Effect of FLT3 Maintenance in Older FLT3-ITD+ Adults Undergoing Allogeneic HCT. a Post Hoc Analysis of BMT CTN 1506

INTRODUCTION Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is indicated in patients (pts) with FLT3-ITD mutated AML. The randomized BMT CTN 1506 trial (Levis et al. JCO) demonstrated that maintenance with FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (gilt) significantly improved relapse-free survival (RFS) among pts with detectable peri-alloHCT minimal residual disease (MRD) but was also associated with a greater degree of myelosuppression and infections. In older pts, aged >60 years, increasing post-HCT toxicity may adversely impact outcomes. On this basis, we performed a post-hoc analysis of pts aged > 60 years enrolled onto BMT CTN 1506 to examine the impact of gilteritinib maintenance in older pts. METHODS Pts ≥60 years randomized on BMT CTN 1506 (gilt=47, placebo=57; N=104) were included. The primary endpoint of this post-hoc analysis was RFS. We additionally assessed overall survival (OS), incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM) in all pts and in pts with detectable MRD. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were balanced. Age was similar (65.2 vs 64.7 years; p = 0.12), as was prior TKI exposure, and NPM1 mutation status. Myeloablative conditioning (MAC) was used in 8 (17%) pts randomized to gilt and 18 (32%) pts randomized to placebo (p=0.08). Median f/u of survivors was 43.8 months (range:1-61 mo.). Estimated RFS and OS at 48 months were not different between groups (RFS: gilt: 57.0%, 95%CI 44.1-73.7%, placebo: 57.1%, 95%CI 45.4-71.8%; OS: gilt: 56.9%, 95%CI 42.9-46.7%, placebo: 58.4%, 95%CI 46.7-73.1%). While gilt assignment did not affect survival, several predictors of poorer survival were identified including use of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (HR = 3.46; p = 0.014), use of calcineurin inhibitor/MTX for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis (HR = 2.29; p = 0.041), high-risk cytogenetics (HR = 2.64; p = 0.021), and MRD (+) pre-HCT (HR = 2.29; p = 0.018). Finally, relative to gilt assignment, opposing rates of relapse and NRM were observed. The incidence of relapse was lower with gilt (16%, 95%CI 6.8-28% vs 32%, 95%CI 20-45%, p=0.046) but NRM was higher (27%, 95%CI 15-41% vs 11%, 95% CI 4.3-21%, p=0.033). We next analyzed the 49 pts (gilt=22, placebo=27) with detectable peri-HCT MRD. RFS and OS again were not different (RFS: gilt: 44.4%, 95%CI 27.1-72.7%, placebo: 43.8%, 95%CI 28.4-67.5%, OS: gilt: 49.2%,95%CI, 31.3-77.4%, placebo: 55.6%, 95%CI 39.4-77.8%). The incidence of relapse trended lower in gilt pts (25%, 95%CI, 5.3-44.7% vs 45% (95%CI, 25-63%), p=0.2) while NRM trended higher (31%, 95%CI 12-52% vs 11%, 95%CI, 2.7-26%, p=0.12). Seventeen (36%) patients completed planned 2 year maintenance with gilt compared to 29 (51%) completing therapy with placebo. Median time on gilt was 13.2 months. The most common reason for discontinuation was adverse events (n=19, 40%), of which cytopenias (n=8) and infections (n=4) were most frequent. Non-relapse causes of death among gilt treated pts included infections (n=8), intracranial hemorrhage related to thrombocytopenia (n=1), second cancer (n=1), and Guillain-Barre syndrome (n=1). Most infections (n=5) were attributed to GVHD as an underlying cause. CONCLUSION Among pts aged ≥60 years, gilt maintenance did not improve RFS or OS. Gilt use was associated with reduced relapse regardless of peri-HCT MRD status demonstrating disease effect; however, higher NRM limited overall benefit. In older FLT3 mutated pts, employing strategies to mitigate HCT related toxicity, e.g. alternative GVHD prophylaxis strategies, may better accommodate use of maintenance therapy including gilt. Lower doses of gilt (particularly with azole co-use) may be worth exploring to mitigate drug AEs, improve compliance, thus further improving benefit.