Impact of Prior Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Treatment on Brexucabtagene Autoleucel outcomes in Adults with B-cell ALL.

The effect of prior inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) treatment on brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) outcomes remains unclear in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), particularly the influence off previous InO response and the timing of administration. We conducted a retrospective multicenter analysis of 189 patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) ALL treated with brexu-cel. Over half of the patients received InO before brexu-cel (InO-exposed). InO-exposed patients were more heavily pretreated (p= 0.02) and frequently had active marrow disease pre-apheresis (p= 0.03). Response rate and toxicity profile following brexu-cel were comparable for InO-exposed and InO-naïve; however, consolidation therapy post brexu-cel response was utilized at a higher rate in InO-naïve patients (p= 0.005). With a median follow up of 11.4 months, InO-exposed patients had inferior progression-free survival (PFS) (p=0.013) and overall survival (OS) (p=0.006) in univariate analyses; however, prior InO exposure did not influence PFS (HR 1.20, 95%CI, 0.71-2.03) in multivariate models. When InO-exposed patients were stratified according to prior InO response, InO responders had superior PFS (p=0.002) and OS (p<0.0001) relative to InO-refractory. The timing of administering InO did not affect brexu-cel outcomes, with comparable PFS (p=0.51) and OS (p=0.86) for patients receiving InO as bridging therapy or pre-apheresis. In conclusion, while InO exposure was associated with inferior survival outcomes following brexu-cel in unadjusted analyses, these associations were no longer significant in multivariate analyses, suggesting it is unlikely that InO negatively impacts brexu-cel efficacy. Our data instead imply that InO-exposed recipients of brexu-cel tend to be higher-risk patients with intrinsic adverse leukemia biology.

How Genetics Can Drive Initial Therapy Choices for Older Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

OPINION STATEMENT: Treatment of older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is challenging. Therapy decisions must be guided by multiple factors including aging-related conditions (e.g., comorbidities, functional impairment), therapy benefits and risks, patient preferences, and disease characteristics. Balancing these factors requires understanding the unique, and frequently higher-risk cytogenetic and molecular characteristics of AML in older adult populations, which should caution providers not to reduce therapy intensity on the basis of age alone. Instead, geriatric assessments should be employed to determine fitness for therapy. Treatment options in AML are increasingly targeted to specific mutations or recognized to have differential benefits on the basis of genomics, and representation of older adults and geriatric outcome reporting in clinical trials is improving. Additionally, newer studies have begun to explore personalized therapy strategies on the basis of initial genetic testing. Review and refinement of practice guidelines for older patients on the basis of these advances is needed and is anticipated to remain an important topic in ongoing hematology/oncology clinical education.

Tumor lysis syndrome risk in outpatient versus inpatient administration of venetoclax and hypomethlators for acute myeloid leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: Venetoclax along with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) is the new standard therapy for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) not fit for intensive frontline induction chemotherapy. Venetoclax is associated with fatal episodes of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and recommendations are for its initiation for CLL and AML in the inpatient setting with close monitoring. Herein, we evaluated the safety of outpatient venetoclax ramp up when given in addition to HMAs for the treatment of AML. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with AML at our institution from 12/1/2016 until 7/1/2020. We identified patients who received HMAs and venetoclax for AML, either as frontline or relapsed/refractory therapy. Records were reviewed for evidence of laboratory or clinical tumor lysis episodes in all patients. RESULTS: Between 12/1/2016 and 7/1/2020 43, patients at our institution received venetoclax/HMA for the treatment of AML. Thirty-nine patients (91%) had venetoclax initiation and ramp up in the outpatient setting. One episode of laboratory TLS (2.5%) was identified. This patient required admission to the hospital for rasburicase and IV fluids with resolution of the laboratory effects without resultant clinical TLS. There were no episodes of clinical TLS in either group. Thirty-day mortality from venetoclax initiation was 0% in both groups. CONCLUSION: Our experience with HMAs and venetoclax showed that outpatient ramp up of venetoclax is safe with a very low risk of laboratory TLS (2.5%) and no evidence of clinical TLS within our cohort.