Impact of therapy delays on outcomes in adults with BCR::ABL1 negative b-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in the ECOG-ACRIN E1910 trial randomized to conventional chemotherapy +/- blinatumomab
Abstract
Abstract Background: The addition of the CD19/CD3 bispecific T-cell engager, blinatumomab, to standard consolidation chemotherapy in adults with ALL who achieved a measurable residual disease negative (MRDneg) remission (CR), demonstrated an improvement in 3-year overall survival (OS, 85% vs 68%, HR 0.41, P=0.002) and 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS, 80% vs 64%, HR 0.53) compared to conventional chemotherapy in the ECOG-ACRIN E1910 study (Litzow et al, NEJM 2024). Given the complex therapy in this study, treatment delays and modifications are expected. We herein explored the impact of such delays on patient outcomes. Methods: In the phase 3 ECOG-ACRIN E1910 trial (NCT02003222), adults aged 30-70 years with newly diagnosedALL who had achieved MRDneg CR following induction and intensification were randomized to consolidation chemotherapy with blinatumomab (blina arm) or chemotherapy alone (chemo arm). We examined the association between the timing of the initiation of maintenance therapy and OS and RFS. The expected duration of consolidation was 252 days vs 126 days for patients on the blina and chemo arms, respectively. For this analysis, participants were classified into two groups (no/short delay or long delay) depending on whether they started on time/before or after the median time between the beginning of consolidation and start of maintenance therapy for their treatment group (medians: 335 days, range, 181-457 days vs 176 days, range, 139-265 days for blina and chemo arms, respectively). Multivariate analyses of OS and RFS were performed to examine the effect of no/short delay vs. long delay in starting maintenance. Patients were stratified according to their assigned consolidation treatment arm, and the models were further adjusted for age, sex, white blood cell count, platelets, hemoglobin, peripheral blood blasts, bone marrow blasts, performance status and genetic-genomic risk at diagnosis. Results: Of the 488 patients enrolled, 224 MRDneg patients were randomized to consolidation chemotherapy with or without blinatumomab and 135 of the 224 went on to maintenance therapy on study (N= 66 on blina arm and 69 on chemo arm, respectively). The median follow-up from the time of maintenance registration was 43.4 months. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients in either arm who experienced no/short delay or long delay. In the blina group, 60 of 66 patients (90.9%) received all 8 cycles of consolidation therapy of which 31 (45.6%) had long delays. Sixty-eight of 69 patients on the chemo arm (98.5%) received all cycles of consolidation therapy, of which 34 (50%) had a long delay. Strikingly, patients who had a long delay before initiation of maintenance had a significant improvement in OS in multivariate analysis compared to patients who had no/short delay (HR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11-0.91; P =0.03). However, within each treatment group, OS benefit did not reach statistical significance (blina arm: HR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.001-1.64; P =0.09; chemo arm: HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.08-1.38; P =0.13). Similar results were observed for RFS in multivariate analysis (HR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.16-1.01; P =0.05), though this impact on improved RFS was noted in the chemo arm but not in blinatumomab treated patients (blina arm: HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.10-3.24; P =0.52; chemo arm: HR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04-0.83; P=0.03). Additionally, patients who had no/short delay before starting maintenance experienced a longer median duration of maintenance treatment (blina arm, 548 days; chemo arm, 708 days) compared to patients who had a long delay (blina arm 488 days; chemo arm 598 days) before initiation of maintenance (P=0.0008). Conclusion: In the phase 3 randomized ECOG-ACRIN E1910 clinical trial, long delays between initiation of consolidation therapy and start of maintenance therapy were associated with improved OS compared to no/short delays. However, within each treatment group (blina or chemo), no significant difference of OS was observed. We postulate that these longer delays allowed more patients to receive all of the recommended protocol-assigned therapy thereby resulting in improved survival. Furthermore, patients who had no/short delays had a significantly longer duration of maintenance therapy. These data indicate that treatment delays during consolidation do not worsen survival. Further studies are being done to better understand why patients with long delays had better overall survival.
Article Details
Authors (38)
Bhavana Bhatnagar
16Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, United States
Zhuoxin Sun
2Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
Ryan Mattison
3University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, United States
Elisabeth Paietta
4Montefiore Medical Center, Moses Campus, Bronx, United States
Yanming Zhang
Janis Racevskis
4Montefiore Medical Center, Moses Campus, Bronx, United States
Hillard Lazarus
6Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, United States
Jacob Rowe
7Rambam Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
Daniel Arber
8University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
Matthew Wieduwilt
9UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, San Diego, United States
Michaela Liedtke
Julie Bergeron
10Hopital Masionneuve-Rosemont, Montreal, Canada
Brent Wood
11University of Washington, Seattle, United States
Keith Pratz
12Johns Hopkins University/ Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, United States
Shira Dinner
13Northwestern University, Chicago, United States
Noelle Frey
Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology–Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Steven Gore
Ehab Atallah
17Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States
Geoffrey Uy
18Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, United States
Deepa Jeyakumar
19UC Irvine Health Cancer Center-Newport, Orange, United States
Tara Lin
20University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood, United States
Cheryl Willman
21Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Nikolai Podoltsev
15Yale University, New Haven, United States
Daniel Deangelo
2Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
Shejal Patel
22Virginia Commonwealth University/ Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, United States
Michelle Elliott
21Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Anjali Advani
6Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
Dimitrios Tzachanis
24UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, United States
Pankit Vachhani
25University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer Center, Birmingham, United States
Rupali Roy
27Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, United States
Elad Sharon
Richard Little
27National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
Harry Erba
28Duke University Medical Center, Durham, United States
Richard Stone
Selina Luger
14University of Pennsylvania/ Abrahmson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States
Charles Mullighan
9Department of Pathology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN
Martin Tallman
5Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
Mark Litzow
21Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States