptively by the BMA-CRM. The doses and schedules of busulfan and fludarabine were fixed, with f-Bu dose targeting an area under the concentration vs time curve (AUC) of 20,000 ± 12% μmol.min given over 3 weeks. The first two doses of busulfan (80 mg/m2 IV each) were administered on days -20 and -13 on an outpatient basis. The last four Bu doses were calculated to give a total course AUC of 20,000 ± 12% μmol.min and were given as inpatient following each dose of Flu 40 mg/m2 on days -6 through -3. GVHD prophylaxis was post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) 50mg/kg on days 3 and 4 and tacrolimus. Recipients of unrelated donor grafts also received MMF. All patients were eligible to receive post-transplant maintenance sorafenib after engraftment. Results: The median age was 52 years (range, 30-70). Disease status was CR in 16 (66.6%) patients, CRi in 5 (20.8%), and advanced in 3 (12.5%). Adverse risk karyotype was present in 10 (41.7%) patients. MRD was present in 13 (54.2%). 9 (38%) had mutated flt3. The donor was unrelated in 14 (58%), and peripheral blood stem cells were the graft source in 21(87.5%). Due to the absence of DLTs, the BMA-CRM assigned 200mg, 400mg, 600mg, and 800mg of sorafenib, respectively, to the first 4 cohorts, and the next 4 cohorts were given 800mg. Only 2 dose-limiting skin toxicities were seen, one in cohort 3 with 600mg of sorafenib and the second in cohort 6 with 800mg of sorafenib. 800mg was the final recommended phase 2 dose. The median follow-up in 20 surviving patients was 7.6 months and 1-year progression free survival was 89% (95% CI 75-100%). Other outcomes are summarized in Table 1. Conclusion: Sorafenib can be safely added to the fractionated busulfan regimen. Early data on efficacy appear promising, with an 89% PFS at 1 year of follow up. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Popat: Bayer: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Hosing: Nkarta Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rezvani: Bayer: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; AvengeBio: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; Navan Technologies: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; GSK: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; Virogin: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; Affimed: Other: License agreement and research agreement; education grant, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Other: Educational grant, Research Funding; Caribou: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; GemoAb: Other: Scientific Advisory Board ; Takeda: Other: License agreement and research agreement, Patents & Royalties. Qazilbash: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Daver: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hanmi: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; FATE Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sevier: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novimmune: Research Funding; Trovagene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Data Monitoring Committee member; Dava Oncology (Arog): Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy; STAR Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Newave: Research Funding. Ravandi: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Xencor: Honoraria, Research Funding; Taiho: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Prelude: Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Shpall: Magenta: Consultancy; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Magenta: Honoraria; Adaptimmune: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Navan: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Patents & Royalties; Affimed: Patents & Royalties; Axio: Consultancy. Mehta: CSLBehring: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding.

Allogeneic Transplantation for Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia with Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide: Assessing the Importance of Conditioning Regimen, Donor Choice, and Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Use

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 44-45
Author(s):  
Jonathan Webster ◽  
Leo Luznik ◽  
Hua-Ling Tsai ◽  
Philip H. Imus ◽  
Amy E. DeZern ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Post Transplant ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory ◽  
Donor Type

Background: Contemporary trials in adult Ph+ ALL patients with TKIs continue to show improved outcomes with allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation (alloBMT) in first remission (CR1) (Chalandon. Blood. 2015 AND Ravandi. Blood Adv. 2016). These studies have relied on myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and largely required an HLA-matched donor. Post-transplant survival in Ph+ ALL has been shown to be similar between patients transplanted with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) and MAC, but the incidence of relapse after RIC is higher (Bachanova. Leukemia. 2014). Post-transplant TKI maintenance reduces the incidence of relapse (Brissot. Haematologica. 2015), but this strategy has not specifically been investigated after RIC. Additionally, HLA-haploidentical donor transplants using post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as a component of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis have comparable outcomes to HLA-matched transplants (McCurdy. Haematologica. 2017). We analyzed outcomes among patients who universally received PTCy and attempted post-transplant TKI prophylaxis to determine the importance of remission status (CR1 vs. later), conditioning regimen, donor type, and TKI choice. Methods: The bone marrow transplant database at Johns Hopkins was queried for adult patients with de novo Ph+ ALL who received alloBMT using PTCy between January 2008 and August 2018. Characteristics of patients were summarized and compared using the student's T test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Estimators of OS and RFS were reported using the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences in time-to-event outcomes were estimated using Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 81 transplants for Ph+ ALL were performed: 69 (85%) in CR1 and 12 (15%) in second or greater remission (CR2+). The demographics are presented in Table 1 and separated by conditioning regimen [MAC vs. nonmyeloablative (NMAC)] for transplants in CR1. The cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 and grade 3-4 aGVHD at 1 year were 33% (95% CI, 23% to 44%) and 9% (95% CI, 3% to 15%), respectively. The incidence of moderate or severe cGVHD at 2 years was 8% (95% CI, 2% to 13%). Nearly all patients (91.4%) initiated a post-transplant TKI at a median of 56 days. Overall, 44.4% of patients were able to take a TKI on ≥85% of nonrelapse days from day 31-395 post-transplant. AlloBMT in CR1 (compared to CR2+) improved RFS (HR=0.25, p=0.0002) and pre-transplant minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry (MFC) was associated with decreased RFS (HR=2.57, p=0.039). The presence of pre-transplant MRD by PCR did not confer an increased risk of relapse (HR 1.12, p=0.84). Among the 69 patients transplanted in CR1, the 5-year OS was 77.6% (95% CI, 64.8% to 86.2%) and RFS was 67% (95% CI, 52.4-76.5%). As shown in Figure 1, the use of NMAC versus MAC (HR 0.37, p=0.02) and dasatinib versus imatinib at diagnosis (HR 0.21, p=0.007) led to improved relapse-free survival (RFS) in univariate analyses. Neither donor type (with the majority being haploidentical) nor recipient age ≥60 affected RFS. Post-transplant TKI prophylaxis was discontinued prior to relapse in 20 patients among whom 12 remain in an MRD-negative remission, 4 died of non-relapse causes, 3 relapsed, and 1 developed recurrent MRD controlled by a TKI. The median duration of post-transplant TKI prophylaxis prior to discontinuation was 46.5 months in those who remain in treatment-free remission versus 15.6 months in those who relapsed (p=0.01). Eighteen relapses occurred on maintenance therapy, and 90% of tested cases were positive for a kinase domain mutation conferring resistance to the TKI in use at relapse. No significant difference in the median time to TKI initiation post-transplant was noted between those who relapsed on maintenance and those who did not (70 days vs. 55 days, p=0.6). All patients in ongoing remission were MRD-negative by PCR at their most recent evaluation. Conclusions: AlloBMT with PTCy in Ph+ ALL was most effective when performed in CR1 with negative MFC for MRD. The initiation of post-transplant TKI prophylaxis was nearly universal. Among patients transplanted in CR1, the best results were achieved in patients treated with dasatinib at diagnosis (5-year RFS 83%) and NMAC (5-year RFS 73.1%). Thus post-transplant TKI prophylaxis appeared to overcome any relapse control advantage for MAC, yielding better outcomes with NMAC. Disclosures Webster: Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Luznik:WindMil Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: Patent holder; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy. DeZern:Abbvie: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pratz:Jazz Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Millennium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Agios: Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Boston BioMedical: Consultancy; Astellas: Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding. Levis:Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Menarini: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; FujiFilm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria. Gojo:Amgen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Research Funding. Bolanos-Meade:Incyte: Other: DSMB Fees. Dalton:Eli Lilly: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Jain:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: for advisory board participation; CareDx: Other: Advisory Board. Ali:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borrello:Celgene: Research Funding; Aduro: Patents & Royalties; WindMIL Therapeutics: Other: Founder , Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, CALIB-R, Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Smith:Celgene: 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; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Follicular Lymphoma Tumor-Cell Transcriptional Programs Associate with Distinct Somatic Alterations and Tumor-Immune Microenvironments

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1327-1327
Author(s):  
Jordan E. Krull ◽  
Kerstin Wenzl ◽  
Michelle K. Manske ◽  
Melissa A. Hopper ◽  
Melissa C. Larson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Copy Number ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Cell Suspensions ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Scientific Advisory

Abstract Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) exhibits significant clinical, cellular, molecular, and genetic heterogeneity. Our understanding of FL biology and molecular classifications of FL, to date, has largely been driven by pathologic classification (Grade 1-3b), genetic classification (m7-FLIPI), or gene expression profiling (IR-1/2; Huet-23), along with limited studies on small cohorts or targeted panels. In order to further understand the biological underpinnings and complexity of FL, large-scale and integrated whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing (RNAseq) studies are needed. Using a highly-annotated cohort of 93 FL tumors with matched RNAseq, WES, and CyTOF data, we have explored the transcriptomic signature of purified FL B cells and identified unique molecular subsets that are defined by distinct pathway activation, immune content, and genomic signatures. Methods: Frozen cell suspensions from 93 untreated FL (Grade 1-3b) patients' tumor biopsies, enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE, were used for the study. DNA was isolated from whole tumor cell suspensions, and RNA was isolated from both whole tumor and B cell-enriched cell suspensions. RNAseq and WES were performed in the Mayo Clinic Genome Analysis Core. RNAseq and WES data were processed using a standard pipeline and novel driver genes were identified using Chasm+ driver analysis. Copy number variants were identified from WES data using GISTIC 2.0. NMF clustering and single sample gene set testing for B cell lineage and tumor microenvironment (TME) signatures were performed in R using the NMF and singscore packages. Results: Unsupervised clustering of RNAseq data identified three distinct expression programs which separated patient B cell samples into 3 groups: Group 1 (G1, n=20), Group 2 (G2, n=24), Group 3 (G3, n=43). While no clinical attributes were defined by any single group, G1 consisted of cases that had less aggressive characteristics (63% Stage I-II, 79% FLIPI 0-1). To identify unique transcriptional pathways driving the three expression programs, we scored gene level contributions to NMF expression programs and employed gene set enrichment analysis. This revealed significant pathway association with type-I IFN signaling (G1), DNA repair and stress response (G2), and epigenetic modulation (G3) as differentiating programs between the 3 groups (FDR q&lt;0.001). VIPER master regulator activity inferencing revealed that these pathways were likely being controlled by differential activity in NF-kB, IRFs, STAT1, BCL6, and FOXO1. Each program significantly enriched for, but were not defined by, portions of specific germinal center programs, such as pre-memory (G1), light-zone-to-dark-zone transition (G2), and a pre-light-zone intermediate (G3). We next assessed the connection between B cell programs and the tumor microenvironment (TME) using available paired CyTOF data on 67 cases, which revealed an active TME in G1, with an abundance of CD8 T cell and NK cell populations, a wide variety of immune content in G2 that consisted mostly of Tfh and myeloid cells, and a poorly populated immune compartment in G3 compared to G1 and G2. Finally, somatic driver mutations and copy number alterations from WES were identified and associated with the three clusters. The three groups distinguished themselves by significant enrichment of copy number alterations (TNFAIP3-loss , 1q23-gain, 1q32-gain) in G2, while 10q-loss and mutations in BCL2 and chromatin modifiers (KMT2D and CREBBP) enriched in G3. G1, overall, had lower alteration burden and had weak associations with any specific alterations, suggesting an alternative mechanism for driving the G1 program. Conclusion: In this study, we have identified three unique FL tumor B cell groups, defined by specific transcriptional programs. Pathways such as inflammation, DNA damage response, and chromatin modification contribute most to the differences between B cell samples and group membership. Additionally, each program associated with specific genetic events as well as TME composition, highlighting potential drivers of these B cell states. This study improves the understanding of the mechanisms driving FL tumors and motivates further investigation into transcriptional consequences of genetic events as well as potential tumor intrinsic factors that may influence the TME. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. King: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Novak: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Influence of Treatment Facility Type and Annual Patient Volume on Overall Survival in Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma: A National Cancer Database Analysis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1348-1348
Author(s):  
Xavier Andrade-Gonzalez ◽  
Anuhya Kommalapati ◽  
Allison M. Bock ◽  
Jacqueline Wang ◽  
Antoine Saliba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Patient Volume ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Academic Center ◽  
Scientific Advisory ◽  
Lower Volume

Abstract Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon hematological malignancy with an estimated incidence of 1 per 100,000 persons per year in the United States and represents only about 5% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Several studies have shown that treatment at academic centers and a higher hospital case volume are associated with improved outcomes for uncommon hematological malignancies, probably due to increased provider expertise and access to novel therapies. Treatment of MCL can be complex given the heterogenous nature of the disease and a frequent need for autologous stem cell transplantation in eligible patients. However, the impact of treatment at an academic center and facility patient volume on the survival of patients with MCL has not been well studied in large cohorts. In this study, we utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to investigate the impact of treatment at an academic center and treatment facility volume on the overall survival (OS) of patients with MCL. Methods: The NCDB was used to identify adult patients (≥ 18 years) with newly diagnosed MCL from 2004 through 2017. For facility patient volume analysis, patients were divided into groups based on the average number of new MCL patients seen annually: Tercile 1 [T1] (1-3 patients/year), Tercile 2 [T2] (4-5 patients/year) and Tercile 3 [T3] (≥6 patients/year). Treating centers were divided into Academic and Non-academic using the NCDB definitions. Academic centers were defined as centers that accessions more than 500 newly diagnosed cancer cases per year, participate in postgraduate medical education in at least four program areas including internal medicine and surgery and participates in cancer-related clinical trials. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox hazards proportional model. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25. Results: We identified 22,752 patients with MCL during the study period. 9,484 (42%) patients were treated at academic centers and 13,070 (57%) were treated at non-academic centers. In terms of facility patient volume 10,948 patients (48%) were in the T1 group, 4,637 (20%) were in the T2 group and 7,166 (31%) were in the T3 group. No significant differences were found in baseline demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, comorbidity scores), socioeconomical variables (insurance type, median income, area of residence) and disease-related factors (B-symptoms, Ann Arbor stage) between patients treated academic vs nonacademic centers, or between patients in T1 vs T2 vs T3 groups. Notably, compared to lower volume facilities, T3 facilities were more likely to be academic centers (T3: 81% vs T2: 42% vs T1: 16%, p&lt;0.001) . After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, the median overall survival (OS) was 5.6 years for the entire cohort. The median OS was inferior for patients treated at lower volume facilities (4.1 years for T1, 5.1 years for T2 and 9.0 years for T3, p&lt;0.001) (Figure 1A). Similarly, the median OS was shorter for patients treated at non-academic centers vs academic centers (4.3 years vs 7.5 years respectively, p&lt;0.001) (Figure 1B). In a multivariate analysis, treatment at a lower patient volume facility (Hazard ratio [HR] Q1= 1.26 [95%CI = 1.18-1.34]) and treatment at a non-academic center (HR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.01-1.12) were both independent prognostic factors of inferior OS, after adjusting for demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, area of residence) and socioeconomic variables (income and insurance status). Conclusion: Patients with MCL treated at academic and higher volume facilities had a higher OS compared to patients treated at non-academic and lower volume facilities.. Additional research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms behind these differences. Patients with MCL may benefit from an early referral to academic and high-volume centers. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Kyowa: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Nowakowski: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy. Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

scholarly journals P16, c-Myc, SOX11, P53, ki67 and CD71Protein Expression in Aggressive Morphological Variants of Mantle Cell Lymphomas Compared to Classical Morphological Mantle Cell Lymphomas in Multiple Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2820-2820
Author(s):  
Barbara Burroni ◽  
Anne Moreau ◽  
Mathieu Baldacini ◽  
Antoine Martin ◽  
Steven Le Gouill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Who Classification ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Scientific Advisory Board ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Scientific Advisory

On behalf of the Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) Introduction: Aggressive Mantle Cell Lymphoma variant (A-MCL), including blastic and pleomorphic morphological variants, is a rare subtype of MCL whose frequency varies around 10-15% of all newly-diagnosed MCL patients. According to 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) classification, the diagnosis of A-MCL is based on morphology. A high proliferation rate on Ki-67 staining is not sufficient to be classified as a blastoid or pleomorphic subtype. This might induce diagnostic confusion. The aim of the present retrospective study is to investigate whether or not the CD71, c-Myc, SOX11, P53, ki67 and P16 expressions assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) can distinguish A-MCL from classical MCL (C-MCL). We also investigate the prognostic value of these markers in A-MCL patients. Methods: We re-investigated all MCL patients presented with A-MCL (n=110) at diagnosis and who have been enrolled in six prospective clinical trials. At time of inclusion, a centralized pathological review was performed to confirm the diagnosis of MCL. Cases were initially classified according to the 2008 WHO classification (LYMA, MCL-SA, MCL-SJ, RIBVD and RIPAD trials) or according to the 2017 WHO classification (MCLR2-ELDERLY trials). For the present study, we performed a supplemental pathology review by a panel of 5 hematopathologists experts from the LYSA group according to 2017 WHO classification. We identified 75 cases (out of 110) of A-MCL (8 blastic and 67 pleomorphic variants) which represent 15% of all MCL enrolled in these six trials. We have compared A-MCL characteristics to C-MCL who had specimens available for TMA (n=412 C-MCL out of 487 patients enrolled). IHC was performed on TMA, using the six selected antibodies and were scored by quantifying the percentage of cells stained on each spot. Patients available for survival analysis (53 A-MCL and 312 C-MCL) were drawn from all studies (except from the MCLR2-Elderly study that is ongoing). Different cut-offs were considered for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for each variable. The proliferation index was evaluated with Ki67 classical determination eyeballing and Ki67 reading by grid counting. Cut-offs for each of these markers were determined using X-tile software, which determines the optimal value for classifying patients into groups based on overall and progression-free survival. Results: At baseline, the aggressive forms were similar to classical forms in terms of demographic characteristics (age at diagnosis, localization and sex). p53 protein expression was significantly higher in A-MCL patients than in C-MCL (p<0.001) like p16 (p=0.002), c-MYC (p<0.001), CD71 (p<0.001) and Ki67 index (both classical and by grid) (p< 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in SOX11 expression. In univariate analyses, elevated levels of P16 (>10%), c-MYC (>30%) Ki67 (>40%) were associated with poorer OS and PFS in the cohort of A-MCL and C-MCL patients. There was no significant difference in survival both for OS and PFS regarding P53 (>30%). In multivariate analysis stratified by trial, Ki67 by grid>40% (HR=2.303[1.479-3.585] ; p =0.0002) and c-MYC >30% (HR=1.865 [1.060-3.279] p =0.0305) were predictive for OS whereas only Ki67 by grid >40% (HR=2.055 [1.434, 2.944], p<0.0001) was a significant prognostic factor for PFS. Conclusion: CD71, c-Myc, P53 and P16 expression levels assessed by IHC are higher in A-MCL as compared to C-MCL. These markers could therefore be recommended in routine practice to distinguish between A-MCL and C-MCL. We also found that patients with Ki67 count by grid >40% had significantly shorter PFS and OS and patients with high Myc expression >30% had a significantly poorer OS. Thus, MYC expression and Ki67 by IHC is a suitable test for routine diagnostic practice to assess A-MCL prognosis. Disclosures Le Gouill: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support; Roche-Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support. Ribrag:argenX: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Infinity: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AZ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dreyling:Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Hermine:Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AB science: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document