Vasu, Sumithira

Abstract BMT CTN (Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network) 1506 (“MORPHO”) was a randomized study of gilteritinib compared with placebo as maintenance therapy after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for patients with FLT3-ITD–mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML). A key secondary end point was to determine the impact on survival of before and/or after HCT measurable residual disease (MRD), as determined using a highly sensitive assay for FLT3-ITD mutations. Generally, gilteritinib maintenance therapy was associated with improved relapse-free survival (RFS) for participants with detectable peri-HCT MRD, whereas no benefit was evident for those lacking detectable MRD. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the data and found that the level of MRD detected with this approach correlated remarkably with RFS and relapse risk, and that MRD detectable at any level negatively affected RFS. In the placebo arm, 42.2% of participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD relapsed compared with 13.4% of those without detectable MRD. We found that 14.8% of participants had multiple FLT3-ITD clones detected as MRD and had worse survival irrespective of treatment arm. Finally, we examined the kinetics of FLT3-ITD clonal relapse or eradication and found that participants on the placebo arm with detectable MRD relapsed rapidly after HCT, often within a few weeks. MRD-positive participants on the gilteritinib arm relapsed either with FLT3 wild-type clones (assessed by capillary electrophoresis), after cessation of gilteritinib with persistent MRD, or on progression of multiclonal disease. These data demonstrate the potential of FLT3-ITD MRD to guide therapy with gilteritinib for this subtype of AML. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02997202.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu cel) is a CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Some patients (pts) proceed with a consolidative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) after breux cel. We do not know which pts can safely avoid a consolidative HCT and its associated morbidity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing the Real-World Outcomes Collaborative of CAR-T in Adult ALL (ROCCA) dataset. ROCCA is a registry of brexu cel pts in 32 centers in North America. We defined complete remission (CR) as < 5% blasts in the bone marrow and no central nervous system (CNS) or extramedullary (EM) disease on or around D28 after brexu cel. We defined measurable residual disease negative (MRD-) CR as CR and no abnormal blasts in the bone marrow by multiparameter flow cytometry, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, ClonoSeq next generation sequencing (NGS), or other sequencing modalities with lower sensitivity. ClonoSeq NGS has a sensitivity of 10-6, while the other modalities have a sensitivity of at least 10-4. We defined progression free survival (PFS) as the time from CAR-T infusion to relapse or death, censored at the date of last follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed in R. Univariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to determine the association of pre-specified variables with PFS. Variables known to be associated with CAR T outcomes in ALL were entered into a multivariable model. HCT was incorporated as a time-varying covariate. Results: During the study period, 281 pts were infused with brexu cel. We focused our analysis on 172 (61%) pts with confirmed MRD- CR on D28, as that is the group with clinical equipoise regarding maintenance strategy. 38 (22%) of those pts received a consolidative HCT, 30 (17%) received another form of maintenance therapy (primarily tyrosine kinase inhibitors for Philadelphia (Ph)-chromosome positive ALL), and 104 (60%) pts received no maintenance therapy. Pts who underwent consolidative HCT were younger (median age 35 years) than those who received no maintenance (42y) (p = 0.023) and were less likely to have a history of prior HCT (13% vs. 47%, p < 0.001). No differences were observed with respect to sex, TP53 mutation status, prior inotuzumab (ino) or blinatumomab (blina) exposure, disease burden prior to CAR, or development of any cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or any neurotoxicity with brexu cel. We performed univariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses among pts in MRD- CR on D28, excluding those who received other maintenance therapy besides HCT; the median follow up was 8.1 months. In univariable analyses, D28 MRD negativity by ClonoSeq NGS (versus MRD negativity by other, less sensitive methods), development of CRS, and pre-CAR BM blasts < 5% were associated with improved PFS; prior ino exposure was negatively associated with PFS (p < 0.05). Age, sex, Ph status, TP53 status, and neurotoxicity development were not associated with PFS. In a multivariable model incorporating ALL type, prior HCT, prior ino/blina, and pre-CAR blast burden, as well as consolidative HCT as a time-varying covariate, only MRD negativity by ClonoSeq NGS with at least 10-6 sensitivity retained statistical significance (PFS hazard ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.77, p = 0.005). Pts who were MRD- by ClonoSeq NGS on D28 and received no maintenance had favorable 6m PFS of 76% (95% CI: 59-98%) and OS of 100% with a median follow up of 6.3 months in this subgroup. Among those in MRD- CR by NGS, HCT as a time-varying covariate was not associated with improved PFS (HR 0.6, p = 0.6). Conclusions: In a large real-world cohort of adults with R/R B-ALL infused with brexu cel, we identified practice variation regarding the use of consolidative HCT. Among brexu cel recipients who entered an MRD- CR, we identified ClonoSeq NGS MRD negativity as a novel predictive factor of favorable oncologic outcomes, even without a consolidative HCT. Similar results have been obtained in pediatric ALL patietns ftreated with 41BB-based tisagenleucleucel (Pulsipher et al., Blood Cancer Discovery 2022). Longer follow-up is needed to validate the safety of omitting consolidative HCT in such pts, but these results encourage the potential for definitive therapy with brexu cel when D28 ClonoSeq NGS MRD is negative.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene Autoleucel (brexu-cel) is the first CD19-targeting chimeric antigen receptor (CD19.CAR) T-cell therapy approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) in adult (≥18 yo) patients (pts) based on results from the ZUMA-3 trial. However, data on the safety and efficacy of CAR-T cells in older pts (≥60 yo) remains limited, with only 8 pts >65 yo enrolled in the ZUMA-3 trial. We evaluated the treatment characteristics and outcomes with use of brexu-cel amongst patients ≥60 yo in the Real-World Outcomes Collaborative for CAR-T in ALL (ROCCA) consortium database. Methodology: ROCCA is a consortium of over 30 U.S.-based institutions with a database of adult pts with B-ALL who received brexu-cel as standard of care therapy. We identified pts ≥60 yo and further stratified them into two cohorts: 60-69 yo and ≥70 yo. Outcomes of interest included OS, PFS, ORR, and toxicities (CRS and ICANS). Both OS and PFS were calculated from the day of brexu-cel infusion. Response assessment occurred on day +28, and MRD evaluation was per institutional practices. CRS and ICANS were graded according to the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy criteria. Results: Of 280 brexu-cel recipients in the ROCCA database, 73 (26%) were ≥60 yo, of which 58 (79%) were between 60-69 yo and 15 (21%) were ≥70 yo. Among pts ≥60 yo, the median age at infusion was 65 (range 60-81). Pts were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (range 2-9). Prior therapies included: allogeneic HSCT (38%), inotuzumab ozogamicin (41%), and blinatumomab (62%). Forty pts (55%) had Ph-negative B-ALL, 24 (33%) had Ph+ B-ALL and 9 (12%) had Ph-like B-ALL. When grouped by HCT-CI equal to 0, 1-2 or ≥3, a higher proportion of pts ≥60 yo had HCT-CI ≥3 (19% vs. 7% in <60 yo; p=0.004). Pre-apheresis, 33 pts (45%) had active disease (>5% marrow blasts or extramedullary disease), 34 (47%) were in CR (of whom 14 were MRD-negative) and 6 had unknown disease status. Following brexu-cel, 43 (59%) achieved MRD-negative CR, 20 (27%) had MRD + or CR with unknown MRD status, 6 (8%) had refractory disease and 5 had no disease evaluation available. The ORR was similar between pts 60-69 and ≥70 yo (MRD-negative CR rate: 58% vs 61%, r/r to brexu-cel: 9% vs 6%) and was comparable to pts <60 yo (MRD-negative CR 66%; r/r disease of 9%). The rate of all grade ICANS was higher in pts ≥70 (77%) than in pts 60-69 (47%) or pts <60 (49%), with grade 1-2 ICANS occurring at a significantly higher rate in pts ≥70 (44% vs. 20% in 60-69 and 20% in <60, p=0.049). Grade 3-4 ICANS were similar between the groups: 33%, 27% and 29% in the ≥70, 60-69, and <60 groups, respectively. Conversely, rates of CRS were similar across age groups (80-84%). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of grade 3-4 CRS which was 17% in pts ≥70, 4% in pts 60-69, and 11% in pts <60 yo. With a median follow-up of 332 days (range 8-936 days) from infusion, pts ≥60 yo had a median PFS of 395 days compared to 547 days in pts <60 yo. Median PFS was lower in the ³70 yo (231 days) compared to 677 in the 60-69 yo cohort. No statistically significant difference was found between the <60 and ≥60groups in 6- and 12-month PFS rates (6 months PFS: 66% vs 64%, p=0.77 and 12 months PFS: 57% vs 57%, p=1.00). When pts ≥60 yo were stratified by age, pts ≥70 yo had similar 6-month PFS compared to other age groups but significantly lower 12-month PFS (38%; vs. 64% in pts 60-69and 57% in pts <60, p=0.001). Median OS was not reached in any of the age groups, and there was no statistically significant difference in 6-month OS (72% in ≥ 70 vs. 82% in the 60-69 vs. 82% in <60, p=0.14) or 12-months OS (61% in ≥ 70 vs. 69% in 60-69 vs. 73% in <60, p=0.18). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of older B-ALL pts receiving CAR-T cells. We observed that older pts, particularly those aged 60-69, have similar outcomes to younger pts. However, pts ≥70 yo had lower median and 12-month PFS when compared to younger patients. Additionally, pts ≥70 yo had higher rates of grades 1-2 ICANS. An important limitation of this analysis is the potential selection bias among clinicians when selecting older patients for this treatment. Longer follow-up, including inclusion of additional pts ≥70 yo is needed to confirm these results, and further studies are needed to identify the optimal approach for use of CAR T-cell therapy in patients in this age group.

Background: BMT CTN 1506/MORPHO was a randomized study of the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib versus placebo as post-transplant (HCT) maintenance therapy for patients (pts) with FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and then were randomized, in double-blind fashion, to either gilteritinib or placebo for 24 months. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS), and a pre-specified secondary endpoint was the effect of measurable residual disease (MRD) on survival as detected by a highly sensitive assay for FLT3-ITD mutations. In the primary analysis, while RFS was higher for pts randomized to gilteritinib, the difference did not reach the pre-determined threshold for significance (HR: 0.679; 95% CI: 0.459, 1.005; 2-sided p-value: 0.0518). However, in the secondary analysis, the 50.6% of pts who had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT had significantly higher RFS with gilteritinib (HR of relapse or death=0.515, 95% CI: 0.316, 0.838, p = 0.0065). In this post-hoc analysis, we examined 1) the impact on RFS of different levels of FLT3-ITD variant allele frequency (VAF) pre-randomization (immediately before or after HCT but prior to randomization to gilteritinib or placebo); 2) the impact of the presence of multiple mutations detected as MRD pre-HCT; and 3) the eradication of FLT3-ITD clones detected post-HCT during follow up on gilteritinib or placebo. Methods: First-pull marrow aspirates were collected from pts at two time points pre-randomization (pre-HCT and between 30-90 days post-HCT), as well as at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-randomization. For MRD detection (performed at Invivoscribe; San Diego, CA), 700 ng input DNA was amplified by polymerase chain-reaction (PCR) using 25 cycles and primers flanking exons 14 and 15 of FLT3, followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of the amplicons. Variant allele frequency (VAF) was calculated as FLT3 mutant reads/total FLT3 reads. For pts with multiple FLT3-ITD mutations, the VAF used in analysis was the sum of the VAFs for each FLT3-ITD variant. The lower limit of blank (LOB) of the assay is estimated to be 1 x 10 -6 VAF. For terminology, VAF > 1 x 10 -6 and < 1 x 10 -5 is referred to as MRD6, VAF > 1 x 10 -5 and < 1 x 10 -4 is MRD5, VAF > 1 x 10 -4 or greater is MRD4, and MRD0 equals no detectable MRD. Results: MRD was evaluated in 350/356 (98.3%) pts pre-HCT and 347/356 (97.5%) pts post-HCT. MRD was detected in 46% of pts pre-HCT and 19.9% prior to randomization, including 4.5% who did not have detectable MRD pre-HCT. The variant allele frequency (VAF) of detectable MRD ranged from a low of 1.09 x 10 -6 to a high of 3.0 x 10 -1. More than a single mutation was detected in 51 pts pre-HCT. Most of these 51 pts had 2 clones, but the total ranged from 2-9. The presence of more than one mutation detected as MRD immediately pre-HCT was associated with worse RFS compared with all other pts (MRD-positive with only one clone and MRD-negative), irrespective of treatment arm (Figure 1A; HR=2.428, 95% CI: 1.555, 3.792, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in age, mutation length, VAF, or karyotype between pts with more than one mutation and those with single mutations. However, if the VAFs of pts with multiple FLT3-ITD mutations were summed and treated as a single value, then the median VAF for pts with multiple mutations was higher than for those with single mutations (2.14 x 10 -4 vs. 3.12 x 10 -5). The VAF (including the summed VAFs of pts with multiple mutations) at multiple levels correlated very closely with RFS after HCT. To illustrate this quantitative effect of peri-HCT FLT3-ITD VAF on RFS, Kaplan-Meier analysis of pts on the placebo arm grouped by MRD level is displayed in Figure 1B. In the 71 pts with MRD detectable post-HCT, the MRD was eradicated in 69% of pts on gilteritinib versus 44% of pts on placebo. Conclusions Pts with multiple FLT3-ITD mutations have a worse prognosis, which may simply be a reflection of increased disease burden (VAF). The quantity of FLT3-ITD MRD appears to highly correlate with outcome. Gilteritinib appears to augment the effect of HCT, as evidenced by increased eradication of MRD post-HCT. These data illustrate the potential utility of the PCR-NGS FLT3-ITD MRD assay in the management of pts with FLT3-ITD AML.

Abstract Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is a rare hematologic malignancy with historically poor outcomes and no worldwide consensus treatment approach. Unique among most hematologic malignancies for its frequent cutaneous involvement, BPDCN can also invade other extramedullary compartments, including the central nervous system. Generally affecting older adults, many patients are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy, and although hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is preferred for younger, fit individuals, not all are eligible. One recent therapeutic breakthrough is that all BPDCNs express CD123 (IL3Rα) and that this accessible surface marker can be pharmacologically targeted. The first-in-class agent for BPDCN, tagraxofusp, which targets CD123, was approved in December 2018 in the United States for patients with BPDCN aged ≥2 years. Despite favorable response rates in the frontline setting, many patients still relapse in the setting of monotherapy, and outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory BPDCN remain dismal. Therefore, novel approaches targeting both CD123 and other targets are actively being investigated. To begin to formally address the state of the field, we formed a new collaborative initiative, the North American BPDCN Consortium (NABC). This group of experts, which includes a multidisciplinary panel of hematologists/oncologists, hematopoietic stem cell transplant physicians, pathologists, dermatologists, and pediatric oncologists, was tasked with defining the current standard of care in the field and identifying the most important research questions and future directions in BPDCN. The position findings of the NABC’s inaugural meetings are presented herein.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide recommendations for the appropriate use of growth factors in the clinical management of febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT), and chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Management and prevention of these sequelae are an integral part of supportive care for many patients undergoing cancer treatment. The purpose of these guidelines is to operationalize the evaluation, prevention, and treatment of FN, CIT, and CIA in adult patients with nonmyeloid malignancies and to enable the patient and clinician to assess management options for FN, CIT, and CIA in the context of an individual patient’s condition. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of the important recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors, with particular emphasis on the incorporation of a newly developed section on CIT.

Abstract Introduction: The interleukin-3 receptor alpha chain (CD123) is a cell-surface target aberrantly expressed on various myeloid neoplasms including blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), and myelofibrosis (MF). Tagraxofusp (TAG, SL-401), a first-in-class CD123-targeted therapy, is the only treatment approved by the FDA and EMA for patients (pts) with BPDCN. It has also been investigated in phase 1/2 clinical trials for AML (including pts with minimal residual disease [MRD]), CMML, and MF. We report the aggregated safety data of TAG monotherapy from trials in BPDCN, AML, CMML, and MF. Methods: An integrated safety analysis was performed for pts who received TAG monotherapy in three phase 1/2, multicenter clinical studies: Study 0114 (NCT02113982; BPDCN/AML), Study 0214 (NCT02270463; AML with/without MRD), and Study 0314 (NCT02268253; CMML/MF; Table 1). Pts received the recommended phase 2 dose of 12 mcg/kg/day (d) IV on d1-3 (MF and CMML) or d1-5 (BPDCN and AML) and were analyzed for incidence and timing of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), AEs of interest, and discontinuations. Safety data for TAG monotherapy, reported as individual case study reports (ICSRs) postapproval (US) and from an early access program (EAP; EU) are also presented. Results: In total, 201 pts receiving TAG (12 mcg/kg/d) in a clinical trial setting were included: BPDCN, n=86; AML, n=36; AML with/without MRD, n=10; CMML, n=33; MF, n=36. As of Jul 2021, 11 (6%) pts discontinued TAG due to any-grade (Gr) TRAE. Most common TRAEs (any-Gr) are shown in Table 2 and included hypoalbuminemia (41%), increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT; 40%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST; 39%), and thrombocytopenia (26%). The most common Gr ≥3 TRAEs were thrombocytopenia (n=41; 20%), increased AST (n=40; 20%), and increased ALT (n=35; 17%). Tumor lysis syndrome occurred in 5% of pts and 1.5% had infusion-related reactions. Any-Gr and Gr ≥3 hematologic TRAEs are presented in Table 3. Most common was thrombocytopenia. All TRAEs were transient in nature; prolonged bone marrow suppression was not observed. Overall, 23% (47/201) of pts experienced ≥1 treatment-related serious AE. Onset of most TRAEs, irrespective of Gr, commonly occurred in cycle 1 and resolved by cycle 2. Although the number of pts in cycles ≥2 was lower than in cycle 1, the incidence rates of common TRAEs also substantially decreased in subsequent cycles. Capillary leak syndrome (CLS) occurred in 17% of the overall 201 pts. The majority of all CLS events were nonsevere, Gr ≤2 (n=22; 63%); also reported were Gr 3, n=10 (29%); Gr 4, n=3 (9%), and 2 pts experienced a Gr 5 event. Onset of CLS was usually within the first week of cycle 1 (median time to onset [range], d: 5.5 [1-51]) and resolved quickly (median time to resolution [range], d: 5.0 [2-69]); no pts experienced the first onset after cycle 2. Of the 15 pts who resumed treatment after an initial CLS event, only 1 pt experienced a recurrence. The most common AEs reported as ICSRs postapproval and from an EAP (December 2018 to June 2021) were CLS, blood albumin decreased, thrombocytopenia, pyrexia, and hepatic enzyme increased. No new safety signals that would alter the safety profile were observed. Conclusions: This integrated analysis represents the largest collection of safety data (N=201) following treatment with TAG monotherapy. TAG has an established and manageable safety profile, with the vast majority of AEs reported as transient and decreasing in frequency/severity with increasing cycles. CLS was reported in 17% of pts; onset was usually within cycle 1, resolved quickly (median time to resolution: 5.0 d) by early intervention measures including holding treatment, and no pts experienced first onset after cycle 2. Risk-minimization guidelines for CLS were developed and implemented during clinical trials and incorporated into prescribing information. No myelosuppression or cumulative toxicity was observed over multiple treatment cycles. The safety profile observed postapproval and in the EAP was consistent with the clinical trial data reported, reflecting successful adoption of risk-management strategies in real-world practice. These data confirm the favorable benefit-risk profile of TAG monotherapy has been maintained in the 3 years following US approval. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pemmaraju: ASCO Leukemia Advisory Panel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sager Strong Foundation: Other; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cellectis S.A. ADR: Other, Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; CareDx, Inc.: Consultancy; Springer Science + Business Media: Other; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Other, Research Funding; Samus: Other, Research Funding; Clearview Healthcare Partners: Consultancy; Dan's House of Hope: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MustangBio: Consultancy, Other; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; HemOnc Times/Oncology Times: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH Communications Committee: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LFB Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Research Support, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Affymetrix: Consultancy, Research Funding; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy; Plexxicon: Other, Research Funding; Roche Diagnostics: Consultancy; Stemline Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; ImmunoGen, Inc: Consultancy. Kantarjian: NOVA Research: Honoraria; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Immunogen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Astellas Health: Honoraria; Jazz: Research Funding; Ipsen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; KAHR Medical Ltd: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Taiho Pharmaceutical Canada: Honoraria. Sweet: Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang: Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Kura Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, steering committee, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Mana Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Other: Data safety monitoring committee; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; PTC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Genentech: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy. Lane: N-of-One: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding; Qiagen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ali: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stein: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Speakers Bureau. Yacoub: Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acceleron Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Rizzieri: Celltron/Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: presentation to FDA for biosimilar review ; AROG: Other; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Other: personal fee; Mustang: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Other: personal fee; Gilead: Other: personal fee; Jazz: Other: personal fee; Pharmacyclics: Other. Vasu: Seattle Genetics: Other: travel support; Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: Travel support; Kiadis, Inc.: Research Funding; Omeros, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gupta: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Constellation Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lee: BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pin Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Innate: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schiller: Sangamo: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Pfizer: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Actuate: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Trovagene: Research Funding; Deciphera: Research Funding; Gamida Cell Ltd.: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Ono-UK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; PrECOG: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mateon: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Samus: Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Regimmune: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bio: Research Funding; Elevate: Research Funding; Delta-Fly: Research Funding; Genentech-Roche: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharma: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; ASH foundation: Other: Chair-unpaid; Sellas: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Kaiser Permanente: Consultancy; Cyclacel: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Ambit: Research Funding; Leukemia & Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingleheim: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; National Marrow Donor Program: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Pharmamar: Research Funding; UC Davis: Research Funding; UCSD: Research Funding; Evidera: Consultancy; NCI: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Foran: trillium: Research Funding; actinium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; OncLive: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; certara: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; revolution medicine: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Walter: Macrogenics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Other: ownership interests; Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Immunogen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptevo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Sieminski: Stemline Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Patnaik: Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stemline Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mughal: Oxford University Press, Informa: Other: financial benefit and/or patents ; Stemline: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Konopleva: Calithera: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties: intellectual property rights; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: grant support, Research Funding; Agios: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other: grant support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Ablynx: Other: grant support, Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Patents & Royalties: intellectual property rights, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: research funding pending, Patents & Royalties: intellectual property rights; Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding; KisoJi: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: grant support; Cellectis: Other: grant support; Sanofi: Other: grant support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant Support, Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Our group recently reported on the results of Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) Clinical Trials Network (CTN) 1101 a randomized comparison between double umbilical cord blood (dUCB) and haploidentical bone marrow (haplo) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (ptCy) in the nonmyeloablative setting that showed similar progression free survival (PFS) between the two treatment groups, but lower non-relapse mortality (NRM) and better of overall survival (OS) in the haplo arm. In this secondary analysis we sought to investigate if transplant center experience with haplo and or cord blood HCT had an impact on outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patient randomized in BMT CTN 1101 were included. In order to determine the transplant center experience with either haplo or dUCB we queried the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) for number of transplants with each platform in the year prior to initiation of the study. Centers were then grouped as dUCB center (> 10 dUCB, n=117, 10 centers), Haplo center (>10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB, n=110, 2 centers), and ≤10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB HCTs (other center, n=140, 21 centers). Further analysis considered the alternative cut-off for haplo (> 5 vs ≤ 5) experience, and considered the outcomes based on the donor experience vs. others (e.g. dUCB > 10 vs. ≤ 10; haplo > 5 vs. ≤ 5). RESULTS: The effect of center experience on HCT outcomes shown in Figure, below . After adjusting for age, Karnofsky performance score and, disease risk index we found that there was no difference in outcomes between haplo and dUCB for centers that were experienced with dUCB or had limited to no experience with either dUCB or haplo. In contrast, in centers that were primarily experienced with haplo had better outcomes with this donor type, as compared to dUCB. The higher risk of treatment failure (relapse or death) and overall mortality in dUCB in haplo experienced centers was driven by significantly higher risk of relapse. We then considered the transplant experience with each of the donor types separately. In transplant centers that had performed > 10 dUCB, there were similar outcomes for recipients of both dUCB and haplo. Similarly, centers that had ≤ 5 haplo HCTs had no difference in outcomes between donor types suggesting an overlap with centers that had performed > 10 dUCB HCTs. Overall mortality was higher among dUCB recipients in centers that had performed ≤ 10 dUCB. Notably, the hazard ratio of non-relapse mortality favored haplo in all four donor experience type of transplant center, albeit not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Except for dUCB recipients in centers with < 10 dUCB/year had worse overall mortality, primarily driven by relapse, the transplant center experience in the year prior to the initiation of BMT CTN 1101 had limited impact on the outcomes of this randomized clinical trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Brunstein: NANT: Research Funding; FATE: Research Funding; GamidaCell: Research Funding; BlueRock: Research Funding; AlloVir: Consultancy. Costa: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cutler: Deciphera: Consultancy; Cimeio: Consultancy; Editas: Consultancy; Kadmon: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy; Mesoblast: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Horowitz: Sobi: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mesoblast: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy; Actinium: Research Funding. Horwitz: Gamida Cell: Research Funding. McGuirk: Novartis: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rezvani: US Department of Justice: Consultancy; Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding. Rybka: Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Vasu: Kiadis, Inc.: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: Travel support; Seattle Genetics: Other: travel support; Omeros, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Hematopoietic growth factors, including erythrocyte stimulating agents (ESAs), granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, and thrombopoietin mimetics, can mitigate anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia resulting from chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. In the context of pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with cancer have been identified as a group at high risk of morbidity and mortality from this infection. Our subcommittee of the NCCN Hematopoietic Growth Factors Panel convened a voluntary group to review the potential value of expanded use of such growth factors in the current high-risk environment. Although recommendations are available on the NCCN website in the COVID-19 Resources Section (https://www.nccn.org/covid-19/), these suggestions are provided without substantial context or reference. Herein we review the rationale and data underlying the suggested alterations to the use of hematopoietic growth factors for patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era.

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only potentially curative therapy for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), although it is infrequently offered to older patients. The relative benefits of HCT over non-HCT therapy in older patients with higher-risk MDS have not been defined. METHODS We conducted a multicenter biologic assignment trial comparing reduced-intensity HCT to hypomethylating therapy or best supportive care in subjects 50-75 years of age with intermediate-2 or high-risk de novo MDS. The primary outcome was overall survival probability at 3 years. Between January 2014 and November 2018, we enrolled 384 subjects at 34 centers. Subjects were assigned to the Donor or No-Donor arms according to the availability of a matched donor within 90 days of study registration. RESULTS The median follow-up time for surviving subjects was 34.2 months (range: 2.3-38 months) in the Donor arm and 26.9 months (range: 2.4-37.2 months) in the No-Donor arm. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the adjusted overall survival rate at 3 years in the Donor arm was 47.9% (95% CI, 41.3 to 54.1) compared with 26.6% (95% CI, 18.4 to 35.6) in the No-Donor arm ( P = .0001) with an absolute difference of 21.3% (95% CI, 10.2 to 31.8). Leukemia-free survival at 3 years was greater in the Donor arm (35.8%; 95% CI, 29.8 to 41.8) compared with the No-Donor arm (20.6%; 95% CI, 13.3 to 29.1; P = .003). The survival benefit was seen across all subgroups examined. CONCLUSION We observed a significant survival advantage in older subjects with higher-risk MDS who have a matched donor identified and underwent reduced-intensity HCT, when compared with those without a donor. HCT should be included as an integral part of MDS management plans in fit older adults with higher-risk MDS.