Abstract: Introduction Although the labeled CD19 targeting CAR-T cell constructs axi-cel and tisa-cel are generally associated with an acceptable safety profile, non-relapse deaths can occur. Little is known about timing, causes and predictors of NRM following SOC CAR-T cell therapy for LBCL. Here, we analyzed frequency, causes, and risk factors of non-relapse deaths with focus on late NRM (beyond 4 weeks after dosing) using registry data provided by the DRST, the national partner of the EBMT. Methods Patients were selected from 356 consecutive patients who received SOC CAR-T treatment of LBCL between November 2018 and April 2021 at 21 German centers and were registered with the DRST/EBMT. Baseline patient, disease, and transplant data were collected from MED-A cellular therapy forms. Centers were contacted to provide additional treatment and follow-up information. Patients with late NRM (defined as NRM occurring beyond 4 weeks after dosing without prior LBCL relapse or progression) were compared with all patients surviving progression-free the 4-week landmark after dosing without subsequent NRM. Cumulative incidences of NRM were calculated considering relapse/progression as competing event. Results The analysis set consisted of 312 patients surviving progression-free at least 28 days after CAR-T treatment and remained alive until the end of follow-up or had a documented cause of death. Median age was 61 years (19-83), 66% were male, 52% had an IPI ≥3, 13 had an ECOG score & gt;1, 70% had received ≥3 treatment lines, 33% had failed a prior HCT, and 78% were refractory at lymphodepletion. 50% had been treated at a center contributing ≥20 cases with axi-cel (52%) or tisa-cel (48%). Grade ≥3 CRS and grade ≥3 neurotoxicity (NT) had occurred in 11% each, and 7% had no neutrophil recovery at day 100 post dosing or at last follow-up, whatever was earlier. With a median follow-up of 11.2 months, 124 patients (40%) had died, 109 (35%) LBCL-related, and 15 (5%) because of NRM. The cumulative incidence of late NRM at 12 months post dosing was 4.3% (95%CI 2.0-6.6). Causes of NRM were infections in 10 patients (bacterial or fungal sepsis/pneumonia 6; viral/atypical pneumonia/encephalitis 4); late NT 2; hyperinflammatory syndrome 1; 2 nd malignancy 1; unknown 1). Of note, 5 of the 6 lethal fungal/bacterial infections occurred subsequent to high grade NT. There was no significant difference between patients experiencing and not experiencing NRM in terms of age, gender, IPI, ECOG, pretreatment lines, prior HCT, disease status at lymphodepletion, and grade ≥3 CRS frequency. However, a significantly larger proportion of patients with late NRM had failed neutrophil recovery (27% vs 5%, p 0.011), had experienced grade ≥3 NT (40% vs 10%, p 0.0031), and/or had received axi-cel (93% vs 51%, p 0.001). Patients having neutrophil non-recovery and/or grade ≥3 NT had a 12-month NRM incidence of 16% (95%CI 5.1-26.9) vs 2.5% (95%CI 0.3-4.7) in patients with none of these 2 factors. Conclusions Late NRM in patients receiving SOC CAR-T treatment for LBCL is largely driven by infections. Risk factors for late NRM appear to be protracted neutropenia and higher grade NT, suggesting that intensified anti-bacterial/anti-fungal prophylaxis may be considered in patients with persisting critical neutropenia or exposed to high-dose steroids for NT treatment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dreger: BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Schubert: Gilead: Consultancy. Holtick: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Subklewe: Miltenyi: Research Funding; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Klinikum der Universität München: Current Employment; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bastian: Abbvie: Other; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other; BMS and Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Ayuk: Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biomedicine: Honoraria; Mallinckrodt/Therakos: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Marks: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Meeting attendance. Penack: Priothera: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Therakos: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Shionogi: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy. Koenecke: EUSA Pharm: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Von Bonin: Daiichi Sankyo: Other: traveling support and advisory fees; Novartis: Other: traveling support and advisory fees; Kite/Gilead: Other: traveling support and advisory fees. Stelljes: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Riemser: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Baldus: Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Vucinic: MSD: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring. Topp: Universitatklinikum Wurzburg: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Macrogeniecs: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schroers: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Hanoun: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Other: travel expenses; Novartis: Research Funding. Thomas: AbbVie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Art tempi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Medigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau. Kröger: Novartis: Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Pharma: Honoraria. Bethge: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract: Introduction The CD19 targeting CAR-T cell constructs axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) have become an accepted standard salvage treatment of LBCL beyond the second line. Patients scheduled for approved CAR-T cell therapies usually have 4-8 weeks wait time for CAR-T cell infusion, thus often requiring bridging strategies in rapidly progressing patients to achieve disease control until start of lymphodepletion. It is still unclear, however, if the adverse impact of active progressive lymphoma can be overcome by successful bridging. We have addressed this question using registry data provided by the German Registry for Stem Cell Transplantation (DRST), the national partner of the EBMT. Methods We analyzed 356 consecutive patients who received standard of care axi-cel (n=173) or tisa-cel (n=183) treatment of LBCL between November 2018 and April 2021 at 21 German centers and were registered with the DRST/EBMT. Baseline patient, disease, and transplant data were collected from MED-A cellular therapy forms. Centers were contacted to provide additional treatment and follow-up information. Predictors of progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed by uni- and multivariate comparisons. Results Compared to the approval trials, patients were of poor risk with 58% presenting with elevated LDH at lymphodepletion and 71% having received ≥3 pretreatment lines, resulting in ineligibility for the ZUMA-1 study in 87% of cases. Kaplan-Maier estimates of overall survival, PFS and non-relapse mortality (NRM) 12 months after dosing were 52%, 30% and 7%, respectively. Information on bridging was available for 355 patients (99%). Of these, 279 patients (78%) underwent at least one line of bridging attempt, whereas bridging was deemed unnecessary in 76 patients (22%). A wide variety of modalities were employed for bridging, with the most frequent being chemoimmunotherapy (n=188), chemotherapy (n=41), radiation (n=30), immunotherapy (n=12) and steroids (n=6). Bridging resulted in disease control (CR/PR) in 58 of 270 patients evaluable for response (21%). With a median follow-up of 11 months, 12-month PFS rates for patients without bridging, successful bridging, and bridging failure were 41%, 52%, and 20%, respectively, p= & lt;0.001 (Figure). Of note, an increased LDH at lymphodepletion did not impair PFS within the bridging responders, but affected the outcome of those patients who did not respond or not undergo bridging (p & lt;0.0001). The adverse impact of bridging failure on PFS was confirmed after multivariable adjustment for confounders (p=0.001, HR 2.083; 95% CI 1.358-3.195). Other significant risk factors for PFS on multivariate analysis were elevated LDH (p=0.012, HR 1.46; 95% CI 1.08-1.96), tisa-cel (p=0.0109, HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.06-1.88) and ECOG (p=0.021, HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.03-1.45). Conclusion The results of this large German GLA/DRST analysis suggest that effective bridging can overcome the adverse impact of active disease on the outcome of standard-of-case CD19 CAR-T therapy. With current treatment strategies, however, bridging is often unsuccessful, highlighting the need for exploring innovative tools for inducing temporary LBCL control for CAR-T therapy preparation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bethge: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Schmitt: TolerogenixX: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Novartis: Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Kite Gilead: Other: Travel grants; Apogenix: Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Other: Travel grants; Hexal: Other: Travel grants, Research Funding. Holtick: Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Borchmann: Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotech: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Subklewe: Klinikum der Universität München: Current Employment; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. von Tresckow: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: congress and travel support; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Ayuk: Gilead: Honoraria; Mallinckrodt/Therakos: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biomedicine: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Kroeger: Novartis: Honoraria; AOP Pharma: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding. Wulf: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Clinigen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Marks: Merck: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Meeting attendance; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Penack: Astellas: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Omeros: Consultancy; Shionogi: Consultancy; Priothera: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Therakos: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria. Koenecke: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EUSA Pharm: Consultancy. Von Bonin: Kite/Gilead: Other: traveling support and advisory fees; Novartis: Other: traveling support and advisory fees; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: traveling support and advisory fees. Stelljes: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Riemser: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Baldus: Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Vucinic: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; MSD: Honoraria. Topp: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Macrogeniecs: Research Funding; Universitatklinikum Wurzburg: Current Employment. Schroers: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Thomas: Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Art tempi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Kite-Gilead: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Medigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau. Dreger: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract: Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) has characteristics that influence the prognosis and are useful to make decisions regarding treatment. Diagnosis and treatment patterns of hematological malignancies have not been described in Colombia and having access to this regional information could guide public health policies and help design clinical trials. The Colombian Association of Hematology and Oncology (ACHO) designed a registry for Hemato-Oncological diseases to fill this information gap. This is the first report of RENEHOC focusing on MM. Methods We conducted an ambispective multi-centric cohort study of clinical records available from patients with MM that were diagnosed in the most populated regions of Colombia. We collected demographic, diagnostic, clinical and treatment data at different time points from diagnosis to the most current follow up. The computerized de-identified data was consolidated and analyzed using basic statistical measures of central tendency and dispersion. The most current follow up included data available from last clinic visit, loss of follow up, death or withdrawal of consent. This study was approved by local and centralized institutional review board. Results We analyzed data from 206 MM patients (pts). Average age at diagnosis was 62.9 (SD 10.2) years and 51.4% of pts were male. Most common symptoms at diagnosis were bone pain (74.2%), anemia related (58.2%) and pathological fractures (45.1%). Mean time from symptoms to diagnosis was 7.3 (Range 1-44) months. Baseline mean hemoglobin, creatinine and calcium serum levels were 10.5 g/dL, 1.58 mg/dL and 9.2 mg/dL respectively. At diagnosis, 22% of patients presented with renal failure and 30% required dialysis. Immunoglobulin (Ig) subtype distribution was: IgG 50.6%, IgA 20.6%, only light chain secretion (61% Kappa) and IgM 1.1%. In 11.6% all Igs were low. Most pts were diagnosed at advanced stages (64.5% Durie-Salmon III, and 37% and 47% International Staging System II and III respectively). Molecular prognostic characterization was performed only in 39 patients (18.4%). Four patients were considered too fragile for active treatment. The most common initial treatment was triple combinations that included Bortezomib (84% of patients). Among those, CyBorD was the most frequently used first line therapy (58.3%), followed by VTD (14.6%). Mean number of cycles was 4.8 (SD 2.5). Overall Response Rate (ORR) 74.7% was observed. Only 40% of patients treated with intense induction therapy received autologous transplant. Response to treatment including transplant are shown in table 1. Second and further lines of treatment were highly variable. 18 patients were treated with a second autologous transplantation consolidating 2nd line therapy. 12 patients received Carfilzomib combinations, all of them in 2nd line. 5 patients were treated with Daratumumab, all 〉 2nd line. Mean follow-up time was 33.53 (SD 3.6) months. After a median follow up of 27 months we observed in our cohort an overall survival of 82% and 68% of patients progression-free. . Conclusions This first report focusing on MM highlights important differences on patient's characteristics and treatment in Colombian patients. This includes and treatment initiation due to insurance barriers; high risk clinical characteristics and complications upon diagnosis and low rate of transplantation in patients otherwise eligible for this procedure. Rates of response to induction seem slightly lower than reported (CB Reeder 2009). However, overall survival and progression-free survival met the expectations for this type of patients. The development of country specific databases may influence the design of policies, allocation and use of resources and improve patient outcomes. Only cooperative efforts like the one spearheaded by RENEHOC can achieve those goals. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract: Patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) often achieve remission but subsequently die of relapse driven by chemotherapy resistant leukemic stem cells (LSCs). To initiate and maintain cancer, LSCs must also escape immunosurveillance. However, in vivo studies on human LSCs largely disregard lymphocyte mediated anti-tumor immunity due to the use of immunocompromised mice. Here we investigate the immunosurveillance mediated by NKG2D, a danger detector expressed by cytotoxic lymphocytes such as natural killer (NK) cells that recognizes stress-induced ligands (NKG2DL) of the MIC and ULBP protein families on AML cells. Staining of n=175 de novo AML with antibodies against MICA, MICB and ULB2/5/6 or an NKG2D-Fc chimeric protein recognizing pan-NKG2DL expression revealed NKG2DL to heterogeneously express among leukemic cells of the same patient (Fig. 1a). As expected, NKG2DLpos AML cells were efficiently cleared by natural killer (NK) cells, while NKG2DLneg leukemic cells escaped NK cell lysis. Interestingly, these NKG2DLneg AML cells also showed immature morphology, enhanced in vitro clonogenicity (39±47 colonies vs. 1±4, p 〈 0.001, n=32 AML cases) and selective abilities to initiate leukemia in NSG mice devoid of functional NK cells (NKG2DLneg, 33/35, 94%; NKG2DLpos, 0/35, 0%; p 〈 0.001, n=13 AML cases, Fig. 1b) and to survive chemotherapy in vivo. In mice, NKG2DLneg AML cells generated both NKG2DLpos and NKG2DLneg progeny of which again only latter induced leukemia in re-transplant assays. Even though similar leukemia-specific mutations were retrieved in NKG2DLneg and NKG2DLpos AML cells derived from the same patient (n=12 analysed patients), published LSC, HSC and 17-genes stemness score signatures were specifically enriched in NKG2DLneg fractions. Mechanistically, expression of poly-ADP-ribose polymerase 1 (PARP1) was identified as enriched in NKG2DLneg compared to NKG2DLpos leukemic subpopulations, and PARP1 inhibition (PARPi) using either siRNAs or pharmacological inhibitors such as AG-14361, veliparib, talazoparib or olaparib, increased NKG2DL mRNA transcripts between 6 and 〉 50 fold. PARP1 binding sites were identified by in silico analysis in NKG2DL promoters and binding was confirmed by chromatin immunoprecipitation in the promoters of MICA and MICB. Importantly, treatment with PARPi induced NKG2DL surface expression on LSCs in vitro and in vivo and co-treatment with PARPi and NK cells efficiently suppressed leukemogenesis in patient derived xenograft (PDX) models (Fig. 1c). These data suggest that PARP1 inhibition sensitizes LSCs to NK cell mediated elimination. Finally, NKG2DL surface expression was found to inversely correlate with favorable molecular AML characteristics (favorable ELN risk group vs. other: p=0.034; inv(16) versus other: p=0.023), complete remission rates after induction chemotherapy (all patients: p=0.002, patients 〈 65 years: p=0.004) and patient overall survival (patients 〈 65 years: p=0.028). Enhanced PARP1 expression in leukemic cells furthermore associated with poor clinical outcome (TCGA data set, p=0.0038). In summary, our data link the concept of LSCs to immune escape in human AML and propose the absence of immunostimulatory NKG2DL as a novel method to identify LSCs across genetic AML subtypes (including CD34 negative AMLs). This LSC specific mechanism of immune evasion could be overcome by treatment with PARP1 inhibitors, which in conjunction with functional NK cells holds promise to eradicate LSCs and promote immune-mediated cure of AML. Fig. 1: Human AML contain NKG2DLpos as well as NKG2DLneg subpopulations but only latter display leukemia initiation capacity (a: left, analysis of n=175 AML cases using NKG2D-Fc staining, right: exemplary flow cytometry plots; b: leukemic infiltration and survival in mice transplanted with NKG2DLneg or NKG2DLpos AML cells sorted from the same AML cases). PARP1 inhibition with AG-14361 up-regulates NKG2DL on CD34+ LSCs, and in vivo co-treatment with AG-14361 and polyclonal allogeneic NK cells suppresses leukemogenesis in PDX models (c). Figure. Figure. Disclosures Salih: Several patent applications: Patents & Royalties: e.g. EP3064507A1.

Abstract: CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have evolved as new standard-of-care (SOC) treatment in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Here, we report the first German real-world data on SOC CAR-T cell therapies with the aim to explore risk factors associated with outcome. Patients who received SOC axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) for LBCL and were registered with the German Registry for Stem Cell Transplantation (DRST) were eligible. Main outcomes analyzed were toxicities, response, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). We report 356 patients who received axi-cel (n=173) or tisa-cel (n=183) between November 2018 and April 2021 at 21 German centers. Whereas the axi-cel and tisa-cel cohorts were comparable for age, sex, LDH, IPI, and pretreatment, the tisa-cel group comprised significantly more patients with poor performance status, ineligibility for ZUMA-1, and need for bridging, respectively. With a median follow-up alive of 11 months, Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS, PFS, and non-relapse mortality (NRM) 12 months after dosing were 52%, 30%, and 6%, respectively. While NRM was largely driven by infections subsequent to prolonged neutropenia and/or severe neurotoxicity and significantly higher with axi-cel, significant risk factors for PFS on multivariate analysis included bridging failure, elevated LDH, age, and tisa-cel use. In conclusion, this study suggests that important outcome determinants of CD19-directed CAR-T cell treatment of LBCL in the real-world setting are bridging success, CAR-T product selection, LDH, and the absence of prolonged neutropenia and/or severe neurotoxicity. These findings may have implications for designing risk-adapted CAR-T cell therapy strategies.

Abstract: e15577 Background: Only specific subpopulations of tumor cells, so called cancer stem cells (CSC) may initiate and maintain tumors. The phenotype and molecular properties of ovarian CSC remain elusive. Aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) activity characterizes (cancer) stem cells in different tissues and has been associated with ovarian CSC (Silva et al, 2011; Kryczek et al, 2012). Contradictory results have been reported on ALDH1 expression and prognosis in ovarian carcinoma. In this study, we explore the role of ALDH in serous ovarian carcinoma (SOC). Methods: Aldefluor-staining was used to assess ALDH activity in different ovarian carcinoma cell-lines and patient samples. ALDH+ and ALDH- cells isolated by FACS and ALDH1 versus control siRNA treated cells were analyzed in sphere forming, proliferation, BrdU and cell cycle assays. In vivo tumorigenicity assays including serial re-transplantations were performed in NOD/SCID/IL2Rγ null mice. ALDH1 and Ki67 expression were assessed immunohistochemically on a tissue microarray of 152 SOC samples. Results: ALDH+ cells formed more tumor spheres than ALDH- cells from the OVCAR-3 cell line and primary SOC and larger spheres ( 〉 5.000 µm²) developed solely from ALDH+ cells. However, in vivo both cell fractions gave rise to tumors. Tumors contained both ALDH+ and ALDH- cells irrespective of the starting population. Notably, ALDH+ cells generated tumors more rapidly and induced larger tumors, suggesting a higher proliferative capacity. Immunohistochemical analysis of a larger cohort of SOC patients confirmed association of ALDH1 expression with the proliferation marker Ki67 (p=0.007). Surprisingly, co-stainings revealed that ALDH1 positive cells were mostly Ki67 negative and cell cycle synchronisation experiments using different agents showed ALDH induction in G0-enriched OVCAR-3 cells. However, inhibition of ALDH by treatment with three distinct siRNAs against ALDH1 did not alter cell cycle distribution. Conclusions: Our data suggest that ALDH is a correlative marker indicating, but not actively sustaining a quiescent stem-cell like state in SOC. Upon exit from G0, ALDH+ cells lose ALDH expression and induce a proliferative response.