Abstract: Background: Trisomy 4 is a recurrent but rare cytogenetic abnormality reported in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The prognostic significance of this abnormality in AML patients is not clear. Prognosis of AML patients with trisomy 4 seems to be poor as compared to that of patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetics. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) may improve survival if applied early in first complete remission (CR). However, neither prospective clinical nor larger retrospective cohort studies are available to support these results from small series. Aims: To characterize AML patients with trisomy 4 and compare outcomes according to different treatment strategies. Methods: We retrospectively studied 123 AML patients with trisomy 4 (median age at diagnosis, 58 years; range, 16-76 years) treated between 2000 and 2019 within 2 large study groups. Standard statistical methods were applied. Results: Median white blood cell count at diagnosis was 4.8/nl (range, 0.4-255/nl) and platelets 46/nl (range, 2-330/nl). Type of AML was de novo in 97 (79%), secondary after myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasm in 18 (15%), and therapy-related in 8 (6%) patients. Sixty-two (50%) patients were female. Cytogenetic analysis revealed trisomy 4 as the sole abnormality in 28 (23%), additional abnormalities in 95 (77%) patients, most frequently ≥3 (n=66) abnormalities, trisomy 8 (n=41), karyotypes characterized by trisomies only (n=21) and t(8;21) or inv(16) (CBF; n=10). A total of 98 patients (80%) had NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutation testing. Of those, 21 (21%) and 15 (15%) harbored NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutations. Only 2 (3%) of 72 patients were CEBPA double mutated. Data on response to intensive anthracycline-based induction therapy were available in 117 patients. Early death rate was 5% (n=6). CR was achieved in 68% (n=79) with 22 (19%) requiring an intensive salvage treatment cycle. Notably, patients with trisomy 4 as sole abnormality had a CR rate of 89% (n=25/28). There was no difference in the CR rate in FLT3-ITD positive (n=10/15) as compared to FLT3 wild type (n=56/83) patients (67% each, P=0.99). Univariable analysis revealed trisomy 4 as sole abnormality (OR, 5.76; P=0.007) and NPM1 (OR, 12.08; P=0.02) as favorable factors. An allo-HCT was performed in 40 (34%) patients, of whom 19 patients were transplanted in first CR after induction therapy. Nine patients achieved CR after salvage chemotherapy and went on to allo-HCT; another 12 patients received allo-HCT with active disease. Type of donor was matched-related in 8, matched-unrelated in 30, and unknown in 2 of the 40 patients, respectively. Median follow-up of the intensively treated cohort was 73 months (95%-CI, 36-91 months). Five-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were 31% (95%-CI, 23-42%) and 27% (95%-CI, 18-42%). OS rates were significantly higher in patients with CBF leukemia or patients with trisomy 4 as compared to all other abnormalities (Figure 1; P & lt;0.001). Cox regression analysis on OS revealed CBF/CEBPA (HR, 0.75; P=0.02) and trisomy 4 as sole abnormality (HR, 0.63; P=0.04) as favorable factors; age with a difference of ten years was an in trend adverse factor (HR, 1.15; P=0.06; not significant: NPM1, FLT3-ITD, complex karyotype with ≥3 abnormalities). There was no difference on OS if patients proceeded to allo-HCT in CR1 or with active disease (P=0.8). Five-year RFS was 26% (95%-CI, 14-50%) in patients proceeding to allo-HCT after induction therapy (n=40), as compared to 28% (95%-CI, 17-46%; P=0.99) in those who received consolidation chemotherapy (n=49). Conclusions: Clinically, patients with trisomy 4 are very heterogeneous in particular with respect to cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities. In our cohort, patients with trisomy 4 as a sole abnormality had a high CR rate and favorable clinical outcome. In the total cohort, allo-HCT did not improve RFS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Krause: Siemens: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; art-tempi: Honoraria; Kosmas: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: travel support; Abbvie: Other: travel support. Schliemann: Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Astellas: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Haenel: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Crysandt: Incyte: Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fransecky: Medac: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Martinez-Lopez: Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: 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; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Einsele: Janssen, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Platzbecker: AbbVie: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Baldus: Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Müller-Tidow: Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Levis: Astellas and FujiFilm: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, FujiFilm, and Menarini: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Montesinos: Stemline/Menarini: Consultancy; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Tolero Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Röllig: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyer-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schlenk: Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hexal: Honoraria; Neovio Biotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding.

Abstract: The ideal postremission strategy in intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR) has been a matter of debate. Objective To explore the optimal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk AML after first complete remission. Design, Settings, and Participants This investigator-initiated, open-label, 2-armed, phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessed patients at 16 hospitals in Germany from February 2, 2011, until July 1, 2018. Key eligibility criteria included cytogenetically defined intermediate-risk AML according to Medical Research Council classification, first CR or CR with incomplete blood cell count recovery after conventional induction therapy, age of 18 to 60 years, and availability of a human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–matched sibling or unrelated donor. A detailed statistical analysis plan was written and finalized on July 7, 2020. Data were exported for analysis on April 13, 2021. Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) or high-dose cytarabine for consolidation and salvage HCT only in case of relapse. Strata for randomization included age (18-40 vs 41-60 years), NPM1 and CEBPA variation status, and donor type (unrelated vs related). Main Outcomes and Measures End points included overall-survival as the primary outcome and disease-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse, treatment-related mortality, and quality of life measured according to the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey as secondary outcomes. Results A total of 143 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.2 [9.8] years; 81 [57%] male) with AML who fulfilled the eligibility criteria were randomized. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the probability of survival at 2 years was 74% (95% CI, 62%-83%) after primary allogeneic HCT and 84% (95% CI, 73%-92%) after consolidation chemotherapy ( P  = .22). Disease-free survival after HCT at 2 years was 69% (95% CI, 57%-80%) compared with 40% (95% CI, 28%-53%) after consolidation chemotherapy ( P  = .001). Allogeneic HCT during the first CR was associated with a cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years of 20% (95% CI, 13%-31%) compared with 58% (95% CI, 47%-71%; P   & amp;lt; .001). Nonrelapse mortality at 2 years after primary allogeneic HCT was 9% (95% CI, 5%-19%) and 2% (95% CI, 0%-11%) after consolidation chemotherapy ( P  = .005). Similar outcomes were observed when analyses were confined to the 96 patients at intermediate risk according to the European Leukemia Network classification. Most importantly, all 41 patients relapsing after consolidation chemotherapy (36 hematologic, 4 molecular, and 1 extramedullary) proceeded to allogeneic HCT. No significant differences in health-related quality of life measures were observed between groups. Conclusions and Relevance Primary allogeneic HCT during first CR was not associated with superior overall survival compared with consolidation chemotherapy in patients 60 years or younger with intermediate-risk AML during the first CR and an available donor. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01246752

Abstract: We retrospectively studied 125 patients with acute myeloid leukemia and trisomy 4 (median age at diagnosis, 58 years; range, 16-77 years) treated between 2000 and 2019 within a multicenter study. Trisomy 4 was the sole abnormality in 28 (22%) patients and additional abnormalities were present in 97 (78%) patients. Twenty-two (22%) and 15 (15%) of 101 tested patients harbored NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutations. Two (3%) of 72 tested patients had double CEBPA mutations. Data on response to intensive anthracycline-based induction therapy were available for 119 patients. Complete remission was achieved in 67% (n=80) and the early death rate was 5% (n=6). Notably, patients with trisomy 4 as sole abnormality had a complete remission rate of 89%. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation was performed in 40 (34%) patients, of whom 19 were transplanted in first complete remission. The median follow-up of the intensively treated cohort was 5.76 years (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.99-7.61 years). The 5-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates were 30% (95% CI: 22-41%) and 27% (95% CI: 18-41%), respectively. An Andersen-Gill regression model on overall survival revealed that favorable-risk according to the European LeukemiaNet classification (hazard ratio [HR] =0.34; P=0.006) and trisomy 4 as sole abnormality (HR=0.41; P=0.01) were favorable factors, whereas age with a difference of 10 years (HR=1.15; P=0.11), female gender (HR=0.74; P=0.20) and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HR=0.64; P=0.14) did not have an significant impact. In our cohort, patients with trisomy 4 as their sole abnormality had a high complete remission rate and favorable clinical outcome. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation did not seem to improve overall survival.

Abstract: Overall survival remains poor in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with less than 10% being alive after 5 years. In recent studies, a significant improvement in event-free, relapse-free and overall survival was shown by adding gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO), a humanized antibody-drug conjugate directed against CD33, to intensive induction therapy once or in a sequential dosing schedule. Glasdegib, the small-molecule inhibitor of smoothened (SMO), also showed improved overall survival in patients not eligible for intensive chemotherapy when combined with low-dose cytarabine compared to low-dose cytarabine alone. These findings warrant further investigations in the phase III GnG trial. Methods/Design This is a randomized phase III trial with measurable residual disease (MRD) after induction therapy and event-free survival (EFS) as primary endpoints. The two research questions are addressed in a 2 by 2 factorial design. Patients age 60 years and older are upfront randomized 1:1 in one of the two induction arms: GO administered to intensive induction therapy on days 1,4, and 7 versus GO administered once on day 1 (GO-147 versus GO-1), and double-blinded 1:1 in one of the subsequent treatment arms glasdegib vs. placebo as adjunct to consolidation therapy and as single-agent maintenance therapy for six months. Chemotherapy backbone for induction therapy consists of standard 7 + 3 schedule with cytarabine 200 mg/m 2 continuously days 1 to 7, daunorubicin 60 mg/m 2 days 1, 2, and 3 and high-dose cytarabine (1 g/m 2 , bi-daily, days 1, 2, and 3) for consolidation therapy. Addressing two primary endpoints, MRD-negativity after induction therapy and event-free survival (EFS), 252 evaluable patients are needed to reject each of the two null hypotheses at a two-sided significance level of 2.5% with a power of at least 85%. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval and approvals from the local and federal competent authorities were granted. Trial results will be reported via peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences and scientific meetings. Trial status Protocol version: 1st version 20.10.2020, no amendments yet. Study initiation on February 16, 2021. First patient was recruited on April 1st. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04093505 ; EudraCT 2019-003913-32. Registered on October 30, 2018.

Abstract: Natural killer (NK) cells are key effectors in cancer immunosurveillance and posttransplant immunity, but deficiency of environmental signals and insufficient tumor recognition may limit their activity. We hypothesized that the antibody-mediated anchoring of interleukin-2 (IL-2) to a spliced isoform of the extracellular matrix (ECM) glycoprotein tenascin-C would potentiate NK-cell–mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity against leukemic blasts. In this novel-novel combination, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial, we enrolled patients with posttransplant acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapse to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary activity of the antibody-cytokine fusion F16IL2 (10 × 106 to 20 × 106 IU IV; days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle) in combination with the anti-CD33 antibody BI 836858 (10-40 mg IV, 2 days after each F16IL2 infusion). Among the 15 patients (median [range] age, 50 [20-68] years) treated across 4 dose levels (DLs), 6 (40%) had received 2 or 3 prior transplantations. The most frequent adverse events were pyrexia, chills, and infusion-related reactions, which were manageable, transient and of grade ≤2. One dose-limiting toxicity occurred at each of DLs 3 (pulmonary edema) and 4 (graft-versus-host disease). Three objective responses were observed among 7 patients treated at the 2 higher DLs, whereas no responses occurred at the 2 starting DLs. Combination therapy stimulated the expansion and activation of NK cells, including those expressing the FcγRIIIA/CD16 receptor. ECM-targeted IL-2 combined with anti-CD33 immunotherapy represents an innovative approach associated with acceptable safety and encouraging biologic and clinical activity in posttransplant AML relapse. This trial was registered at EudraCT as 2015-004763-37.

Abstract: Mutations of the isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) and IDH2 genes are among the most frequent alterations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and can be found in ∼20% of patients at diagnosis. Among 4930 patients (median age, 56 years; interquartile range, 45-66) with newly diagnosed, intensively treated AML, we identified IDH1 mutations in 423 (8.6%) and IDH2 mutations in 575 (11.7%). Overall, there were no differences in response rates or survival for patients with mutations in IDH1 or IDH2 compared with patients without mutated IDH1/2. However, distinct clinical and comutational phenotypes of the most common subtypes of IDH1/2 mutations could be associated with differences in outcome. IDH1-R132C was associated with increased age, lower white blood cell (WBC) count, less frequent comutation of NPM1 and FLT3 internal tandem mutation (ITD) as well as with lower rate of complete remission and a trend toward reduced overall survival (OS) compared with other IDH1 mutation variants and wild-type (WT) IDH1/2. In our analysis, IDH2-R172K was associated with significantly lower WBC count, more karyotype abnormalities, and less frequent comutations of NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD. Among patients within the European LeukemiaNet 2017 intermediate- and adverse-risk groups, relapse-free survival and OS were significantly better for those with IDH2-R172K compared with WT IDH, providing evidence that AML with IDH2-R172K could be a distinct entity with a specific comutation pattern and favorable outcome. In summary, the presented data from a large cohort of patients with IDH1/2 mutated AML indicate novel and clinically relevant findings for the most common IDH mutation subtypes.