Blaise, Didier

The International Academy for Clinical Hematology (IACH) is a global, non-profit educational organization dedicated to advancing excellence, equity, and innovation in clinical hematology. Since its creation, the IACH has built an international community spanning more than 130 countries, leveraging digital-first education, scientific collaboration, and professional networking to improve patient care worldwide. This document presents the IACH Strategic Vision for 2026–2030, outlining a structured roadmap for the Academy’s next phase of growth and international leadership. The strategy is built upon six interdependent pillars: scientific excellence and credibility; digital leadership and intelligent learning; academic alliances and global footprint; innovation, visibility, and advocacy; transparency and sustainability; and brand positioning with global impact. By reinforcing scientific rigor, embracing digital transformation, and promoting innovation, the IACH aims to become the most trusted global reference for clinical hematology education and collaboration. This strategic vision positions the IACH as a unifying platform to unite the world hematology community under one banner of knowledge, collaboration, and compassion, for the benefit of every patient, everywhere.

Abstract Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have shown remarkable efficacy in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and are now used routinely. While allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) remains a curative option for HL, there are concerns prior CPIs may exacerbate post–allo-HCT complications, particularly graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and lead to worse outcomes. Given the relative paucity of data, we performed a Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research/European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation study to examine the impact of prior CPIs in allo-HCT. We included 2186 adult patients aged >18 years who received a first allo-HCT using a matched related, unrelated, or haploidentical donor from 2008 to 2023. Twenty-seven percent of patients received prior CPIs. GVHD prophylaxis was posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) in 55.8% of patients in the CPI cohort, and 35% in the non-CPI cohort. Median follow-up among survivors was longer for the non-CPI (39 months) than CPI cohort (16.5 months). In multivariate analysis, prior CPI exposure did not affect overall survival (OS) or nonrelapse mortality, but resulted in improved progression-free survival (non-CPI vs CPI hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 0.67-0.98; P = .03) and lower relapse incidence (HR, 0.58; 0.45-0.76; P < 001). While grade 2 to 4 (HR, 1.26; 1.04-1.53; P = .02) and 3 to 4 (HR, 1.41; 1.04-1.92; P = .03) acute GVHD (aGVHD) were increased, differences in chronic GVHD (cGVHD) were not significant. PTCy–based GVHD prophylaxis resulted in improved OS, lower grade 2 to 4 aGVHD, and cGVHD in patients with prior CPI exposure. In summary, allo-HCT should still be considered a curative option for patients with HL in the era of CPIs.

Availability of haploidentical donors has broadened utilization of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) are being used with increased frequency in haploidentical allo-HCT. We evaluated extent of HLA disparity (2–3/8 versus 4/8 HLA antigen mismatches) on post-allograft outcomes when using T-cell replete PBSC from haploidentical donors for acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission. Primary objectives entailed assessing cumulative incidence of grade 2–4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and chronic GVHD (any grade). A total of 645 patients received a haploidentical allo-HCT from a donor with either 2–3 of 8 HLA antigen mismatches (n = 180) or with 4 of 8 HLA antigen mismatches (n = 465). Presence of 2–3 of 8 versus 4 of 8 HLA mismatches did not affect the incidence of acute GVHD (grade 2–4) and chronic GVHD (any grade). Overall survival (OS), leukemia-free survival (LFS) relapse incidence (RI), nonrelapse mortality and the composite endpoint of GVHD-free relapse-free survival were also similar among the groups. Pertaining to HLA-B leader matching effect, our analysis did not discern any difference in aforementioned post-allograft outcomes for this variable. However, in univariate analysis, absence of an antigen mismatch in HLA-DPB1 showed a trend for better OS. Notwithstanding inherent limitations associated with registry data, our results did not show an advantage of selecting a haploidentical donor with 2–3 of 8 HLA antigen mismatches over one with 4 of 8 HLA antigen mismatches when using PBSC as the cell source. Adverse cytogenetics remains a major adverse determinant of inferior OS and LFS and a higher RI. Using reduced-intensity conditioning yielded worse OS and LFS.

Abstract Mature T-cell lymphomas constitute the most common indication for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) of all lymphomas. Large studies evaluating contemporary outcomes of allo-HCT in mature T-cell lymphomas relative to commonly used donor sources are not available. Included in this registry study were adult patients who had undergone allo-HCT for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), or peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) between 2008 and 2018. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) platforms compared were posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based haploidentical (haplo-)HCT, matched sibling donor (MSD) HCT, matched unrelated donor HCT with in vivo T-cell depletion (MUD TCD+), and matched unrelated donor HCT without in vivo T-cell depletion (MUD TCD−). Coprimary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and relapse/progression incidence (RI). A total of 1942 patients were eligible (237 haplo-HCT; 911 MSD; 468 MUD TCD+; 326 MUD TCD−). Cohorts were comparable for baseline characteristics with the exception of higher proportions of patients with decreased performance status (PS) and marrow graft recipients in the haplo-HCT group. Using univariate and multivariate comparisons, OS, PFS, RI, and NRM were not significantly different among the haplo-HCT, MSD, MUD TCD+, and MUD TCD− cohorts, with 3-year OS and PFS of 60%, 63%, 59%, and 64%, respectively, and 50%, 50%, 48%, and 52%, respectively. Significant predictors of inferior OS and PFS on multivariate analysis were active disease status at HCT and decreased PS. AITL was associated with significantly reduced relapse risk and better PFS compared with PTCL-NOS. Allo-HCT can provide durable PFS in patients with mature T-cell lymphoma (TCL). Outcomes of haplo-HCT were comparable to those of matched donor allo-HCT.

Abstract Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and 2 mutations occur in 20% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients with AML carrying IDH1-2 mutations have a similar prognosis compared to patients without these mutations (DiNardo et al, AM J H, 2015). However, the impact of IDH1-2 mutations on patients with AML undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is not well known. In this study, we investigate the prognostic impact of IDH1-2 mutational status on AML patients undergoing alloHCT in complete remission (CR). In this retrospective registry-based analysis, we identified 710 consecutive adult patients (46.2% female; median age: 58.5 years [range, 18-78]) with AML undergoing allo-HCT in CR between 2015 and 2019 at 85 EBMT participating centers. Cord blood, ex-vivo graft manipulated transplants, and patients with favorable cytogenetics were excluded. Median follow-up was 15 months [95% CI 13.4-16.6]. Patients were categorized based on IDH1-2 mutational status, with 300 (42%) mutated and 410 (58%) wild type. Six hundred and fifty-two (92%) and 58 (8%) patients had de novo and secondary AML, respectively, and 141 (20%) patients had poor-risk cytogenetics. IDH1-2 mutation was positively correlated with NPM1 mutation (40% in IDH1-2 mutated vs 27% in wild type, p=0.0001) and more frequently encountered in middle-aged patients (p=0.01). No correlation was noted between IDH1-2 and FLT3 mutation or other patient characteristics. Minimal residual disease (MRD) data was available for 344 patients, 53% of which were MRD-negative at transplant in both groups. Six hundred and twenty-three (88%) and 87 (12%) patients were in first and second CR at time of transplant, respectively. Patients received grafts from a matched sibling (24%), unrelated (62%), or haploidentical (14%) donor, and myeloablative conditioning (MAC) was used in 42%. Ninety-three percent of the patients received peripheral blood as the stem cell source. At day 180, the cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) was significantly lower in IDH1-2 mutated compared to wild-type patients (22% vs 33%, p=0.002). No differences in chronic GVHD rates were noted between the 2 groups (39% vs 40%, p=0.87). The 2-year cumulative relapse incidence (RI) was significantly lower and the GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) was also improved in IDH1-2 mutated compared to wild-type patients (14.4% vs 27%, p=0.001 and 47% vs 39%, p=0.006, respectively). This led to an improved leukemia-free survival (LFS) in IDH1-2 patients (69% vs 59%, p=0.01), however, it did not translate into an overall survival (OS) difference. No significant difference was noted in non-relapse mortality (NRM) between the 2 groups (17% vs 14.2%, p=0.26). These findings were confirmed in multivariate analysis. In fact, IDH1-2 mutation was associated with significant improvement in RI (hazard ratio [HR]=0.4 [95%CI 0.25-0.64], p=0.0001), LFS (HR=0.7 [95%CI 0.51-0.95], p=0.022), aGVHD II-IV (HR=0.63 [95%CI 0.45-0.87], p=0.005) and GRFS (HR=0.69 [95%CI 0.54-0.89], p=0.004). Conversely, the presence of adverse cytogenetics and undergoing allo-SCT in second CR increased the RI (HR=2.29 [95%CI 1.46-3.61], p=0.0003 and HR=2.84 [95%CI 1.64-4.91], p=0.0002, respectively) and were associated with a shorter LFS (HR=1.67 [95%CI 1.18-2.36], p=0.004 and HR=1.61 [95%CI 1.06-2.44], p=0.025) while reduced intensity (RIC) conditioning had a worse impact on OS compared to MAC (HR=1.56 [95%CI 1.07-2.29], p=0.022). Additionally, in the subgroup of patients with available MRD data, MRD positivity at transplant significantly increased RI (HR=2.15 [95%CI 1.09-4.23], p=0.027) with no impact on survival. In conclusion, our data suggest that the presence of IDH1-2 mutations acts as an independent prognostic factor and is associated with improved outcome in patients with AML in CR undergoing allo-HCT. Indeed, patients with IDH1-2 mutations had significantly lower rates of RI and aGVHD, which translated into improved LFS and GRFS. Nevertheless, patients with MRD positivity at time of transplant had significantly increased RI. Further studies investigating allo-HCT outcomes in IDH1-2 mutated patients with AML in the era of IDH inhibitors (both in the pre- and post-transplant setting) would help to further define the impact of these mutations in this setting and thus optimize an individualized treatment approach. Disclosures Labopin: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Esteve: Abbvie: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Kröger: Novartis: Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Pharma: Honoraria. Blaise: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Socie: Alexion: Research Funding. Ganser: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Bazarbachi: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Hikma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Haploidentical allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (haplo) has expanded applicability of the procedure to patients for whom a suitable HLA compatible donor was not available in the past. A small multicenter retrospective study of 185 patients with hematologic malignancies who received a nonmyeloablative preparative regimen followed by infusion of bone marrow (BM) hematopoietic cells from haploidentical donors showed no significant association between the number of HLA mismatches (HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1 combined) and risk of acute grade 2-4 graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) (hazard ratio [HR]=0.89; P=0.68 for 3-4 mismatches vs fewer antigen mismatches). This haploidentical transplant platform has certainly evolved. Nowadays, G-CSF mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) are commonly used owing to its increased convenience vis-à-vis performing a BM harvest. Study population: Here, we evaluate post transplant outcomes when using haploidentical donors with T-replete PBSC and PTCy in AML in CR1. A total of 494 patients (4/8 HLA mismatch (group 1)=360, 2-3/8 HLA mismatch (group 2)=134) underwent the procedure at an EBMT participating center. The primary endpoints were cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and chronic (all grades) GVHD. Secondary endpoints included cumulative incidence of relapse (RI), non-relapse mortality (NRM), leukemia-free (LFS) and overall survival (OS) and GVHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS). Results: Group 1 and group 2 were not statistically different in regards to median age at allografting (54.1 vs. 56.1 years, p=0.51), median year of haplo transplantation (2018 vs. 2018, p=0.36), incidence of de novo AML (86.4% vs. 88.1%, p=0.63), Karnofsky equal or more than 90 (77.5% vs. 79.1%, p=0.70), and use of myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (44.7% vs. 48.5%, p=0.45). Patients in group 1 had a longer time from diagnosis to haplo-transplantation (5.3 vs. 4.9 months, p=0.03). In multivariate analysis, group 1 and group 2 did not differ in cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 acute GVHD (Hazard ratio (HR)=0.89 (95%CI=0.62-1.26), p=0.51) but group 1 had a significantly higher incidence of chronic (all grades) GVHD (HR=1.49 (95%CI=1.02-2.16), p=0.04). There was no difference in RI (HR=0.73 (95%CI=0.47-1.14), p=0.17), NRM (HR=1.25 (95%CI=0.78-2.02), p=0.36), LFS (HR=0.95 (95%CI=0.69-1.31), p=0.76), OS (HR=1.09 (95%CI=0.76-1.55), p=0.64) and GRFS (HR=1.07 (95%CI=0.81-1.42), p=0.64) between the groups. Presence of adverse cytogenetics was independently associated with higher RI (HR=1.90 (95%CI=1.20-2.99), p=0.006), inferior LFS (HR=1.59 (95%CI=1.15-2.19), p=0.005), inferior OS (HR=1.48 (95%CI=1.05-2.08), p=0.03), and worse GRFS (HR=1.54 (95%CI=1.17-2.04), p=0.002). Conclusion: Results show that patients undergoing haplo-transplantation with 4/8 (vs. 2-3/8) HLA mismatches have a higher incidence of chronic GVHD (all grades) without adversely affecting acute grade 2-4 GVHD, RI, LFS, OS and GRFS. Disclosures Labopin: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Bazarbachi: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Hikma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blaise: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. McDonald: BioCryst Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Forcade: Novartis: Other: travel grant. Ciceri: IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele: Current Employment. Mohty: Takeda: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria.

SummaryOptimal donor choice for a second allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (allo‐HCT) in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) remains unknown. We compared overall survival (OS) using registry data from the Acute Leukemia Working Party (ALWP) of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) involving 455 adults who received a second allo‐HCT from a human leucocyte antigen (HLA)‐matched unrelated (MUD) (n = 320) or a haploidentical (n = 135) donor. Eligibility criteria required adults aged ≥18 years who received a second allo‐HCT for treating AML relapse between 2005 and 2019. The primary end‐point was OS. There was no statistically significant difference in the median (interquartile range) age between the groups, MUD 46 (35–58) versus haploidentical 44 (33–53) years (P = 0·07). The median OS was not different between the MUD and the haploidentical groups (10 vs. 11 months, P = 0·57). Similarly, the 2‐year OS was 31% for the MUD and 29% for the haploidentical donor groups. The OS was worse if the procedure was performed with active AML [hazard ratio (HR) 1·42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·07–1·89; P = 0·02]. Conversely, a longer time from first allo‐HCT to relapse (>13·2 months) was associated with better OS (HR 0·50, 95% CI 0·37–0·69; P < 0·0001). The results of the present analysis limit the ability to recommend one donor type over another when considering a second allo‐HCT for relapsed AML. Our findings highlight that best OS is achieved when receiving the second allo‐HCT in complete remission.

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of &gt; 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.

Background: CMML is a heterogeneous disease with overlapping features of MDS and MPN. Several risk scores have been proposed in CMML, including CPSS (Such Blood 2013) that identifies 4 risk groups (low, intermediate-1 [int-1], int-2 and high risk) with median overall survival (OS) ranging from 12 months to > 5 years. HSCT is the only curative treatment in CMML, with an expected 20-40% post-transplantation OS. Current guidelines, common to MDS and CMML recommend rapidly transplanting higher-risk CMML and delaying transplant in lower-risk disease (de Witte Blood 2017). Retrospective transplant studies have shown better outcome in lower-risk CMML (Liu et al BBMT 2017). Whether this translates into a survival benefit compared to a delayed transplant strategy requires prospective studies. Multistate models based on retrospective data from transplant and non-transplant patients (pts) have addressed similar issues in MDS (Koreth JCO 2013, Della Porta Leukemia 2017). Through a large collaborative study, we address the question of optimal timing for HSCT in CMML patients through a similar large international collaborative study. Method: We retrospectively selected pts from 2 registries: International MDS/MPN Working Group (IWG cohort, Padron Blood Cancer J 2015) and EBMT with the following criteria: WHO-defined CMML, age ≤ 70y, ECOG 0-2, diagnosis after 2000, available CPSS at the time of diagnosis. Different states were considered in higher- (CPSS int-2 and high) and lower- risk (CPSS low/int-1) pts: diagnosis, AML transformation, transplantation and death. IWG data was used to estimate transition probabilities from diagnosis to AML, transplantation and death and from AML to transplantation and death. EBMT data was used for transplantation to death transitions (Figure 1). Results: 719 and 403 pts were identified in the IWG and EMBT registry, respectively (resp). Median age was 64 (range 16-70) in IWG and 58 (19-70) years in EBMT cohort. Patients were male in 69% and 67% of IWG and EBMT cohorts, respectively (resp). CPSS was low in 22% and 13%, int-1 in 31% and 31%, int-2 in 40% and 45% and high in 8% and 11% of the IWG and EBMT pts, resp. In the IWG cohort, the 1 year cumulative incidence of transformation into AML were 7.3% and 18.2% in lower and higher risk patients, resp. Among the 719 pts from IWG, 102 received HSCT. At the time of diagnosis the expected life time of higher risk (int-2 and high) patients was 25.2 months while it was 44.1 months in lower risk (int-1 and low) patients. Table 1 reports gain or loss in expected life time (until 60 months after diagnosis) for transplantation at different intervals from diagnosis (within 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) for patients who have survived and not transformed to AML until the prediction time point, taking into account CPSS at diagnosis. Expected life time is also given separately for higher risk pts after transformation into AML. There was a modest gain of life expectancy with transplantation in higher risk patients (CPSS int-2 and high) while it was not the case in lower risk patients. The survival gain in higher risk pts with HSCT rose from 1.11 at 6 months to 3.4 months at 24 months. There was also a survival benefit of HSCT in higher risk pts who were transformed to AML during their follow-up which was even higher in terms of gain of months: from 9.89 month if HSCT performed within 6 months to 14.25 months if performed within 18 months. Of note, the loss of survival in lower risk patients who underwent HSCT decreased over time: 11.1 months if HSCT is performed within 6 months and 3.7 months if HSCT is performed within 24 months, probably owing to transition to higher-risk CMML at this stage in some pts, a transition that could not be captured in the present dataset. Conclusion: For the first time, using a multistate model, we could provide evidence that the transplant benefit in CMML is restricted to higher-risk pts, in line with findings in MDS and current guidelines. More analyses will be performed to analyze other subgroups of patients, especially regarding their risk (other classification than CPSS, the role of somatic mutation…). More studies are needed to analyze the role of pre HSCT treatment and its potential impact on post-transplant outcome. Disclosures Robin: Novartis Neovii: Research Funding. Beelen:Medac GmbH Wedel Germany: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. Kroeger:Riemser: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria; DKMS: Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Nazha:Tolero, Karyopharma: Honoraria; MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmacutical: Research Funding; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Finke:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau. Komrokji:Agios: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Killick:JAZZ: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALEXION: Honoraria. Blaise:Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.