No abstract

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC) is a distinct biologic subtype of AML that represents 25–34% of all AML diagnoses and associates with especially inferior outcomes compared to non-MRC AML. Typically, patients with AML-MRC experience low remission rates following intensive chemotherapy and a median overall survival of merely 9–12 months. In light of these discouraging outcomes, it has become evident that more effective therapies are needed for patients with AML-MRC. Liposomal daunorubicin–cytarabine (CPX-351) was approved in 2017 for adults with newly diagnosed AML-MRC and those with therapy-related AML (t-AML), and remains the only therapy specifically approved for this patient population. Other studies have also demonstrated the efficacy of the hypomethylating agent (HMA) azacitidine as upfront therapy for AML-MRC patients, which, to date, is the most common treatment employed for patients unable to tolerate the more intensive CPX-351. HMAs and venetoclax combinations have also been evaluated, but additional studies utilizing these agents in this specific subgroup are needed before conclusions regarding their role in the therapeutic armamentarium of AML-MRC patients can be reached. Currently, many studies are ongoing in attempts to further improve outcomes in this historically ill-fated patient group.

Although adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) achieve high complete remission (CR) rates following treatment with intensive multi-agent chemotherapy regimens, up to two-thirds of these patients eventually relapse. Unfortunately, adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-ALL have a poor prognosis, with variable responses to salvage chemotherapy regimens and allogeneic stem cell transplant. As such, the need to develop effective and well-tolerated treatments for this patient population has been of paramount importance over the past decade. In this regard, treatment options for R/R B-ALL patients have expanded considerably over a relatively short period of time, with the approvals of blinatumomab, inotuzumab ozogamicin and tisagenlecleucel occurring within only the past six years. Blinatumomab, a CD19 x CD3 bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) was the first of these immune therapies to receive approval, and for many patients, is used as first-line salvage therapy. A number of large clinical trials have demonstrated improved progression-free survival and overall survival for R/R B-ALL patients receiving blinatumomab as compared to those receiving conventional salvage chemotherapy. In addition to being approved for both Philadelphia chromosome-negative and Philadelphia chromosome-positive R/R B-ALL, blinatumomab is also the only ALL therapy that carries approval for the treatment of measurable residual disease (MRD). Although blinatumomab has changed the therapeutic landscape for adults with R/R B-ALL, a number of important clinical considerations and questions remain, including the potential role of blinatumomab in the frontline setting, mechanisms of resistance, optimal goal MRD level, the role of transplant following MRD clearance, the optimal place for blinatumomab in the context of other recently approved immune-mediated therapies, and real world outcomes for patients treated outside the context of clinical trials. These issues are the focus of ongoing studies, which will hopefully inform future clinical practice regarding the utility of blinatumomab in the treatment of B-ALL patients.

Most patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy (CAR-T) for aggressive B-cell lymphoma (B-NHL) will not experience a durable remission. There are several novel agents approved for the treatment relapsed, refractory aggressive B-NHL; however, it remains unclear how to sequence these therapies pre- and post-CAR-T (peri-CAR-T). We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis for the purpose of describing peri-CAR-T practice patterns and survival predictors for patients receiving CD19-directed CAR-T. Patients (n=514) from thirteen centers treated with CAR-T for aggressive B-NHL between 2015-2021 were included. Clinical characteristics, CAR-T outcomes and treatment regimens administered pre- and post-CAR-T were collected. Survival curves were constructed using Kaplan Meier method. Multivariate Cox regression was used to determine the impact of variables on survival outcomes. For all patients receiving CAR-T, a greater number lines of therapy prior to CAR-T apheresis and receipt of bridging therapy were predictive of inferior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). From time of CAR-T infusion, median PFS and OS were 7.6 and 25.6 months (n=514). From time of progression post-CAR-T (n=254), median OS was 5.5 months. The median PFS of treatments given in the first-line post-CAR-T failure (n=167) was just 2.8 months. Patients with refractory disease at day 30 had inferior OS and were less likely to receive subsequent treatment(s) compared to other patients with CAR-T failure. AlloHCT for select patients at any time following CAR-T failure (n=16) led to durable responses in over half at one-year. These data provide a benchmark for future clinical trials in patients with progression post-CAR-T, an unmet clinical need.

No abstract