Improving Unrelated Donor Equity: Assessing Mismatched Donor Opportunities with Real-World Data in a Minority-Predominant Cohort.

Recent advances in graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis including post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and abatacept have significantly improved outcomes following HLA-mismatched allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and have tremendous potential for reducing racial disparities in donor availability. A recent small study employing bone marrow as the source of stem cells showed similar outcomes after 5/8 versus 7/8 matches and is currently being tested in a larger study using peripheral blood stem cells. In this study, we examine real-world alternative donor HSCT options for a minority-predominant cohort in the Bronx, NY, focusing on the availability of lesser-matched (5/8 to 7/8) donors. Records of patients who underwent HLA typing at Montefiore Medical Center (2019 to 2022) were reviewed. The National Marrow Donor Program registry was queried to evaluate the availability of donors with at least 99% likelihood of HLA match at various levels (5/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8). Two hundred forty-one patients were included, 70% were non-White. Although the availability of ≥7/8 donors was less common in non-White patients, 100% of patients from each group had at least one or more 5/8 and 6/8 HLA-matched donors and more than 80% of these patients had >100 potential 5/8 and 6/8 HLA-matched donors. There was no statistical difference by race or ethnicity in the mean number of donors at 5/8 and 6/8 HLA-match levels. We demonstrate through real-world data that patients from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds have access to 5/8 and 6/8 HLA-matched donors for allo-HSCT, potentially eliminating disparities in donor availability and allowing prioritization of other donor selection characteristics such as donor age, sex, ABO, and B leader matching. Further work is needed to study whether the use of mismatched donors offers a more potent graft-versus malignancy effect and optimal GVHD prophylaxis.

Immunotherapy-resistant acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells exhibit reduced CD19 and CD22 expression and BTK pathway dependency.

While therapies targeting CD19 by antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T), and T cell engagers have improved the response rates in B cell malignancies, the emergence of resistant cell populations with low CD19 expression can lead to relapsed disease. We developed an in vitro model of adaptive resistance facilitated by chronic exposure of leukemia cells to a CD19 immunotoxin. Single-cell RNA-Seq (scRNA-Seq) showed an increase in transcriptionally distinct CD19lo populations among resistant cells. Mass cytometry demonstrated that CD22 was also decreased in these CD19lo-resistant cells. An assay for transposase-accessible chromatin with sequencing (ATAC-Seq) showed decreased chromatin accessibility at promoters of both CD19 and CD22 in the resistant cell populations. Combined loss of both CD19 and CD22 antigens was validated in samples from pediatric and young adult patients with B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) that relapsed after CD19 CAR-T-targeted therapy. Functionally, resistant cells were characterized by slower growth and lower basal levels of MEK activation. CD19lo resistant cells exhibited preserved B cell receptor signaling and were more sensitive to both Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) and MEK inhibition. These data demonstrate that resistance to CD19 immunotherapies can result in decreased expression of both CD19 and CD22 and can result in dependency on BTK pathways.

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacitidine and decitabine for individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are available in parenteral form. Oral therapy with similar exposure for these diseases would offer potential treatment benefits. We aimed to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of oral decitabine plus the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine. METHODS: We did a registrational, multicentre, open-label, crossover, phase 3 trial of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and individuals with acute myeloid leukaemia, enrolled as separate cohorts; results for only participants with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are reported here. In 37 academic and community-based clinics in Canada and the USA, we enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older who were candidates to receive intravenous decitabine, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 days of oral decitabine-cedazuridine (one tablet once daily containing 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine as a fixed-dose combination) or intravenous decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day by continuous 1-h intravenous infusion) in a 28-day treatment cycle, followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. Thereafter, all participants received oral decitabine-cedazuridine from the third cycle on until treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was total decitabine exposure over 5 days with oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for cycles 1 and 2, measured as area under the curve in participants who received the full treatment dose in cycles 1 and 2 and had decitabine daily AUC0-24 for both oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine (ie, paired cycles). On completion of the study, all patients were rolled over to a maintenance study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03306264. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2018, and June 7, 2021, 173 individuals were screened, 138 (80%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment sequence, and 133 (96%) participants (87 [65%] men and 46 [35%] women; 121 [91%] White, four [3%] Black or African-American, three [2%] Asian, and five [4%] not reported) received treatment. Median follow-up was 966 days (IQR 917-1050). Primary endpoint of total exposure of oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine was 98·93% (90% CI 92·66-105·60), indicating equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure on the basis of area under the curve. The safety profiles of oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine were similar. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were thrombocytopenia (81 [61%] of 133 participants), neutropenia (76 [57%] participants), and anaemia (67 [50%] participants). The incidence of serious adverse events in cycles 1-2 was 31% (40 of 130 participants) with oral decitabine-cedazuridine and 18% (24 of 132 participants) with intravenous decitabine. There were five treatment-related deaths; two deemed related to oral therapy (sepsis and pneumonia) and three to intravenous treatment (septic shock [n=2] and pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Oral decitabine-cedazuridine was pharmacologically and pharmacodynamically equivalent to intravenous decitabine. The results support use of oral decitabine-cedazuridine as a safe and effective alternative to intravenous decitabine for treatment of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals.