Choe, Hannah

Background: Despite recently approved novel targeted therapies, most patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) still require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) to achieve long-term survival. However, older patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML are often unable to undergo HCT due to the toxicity of myeloablative pre-conditioning. Since higher doses of chemotherapy and radiation are associated with prolonged myelosuppression or infectious complications, targeted radiotherapy with Iomab-B, employed in the SIERRA trial, was designed to minimize toxicities in a patient population unable to tolerate standard high-dose myeloablative HCT pre-conditioning. We hypothesize that Iomab-B, which spares non-hematologic organs such as the GI tract, exhibits a favorable toxicity profile with respect to mucositis, febrile neutropenia (FN), and sepsis. Methods: The SIERRA trial is a prospective trial for patients ≥55 years of age with R/R AML (≥5% blasts) and 8/8 HLA-matched related or unrelated donors. Patients were randomized (1:1) to Iomab-B or Conventional Care (CC). Those in the Iomab-B group received a dosimetric infusion of Iomab-B followed by nuclear imaging to determine the personalized therapeutic dose to be delivered to the bone marrow and to other sites of disease. Therapeutic dose calculations, utilizing the Olinda software (Version 2.1, Hermes Medical) to determine the delivery of a maximum of 24 Gray (Gy) dose to the liver, were performed based on the imaging results. HCT is performed 12-14 days following the infusion of a therapeutic dose of Iomab-B, and a non-myeloablative conditioning backbone of fludarabine (30 mg/m2 x 3) and low-dose Total Body Irradiation (TBI 2 Gy x 1 dose). CC patients received the investigator's choice of salvage therapy. Safety data was evaluated from randomization and up to 100 days after HCT in the patients randomized to the Iomab-B group. We specifically evaluated AE variables of mucositis (Gr 2-4), FN (Gr3,4) and sepsis. An analysis was performed with both total activity of Iomab-B as well as with the radiation dose delivered to the bone marrow, stomach wall, small and large intestinal walls. For each of the 3 AEs of interest, a multivariate analysis was performed, allowing each of the predictor variables to be included in the model. Results: A total of 106 patients were randomized at the time of analysis. For those randomized to Iomab-B, data is available for 45 patients that received a therapeutic dose of Iomab-B and HCT. The median dose of Iomab-B administered was 603 mCi (range 313-1027 mCi) and the median radiation dose delivered to the marrow in the Iomab-B group was 14.7 Gy (range 4.6 - 32 Gy). All patients (median age 64) treated with a therapeutic dose of Iomab-B achieved neutrophil engraftment after a median of 14 days post-HCT (range 9-22), despite presenting with a median 26% marrow blasts prior to initiation of therapy. Rates of mucositis, FN, and sepsis are shown in Table 1. No correlation between AEs (FN, mucositis, sepsis) and administered Iomab-B activity (p=0.08), nor with dose delivered to GI tract (p=0.09) was observed. Furthermore, these AEs were not related to the dose of radiation received by the small intestine (median 2.7 Gy range 1.1-6.8 Gy) large intestine (median 2.6 Gy range 0.9-6.5 Gy), nor an average of all 4 GI sites (median 2.8 Gy range 1.6-6.8 Gy). Conclusions: Unlike cases involving treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy and external beam radiation where mucositis, infections and sepsis increase along with the administered dose, targeted myeloablative conditioning with Iomab-B resulted in low incidences of severe mucositis, FN, and sepsis. These AEs do not appear to be related to the total dose of Iomab-B administered nor to the specific radiation dose delivered to the bone marrow. Furthermore, a low dose of radiation (2.8 Gy) was received by the GI tract compared to the larger dose of radiation (14.7 Gy) delivered to the marrow. Taken together, these results represent potentially significant improvements in the safe delivery of myeloablative therapy with high-dose targeted radioimmunotherapy, prior to HCT in older patients with R/R AML. This SIERRA trial is currently enrolling patients (www.sierratrial.com or clinicaltrials.gov NCT02665065). Disclosures Gyurkocza: Actinium: Research Funding. Nath:Actinium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria. Stiff:Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Atara: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Delta-Fly: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Hari:Amgen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Al-Kadhimi:Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Gilead Science: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Moderna: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Abboud:Ryvu: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; BMS: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Abbott Labs: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AbbVie Inc: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AlloVir: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding. Magalhaes-Silverman:Kadmon Holdings: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Foran:Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding. Schuster:Amgen, Abbvie, Gilead, Takeda, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Astellas, Verastem, Merck, Novartis, Takeda, Genentech,, Seattle Genetics: Other: Personal Fees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Jazz: Consultancy. Levy:Karyopharm,Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Giralt:KITE: Consultancy; NOVARTIS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; OMEROS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ACTINUUM: Consultancy, Research Funding; MILTENYI: Consultancy, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Research Funding; CELGENE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Consultancy, Honoraria; AMGEN: Consultancy, Research Funding. Liang:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Abstract Background: Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represent a vulnerable population in whom disease-based and clinical risk factors, patient goals, prognosis, and practitioner- and patient-perceived treatment risks and benefits influence treatment recommendations. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of AML in older adults. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included specialists in myeloid leukemia, geriatric oncology, patient-reported outcomes and decision-making, frailty, epidemiology, and methodology, as well as patients. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 24 May 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to patients, as judged by the panel. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE’s Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 6 critical questions in managing older adults with AML, mirroring real-time practitioner-patient conversations: the decision to pursue antileukemic treatment vs best supportive management, the intensity of therapy, the role and duration of postremission therapy, combination vs monotherapy for induction and beyond, duration of less-intensive therapy, and the role of transfusion support for patients no longer receiving antileukemic therapy. Conclusions: Treatment is recommended over best supportive management. More-intensive therapy is recommended over less-intensive therapy when deemed tolerable. However, these recommendations are guided by the principle that throughout a patient’s disease course, optimal care involves ongoing discussions between clinicians and patients, continuously addressing goals of care and the relative risk-benefit balance of treatment.

Systemic glucocorticoids are the principal treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which remains the major cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, there are no validated biomarkers that measure a patient's response to glucocorticoid therapy, and thus response is evaluated by the change in clinical symptom severity. A major weakness in the predictive power of clinical responses is that changes to all organs are weighted equally even though the major driver of NRM is irreversible damage to the crypts of the GI tract. Recent studies from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) have validated an algorithm probability (MAP) that combines serum concentrations of two biomarkers of GVHD (REG3α and ST2) to generate an estimated probability of 6 month NRM for individual patients. The MAP has been considered a "liquid biopsy" that estimates the damage caused by GVHD to crypts throughout the lower GI tract (Hartwell et al., JCI Insight, 2017; Major-Monfried et al., Blood, 2018). We hypothesized that the change in MAP between start of treatment and 28 days later could serve as a response biomarker for GVHD and might compare favorably to the change in clinical symptoms that measures response to GVHD treatment, which is widely used as a surrogate for long term survival and is the primary endpoint in most GVHD treatment trials (Martin et al., BBMT, 2009; MacMillan et al., Blood, 2010). We prospectively collected serum samples and clinical staging from 368 sequential HCT patients who received systemic treatment for acute GVHD in one of 20 MAGIC centers between January 2016 and February 2018. We measured the serum concentrations of REG3α and ST2 before and after systemic therapy for acute GVHD and computed MAPs, the changes in MAPs, and clinical responses for each patient. MAPs of patients who experienced 6 month NRM showed significantly greater increases than MAPs of patients who survived (p=0.0004). In patients whose MAPs at the start of treatment were low (Ann Arbor 1, MAP < 0.141) or intermediate (Ann Arbor 2, 0.141 ≤ MAP ≤ 0.290), 6 month NRM clustered among those who had the greatest increases in MAP after 28 days (Fig 1A,B). In patients with high MAPs at the start of treatment (Ann Arbor 3, MAP > 0.290), those who survived tended to have the largest decreases in MAP (Fig 1C). These changes in MAP suggested crossing a single threshold could predict risk of mortality. We found that patients whose MAPs rose above a threshold MAP of 0.290 (5% of Ann Arbor 1, 27% of Ann Arbor 2) had significantly worse survival compared to those who remained below it, whereas the large number patients with initially high MAPs that remained above the threshold (66% of Ann Arbor 3) had a large increases in mortality (Fig 2). When measured at day 28, the MAP was significantly more accurate in predicting NRM than the gold standard of the clinical response, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.86 and 0.70, respectively (p<0.0001). An algorithm that combined clinical response with biomarkers generated the same AUC as the MAP alone (0.83 v 0.86, p = NS). We next tested whether the same MAP threshold of 0.290 could predict risk within clinical response subsets. A significant minority (10%) of clinical responders had high MAPs and experienced three-fold greater NRM than those with low MAPs (40% v 12%, p<0.0001) whereas the majority (57%) of non-responders had low MAPs and experienced almost three-fold lower NRM than those with high MAPs (24% v 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 3). Thus the MAP provides important prognostic information over and above the change in clinical symptoms, further stratifying both responders and non-responders at four weeks of treatment. The MAP threshold classified patients both with and without significant lower GI symptoms because the MAP is a more specific measure of irreversible cryptic damage in patients with copious diarrhea and more sensitive in patients with less than 0.5 liters of daily diarrhea (Fig 4). We conclude that the MAP is, to our knowledge, the first validated laboratory test to serve as response biomarker for the treatment for acute GVHD and a more accurate predictor of survival than clinical response after four weeks of treatment. The MAP may serve as a novel endpoint and an important complement to changes in clinical symptom severity in future trials of GVHD treatment. Disclosures Srinagesh: National Institutes of Health: Research Funding. Ozbek:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: Biomarker Patent. Ayuk:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Aziz:Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding. Grupp:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; CBMG: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Adaptimmune: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Cure Genetics: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy. Hexner:novartis: Research Funding. Kitko:Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mielke:EBMT/EHA: Other: Travel support; ISCT: Other: Travel support; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel and speakers fee (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; IACH: Other: Travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Other: Travel support; Bellicum: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel (via institution); GILEAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau. Merli:Sobi: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bellicum: Consultancy. Pulsipher:Amgen: Other: Lecture; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Bellicum: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Other: Education for employees; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria. Qayed:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Levine:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biogen: Other: non-financial support; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: biomarker patent; Ironwood: Honoraria; bluebird bio: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Kamada: Research Funding. Ferrara:National Institutes of Health: Research Funding; ViraCor: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; Enlivex: Consultancy; Xenikos: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy.

Key Points The MAGIC algorithm probability, computed from 2 serum biomarkers, predicts mortality in all GVHD grades after 4 weeks of treatment. Dynamic changes in the MAGIC algorithm probability occur within all biomarker risk groups and can guide therapy.

Background: Patients ≥55 years of age with rel/ref AML who have failed to achieve complete remission (CR) after standard induction & salvage therapies do not routinely undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) due to inability to receive myeloablative conditioning and lack of efficacy. With the advent of recently approved targeted therapies (e.g. venetoclax, IDH inhibitors) more patients achieve CR, however durable responses in heavily pre-treated patient populations remain unsatisfactory with very few patients being transplanted. The SIERRA (Study of Iomab-B in Elderly Relapsed or Refractory AML) trial is a prospective, randomized, phase 3 trial designed to address this unmet need. We present the preliminary analysis of the first 50% of patients and analyze the proportion of patients who fail standard chemo and targeted therapies that can then successfully undergo HCT with Iomab-B-based conditioning. Study continues to enroll (N=150), primary end-point durable CR of ≥180 days. Methods: Eligible patients are ≥ 55 years with rel/ref AML (≥5% blasts), adequate organ function, and related/unrelated 8/8 HLA-matched donors. Patients are randomized (1:1) to receive Iomab-B followed 12-14 days later by reduced intensity conditioning (fludarabine(FLU)/TBI) and HCT, or to conventional care (CC). CC patients may receive investigator's choice of salvage therapy, including newly approved targeted agents such as venetoclax, IDH Inhibitors and may proceed to standard HCT if they achieve CR. If patients do not achieve CR, the study allows cross-over (CO) to Iomab-B with HCT. Results: Preliminary data are available from the first 75 patients enrolled on the SIERRA trial. Median age of 64 years (range: 55-77). All patients had active measurable disease (Table 1). Patients in this trial were heavily pretreated with 85% failing ≥2 induction therapies and 33% failing targeted therapies. Molecular and cytogenetics was 68% adverse risk. (NCCN, v1.2018) Following therapeutic dose of Iomab-B as a single agent, there was significant reduction of circulating blasts by day 3 (99%, p<0.0001), and peripheral blasts became undetectable by day 8 prior to FLU. All patients transplanted on the Iomab-B arm with data available showed median days to engraftment of ANC at 14 (range: 9-22) and platelets at 16 (range: 4-30) (Table 1). After randomization, 82% (31/38) patients in the CC arm failed salvage therapy and did not proceed to standard HCT. Significantly, 32% (12/38) of these patients received targeted therapy. 73% (8/11) of the patients receiving venetoclax with HMA or cytarabine did not adequately respond and did not proceed to standard HCT, 45% (5/11) crossed over to Iomab-B and received HCT. Following standard chemotherapies, 85% (22/26) were evaluated for CO. In total, 63% (19/30) received Iomab-B and HCT. The most common reason preventing crossover was disease progression. All crossover (Iomab-B) patients showed similar engraftment (Table 1). CC patients showed increased incidence of febrile neutropenia with grade 3 prior to CO evaluation or HCT, compared to Iomab-B patients prior to HCT (CC: 34%, Iomab-B: 8%). Iomab-B administration was generally well-tolerated with no grade 4 and 1 grade 3 infusion reaction. There were no Iomab-B-related deaths or 100 day non-relapse transplant related mortality deaths in patients on the Iomab-B arm (Table 1). Conclusion: 100% of the patients receiving HCT on the Iomab-B arm engrafted, despite a median of 29% BM blasts pre-Iomab-B. 82% of the patients on the CC arm failed to be eligible for standard of care transplant, including a high percentage of those receiving targeted therapies. On the CC arm, 63% of eligible patients crossed over to Iomab-B/HCT with robust engraftment despite a median of 35% BM blasts pre-Iomab-B. The incidence of grade 3 febrile neutropenia was higher in patients treated on the conventional care arm with salvage therapy vs. those treated on the Iomab-B arm prior to HCT. In conclusion, despite advanced age, active disease and heavily pre-treated patients, 68% (50/74) of all patients enrolled in the SIERRA trial were able to undergo HCT after reinduction and targeted conditioning with Iomab-B. These results show significant improvements in the current rates of transplantation in this patient population. This SIERRA trial is currently enrolling. For full study details see www.sierratrial.com or clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02665065). Disclosures Gyurkocza: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nath:Astellas: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Stiff:Amgen: Research Funding; Gamida-Cell: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tomlinson:Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Other: Travel Support. Abhyankar:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Therakos: Other: Consulting, Speakers Bureau. Hari:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Al-Kadhimi:Seattle Genetics: Other: Stocks; Celldex Biotech: Other: Stocks. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Orozco:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Van Besien:Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Sabloff:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASTX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Canada: Research Funding. Kebriaei:Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals): Consultancy. Lazarus:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Giralt:Novartis: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Pagel:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy.

Abstract Relapse of malignancy and lethal graft versus host disease (GVHD) are the principal causes of failure of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Recently we have shown that at seven days after HCT an algorithm using two serum biomarkers (ST2 and REG3α) can predict severe GVHD (Hartwell et al. JCI Insight 2017). We determined whether serial testing (in the first month following HCT) of patients with low probability biomarkers would improve the predictive accuracy of the algorithm and identify patients with different risks of relapse and lethal GVHD. Patients who received an HCT at 18 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) for hematologic malignancy and who supplied three blood samples were divided into a training set and validation set with equal numbers of lethal GVHD events, which was defined as death from GVHD or infection during treatment for GVHD. Patients in the training set (n=702) underwent HCT from January 1, 2006 until June 30, 2015, whereas patients in the validation set (n=906) underwent HCT from July 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017. Serum samples were analyzed using the previously published algorithm of two biomarkers up to three times (day 7, day 14, day 28 or GVHD onset, if onset occurred within the first 28 days). The algorithm generates a predicted probability of lethal GVHD between 0 and 1 for each patient. Patients were categorized as either low probability (LP) or high probability (HP) for lethal GVHD. HP thresholds of 0.20 and 0.16 were used to classify patients with and without GVHD symptoms, respectively (once categorized as HP, patients remained in that category and were not retested). All results were similar between training and validation sets, and we present here the validation set results. Serial testing identified 28% of patients as HP with a three-fold greater cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD at one year (13% vs 4%, p<0.001, Figure 1). Relapse rates were the same in both probability groups, and thus LP patients experienced significantly better relapse free survival (RFS) (69% vs 53%, p<0.001). As expected, significantly fewer LP patients experienced severe GVHD at onset (as measured by Minnesota risk), maximum grade III/IV GVHD, or steroid resistant GVHD by day 180 after HCT (Figure 2, p<0.001 for all three parameters). To measure the accuracy of prediction, at each timepoint we calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves; the AUC increased significantly with each subsequent evaluation, from 0.59 at one timepoint (dotted line) to 0.74 at the third timepoint (solid line) (p<0.001), with a final sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 74% (Figure 3A). Early development of GVHD (by day 28) is a risk factor for lethal GVHD. Therefore, we next plotted RFS (dashed line), relapse (solid line), and lethal GVHD (dotted line) rates in patients who developed GVHD by day 28. 25% of patients with GVHD were categorized as HP and had a cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD more than four times higher (28%) than that of relapse (6%); however the risks were reversed for the 75% of patients who were LP, where relapse (15%) occurred twice as often as lethal GVHD (7%) (Figure 3B). In patients who did not develop GVHD in the first month, this reversal of risks was even more dramatic. Approximately half (53%) of the entire validation cohort did not develop GVHD by day 28 and was LP at all three evaluations. These patients had an exceptionally low risk of lethal GVHD and thus they relapsed (25%) much more often than they died from GVHD (3%). When malignancies were classified according to risk for relapse by the disease risk index (DRI) (Figure 3C), the probability of relapse was three fold higher than lethal GVHD in malignancies with a low DRI (12%), six fold higher for intermediate DRI (20%), and eleven fold higher for high/very high DRI (33%). We conclude that a serial monitoring strategy using GVHD biomarkers for one month after HCT is able to identify two groups of patients with very different risks of lethal GVHD and relapse. For these patients, the intensity of immunosuppression after day 28 could be tailored according to the probabilities of developing lethal GVHD and relapse in the context of clinical trials. Disclosures Aziz: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Ayuk:Therakos (Mallinckrodt): Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Chen:REGiMMUNE: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Merli:Neovii Biotech: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria. Roesler:Sanofi: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Immunomedics: Equity Ownership; Biogen: Equity Ownership; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kitko:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mallinckrodt: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Qayed:Novartis: Consultancy. Wölfl:Bristol-myers Squibb: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Equity Ownership; Taheda: Equity Ownership; Juno: Equity Ownership; Neovii: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Mielke:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Speakers Bureau; EHA: Speakers Bureau; Kiadis Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Speakers Bureau. Wudhikarn:Takeda Oncology: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Nakamura:Celgene: Honoraria; Molmed: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Pulsipher:CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Levine:Therakos: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Research Funding; Viracor: Patents & Royalties. Ferrara:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Xenikos: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Kamada: Consultancy, Research Funding; Viracor: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Background: Patients ≥55 years of age with active, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) who have failed standard induction therapies most often receive salvage therapy with a wide variety of agents, but very few achieve remission. These patients do not routinely undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) due to lack of efficacy using a standard HCT approach. The SIERRA trial is a prospective, randomized, phase 3, open-label, ongoing multicenter trial designed to address this significant unmet need in R/R AML. This trial compares Iomab-B, an 131I-radiolabeled anti-CD45 antibody as targeted conditioning prior to HCT against standard conventional care therapies with an accrual goal of 150 patients. We have performed a preliminary safety analysis, validating the initial feasibility of this multi-center trial. Methods: Eligible patients are ≥ 55 years of age with active, R/R AML, adequate organ function, and related/unrelated matched donor. Patients are randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive dosimetry directed Iomab-B followed 12 days later by HCT with fludarabine 30 mg/m2 x 3 days and 2 Gy of total body irradiation as transplant conditioning, or to a Conventional Care (CC) arm. Patients randomized to CC, may receive investigator's choice of salvage induction chemotherapy including approved targeted agents as well as Venetoclax (in combination with a hypomethylating agent) and proceed to standard HCT if they achieve complete remission (CR). If patients do not achieve CR, the study allows optional cross-over to the Iomab-B arm, evaluated between days 28-42 after CC therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint for the study is durable complete remission (dCR) of 6 months. The secondary efficacy objective is to evaluate overall survival at 1 year. Results: Forty patients have been enrolled to date and data are available for 38 patients (19 = Iomab-B, 19 = CC) as of July 5th, 2018. The median age was 63 years (range: 55-76). All patients had active disease at the time of enrollment with median bone marrow (BM) blasts of 30% in the Iomab-B arm and 47% in the crossover arm prior to receiving Iomab-B (Table 1). Of the patients in the CC arm, 88% did not achieve a CR and 65% of those crossed-over to receive Iomab-B. The most common reason preventing crossover was declining performance status. Time to HCT was not increased in the crossover patients receiving Iomab-B compared to those that underwent a standard of care transplant after achieving CR (median 65 vs 75 days), while the Iomab-B arm patients were transplanted at a median of 27 days after randomization. Iomab-B therapy was well-tolerated with no grade 3 or 4 infusion-related reactions reported. The median activity of Iomab-B was 626 mCi (range: 397-1027). All patients randomized to Iomab-B (N=13) engrafted, with median days to engraftment of ANC at 13 (range: 9-22) and platelets at 17 (range: 13-26). All patients who received Iomab-B after crossover (N=9) also engrafted with time to engraftment similar to patients initially randomized to the Iomab-B arm (Table 1). Donor chimerism (≥95%), within 100 days after HCT, was found in 9 of 10 patients in the Iomab-B arm and 8 of 9 patients in those that crossed over to receive Iomab-B, with two patient exceptions having mixed donor chimerism at day 28. A preliminary safety analysis for all randomized patients on either study arm showed the most frequent non-hematologic adverse events ≥ grade 3 occurring in >10% patients were febrile neutropenia (34.2%), stomatitis (15.8%), malnutrition (13.2%), epistaxis, sepsis, hypotension, hypobilirubinemia and fatigue (all 10.5%). There were no Iomab-B-related deaths. Interpretation: Preliminary safety analysis demonstrates the feasibility of delivering targeted conditioning with Iomab- B for HCT in R/R AML patients who have active disease and a high BM blast burden (median: ≥ 30%) prior to transplantation. All patients who received Iomab-B, including those crossed over after failing to achieve CR on CC salvage therapy, engrafted ANC within 13 days, despite active disease prior to transplant. In addition, the time to HCT from randomization was not increased in patients receiving Iomab-B after cross-over compared to those who underwent standard of care HCT after achieving CR on the CC arm. This study is currently enrolling and for full study details see www.sierratrial.com or clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02665065). Disclosures Tomlinson: Foundation Medicine: Consultancy. Foran:Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding. Chen:Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Lazarus:Pluristem Ltd.: Consultancy. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy.