Cairo, Mitchell S.

Abstract Background: CD19 CAR T cell therapies have demonstrated high initial complete remission (CR) rates of 70-80% in relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with durable remissions observed in a subset of patients. Despite the remarkable initial CR rate, relapses occur in 20-45% of patients and with increasing use of CD19 CAR T cell therapies in ALL, a key remaining clinical question is the role of post-CAR HCT. Methods: Patients up to 26 years treated with the commercial (i.e., tisagenlecleucel) or investigational CD19 CAR T cell products from 2014 to 2019 in the United States were included. The objectives were to examine the impact of post-CAR HCT on mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), leukemia relapse, GVHD and transplant related mortality among HCT recipients. The intent of HCT was analyzed as consolidation when there was no evidence of post-CAR T cell relapse prior to HCT. Cox regression multivariable analysis used HCT as time-dependent variable along with age, performance status and time from diagnosis to CAR-T cell infusion to evaluate its impact on outcomes. Results: We identified 347 patients who received CD19 CAR T cells from 86 centers. Median age was 13 (range, 0.4-26 years) with 39% of patients from Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin. Patients were high risk and heavily pretreated; 56% had poor cytogenetics, 51% had ≥3 line of prior therapies and 34% had prior HCT. Most of the patients (74%) received tisagenlecleucel. Disease burden at the time of CAR T cell infusion included morphologic disease (≥5% bone marrow blasts) (65%), measurable residual disease (MRD) positive (16%) and negative CR (18%). CRS of all grades was observed in 57.6% and grade 3-4 CRS in 13%; neurotoxicity of all grades was observed in 25% and grade 3-4 in 8%. With a median follow-up of 12.7 months (range, 2.2-60.3), DFS at 3, 6 and 12 months following CAR T cell infusion was 80.9% % (95% CI: 76.6%-84.9%), 71.2% (95% CI: 66.1%-76.0%) and 57.6% (95% CI: 51.8%-63.3%), respectively. OS at 3, 6 and 12 months was 93.6% (95% CI: 90.8%-96.0%), 89.8% (95% CI: 86.4%-92.8%) and 79.4% (95% CI: 74.7%-83.6%), respectively. Incidences of relapse without censoring at subsequent HCT at month 3, 6 and 12 were 18.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-22.8%), 28.2% (95% CI: 23.5%-33.3%), and 40.6% (95% CI: 35.0%-46.3%), respectively. Of the 347 patients who received CD19 CAR therapy, 62 patients (18%) had subsequent HCT in CR as a consolidation post-CAR with a median time from CAR T to HCT of 4.7 months (range, 1.1-18.6). 36% had a prior HCT (i.e., pre-CAR), 87% received myeloablative regimen and among the 57 patients with MRD evaluation 56 were negative (98%). Frequencies of post-CAR HCT did not change during the 5-year study period. Overall, transplant related mortality (TRM) at month 6 was 8.9% (95% CI: 3.6-16.1), and grade 2-4 acute GvHD was observed in 38.0% (95% CI: 28.4-48.2) of patients at month 6. Post-CAR HCT used as a consolidation was associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.37; p=0.037) but no significant impact on mortality (HR 0.75, p=0.51) or DFS (HR=0.46, p=0.057). When accounting for any HCT performed after CAR T cell, HCT was associated with higher mortality (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest clinical series to date examining the impact of post-CAR HCT on clinical outcome of R/R B-ALL patients. We found that 18% of the patients had post-CAR HCT as a consolidation therapy with a favorable safety profile of 8.9% TRM rate despite a prior transplant rate of 36%. Consolidation HCT after CAR T cell resulted in significant reduction in leukemia relapse with a trend towards better DFS. Consolidation HCT seem safe and incurred a benefit by reducing disease relapse. Further studies in understanding the role of consolidation HCT as planned, or post-CAR T cell response-based strategy or treatment for early B-cell recovery are needed to further define the best candidates for HCT after tisagenlecleucel . Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Park: BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Ahmed: Merck: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cairo: Servier: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dholaria: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Grover: Kite: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC: Other: Advisory Board; Tessa: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mussetti: GILEAD: Other: Clinical trials participation, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trials participation. Pulsipher: Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria; Adaptive: Research Funding; Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medexus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other. Reshef: Gilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Rizzieri: Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acrotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, 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; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution. Schultz: BMS DSMB: Other: payment; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Turtle: Century Therapeutics Ad hoc advisory boards (last 12 months): Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene, PACT Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eureka Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; T-CURX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloid Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArsenalBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Minerva: Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Other; Juno Therapeutics/BMS: Other: Payments, Patents & Royalties: Patent licensed to Juno Therapeutics.; Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Myeloid Therapeutics, ArsenalBio: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Perales: MorphoSys: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria.

Abstract The role of haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) using posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is being defined. We performed a retrospective, multivariable analysis comparing outcomes of HCT approaches by donor for adults with ALL in remission. The primary objective was to compare overall survival (OS) among haploidentical HCTs using PTCy and HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD), 8/8 HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD), 7 /8 HLA-MUD, or umbilical cord blood (UCB) HCT. Comparing haploidentical HCT to MSD HCT, we found that OS, leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) were not different but chronic GVHD (cGVHD) was higher in MSD HCT. Compared with MUD HCT, OS, LFS, and relapse were not different, but MUD HCT had increased NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; P = .02), grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.59; P = .005), and cGVHD. Compared with 7/8 UD HCT, LFS and relapse were not different, but 7/8 UD HCT had worse OS (HR, 1.38; P = .01) and increased NRM (HR, 2.13; P ≤ .001), grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.86; P = .003), and cGVHD (HR, 1.72; P ≤ .001). Compared with UCB HCT, late OS, late LFS, relapse, and cGVHD were not different but UCB HCT had worse early OS (≤18 months; HR, 1.93; P < .001), worse early LFS (HR, 1.40; P = .007) and increased incidences of NRM (HR, 2.08; P < .001) and grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.97; P < .001). Haploidentical HCT using PTCy showed no difference in survival but less GVHD compared with traditional MSD and MUD HCT and is the preferred alternative donor HCT option for adults with ALL in complete remission.

Abstract There is a lack of large comparative study on the outcomes of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transplantation using fludarabine/busulfan (FB) and fludarabine/melphalan (FM) regimens. Adult AML patients from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research who received first RIC allo-transplant between 2001 and 2015 were studied. Patients were excluded if they received cord blood or identical twin transplant, total body irradiation in conditioning, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with in vitro T-cell depletion. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and GVHD. Multivariate survival model was used with adjustment for patient, leukemia, and transplant-related factors. A total of 622 patients received FM and 791 received FB RIC. Compared with FB, the FM group had fewer transplant in complete remission (CR), fewer matched sibling donors, and less usage of anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. More patients in the FM group received marrow grafts and had transplantation before 2005. OS was significantly lower within the first 3 months posttransplant in the FM group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, P < .001), but was marginally superior beyond 3 months (HR = 0.87, P = .05). LFS was better with FM compared with FB (HR = 0.89, P = .05). NRM was significantly increased in the FM group during the first 3 months of posttransplant (HR = 3.85, P < .001). Long-term relapse was lower with FM (HR = 0.65, P < .001). Analysis restricted to patients with CR showed comparable results. In conclusion, compared with FB, the FM RIC showed a marginally superior long-term OS and LFS and a lower relapse rate. A lower OS early posttransplant within 3 months was largely the result of a higher early NRM.

The recent development and clinical implementation of novel immunotherapies for the treatment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma have improved patient outcomes across subgroups. The rapid introduction of immunotherapeutic agents into the clinic, however, has presented significant questions regarding optimal treatment scheduling around existing chemotherapy/radiation options, as well as a need for improved understanding of how to properly manage patients and recognize toxicities. To address these challenges, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts in lymphoma to develop a clinical practice guideline for the education of healthcare professionals on various aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment. The panel discussed subjects including treatment scheduling, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and the integration of immunotherapy and stem cell transplant to form recommendations to guide healthcare professionals treating patients with lymphoma.

SummaryReduced‐intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) is a curative option for select relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients; however, there are sparse data to support superiority of any particular conditioning regimen. We analyzed 492 adult patients undergoing human leucocyte antigen (HLA)‐matched sibling or unrelated donor allo‐HCT for HL between 2008 and 2016, utilizing RIC with either fludarabine/busulfan (Flu/Bu), fludarabine/melphalan (Flu/Mel140) or fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy). Multivariable regression analysis was performed using a significance level of <0·01. There were no significant differences between regimens in risk for non‐relapse mortality (NRM) (P = 0·54), relapse/progression (P = 0·02) or progression‐free survival (PFS) (P = 0·14). Flu/Cy conditioning was associated with decreased risk of mortality in the first 11 months after allo‐HCT (HR = 0·28; 95% CI = 0·10–0·73; P = 0·009), but beyond 11 months post allo‐HCT it was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality, (HR = 2·46; 95% CI = 0·1.32–4·61; P = 0·005). Four‐year adjusted overall survival (OS) was similar across regimens at 62% for Flu/Bu, 59% for Flu/Mel140 and 55% for Flu/Cy (P = 0·64), respectively. These data confirm the choice of RIC for allo‐HCT in HL does not influence risk of relapse, NRM or PFS. Although no OS benefit was seen between Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel 140; Flu/Cy was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality beyond 11 months from allo‐HCT (possibly due to late NRM events).

9513 Background: CD22, a 135kd protein restricted to B-cells, is expressed in > 90% of childhood B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We conducted a feasibility/phase 2 study of epratuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against CD22, with reinduction chemotherapy in children with relapsed CD22+ ALL. Methods: The feasibility portion (n=12) of the study is reported here. Patients with first or later ALL marrow relapse at any time following diagnosis, ± extramedullary disease, with = 25% blasts expressing CD22 and a presenting white blood cell count (WBC) of = 50,000/μl, were eligible. Therapy consisted of a 14-day single agent phase (epratuzumab 360 mg/m2 /dose IV twice weekly × 4 doses), followed by 4 weekly doses of epratuzumab in combination with standard reinduction chemotherapy (vincristine, prednisone, PEG-asparaginase, doxorubicin). Remission induction rates and minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry were determined at the end of this 6-week period. PK studies were performed by ELISA based immunoassay (prior + 30 minutes after infusions). Results: 12 evaluable patients, median age 10 years (range 3 - 18), were accrued. 9 pts were in 1st (n=5 early; n=4 late), and 3 pts in 2nd or later marrow relapse. The mean (±SD) trough epratuzumab concentration increased from 69±23 to 232±74 μg/ml during the initial 14 days. Surface CD22 was not detected by flow cytometry on peripheral blood leukemic blasts within 24 hours of drug administration in all but one patient, indicating effective targeting of leukemic cells by epratuzumab. The most frequent toxicities were grade 1–2 infusion reactions (n=9). Two dose limiting toxicities occurred: one patient had a Grade 4 seizure of unclear etiology and one patient had asymptomatic Grade 3 ALT elevation. 9 patients achieved a complete remission following chemoimmunotherapy, of whom 7 were MRD-negative. Conclusions: Treatment with epratuzumab plus standard reinduction chemotherapy is feasible and well tolerated in children with relapsed ALL, producing favorable early responses in the majority of patients. The phase II portion of the study is ongoing. [Table: see text]

Background Although rituximab‐based high‐dose therapy is frequently used in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto‐HCT), data supporting the benefits are not available. Herein, we report the impact of rituximab‐based conditioning on auto‐HCT outcomes in patients who have DLBCL. Methods Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry, 862 adult DLBCL patients undergoing auto‐HCT between 2003 and 2017 using BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) conditioning regimen were included. All patients received frontline rituximab‐containing chemoimmunotherapy and had chemosensitive disease pre‐HCT. Early chemoimmunotherapy failure was defined as not achieving complete remission (CR) after frontline chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 1 year of initial diagnosis. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results The study cohort was divided into 2 groups: BEAM (n = 667) and R‐BEAM (n = 195). On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was seen in OS ( P = .83) or progression‐free survival (PFS) ( P = .61) across the 2 cohorts. No significant association between the use of rituximab and risk of relapse ( P = .15) or nonrelapse mortality ( P = .12) was observed. Variables independently associated with lower OS included older age at auto‐HCT ( P < .001), absence of CR at auto‐HCT ( P < .001) and early chemoimmunotherapy failure ( P < .001). Older age ( P < .0002) and non‐CR pre‐HCT ( P < .0001) were also associated with inferior PFS. There was no significant difference in early infectious complications between the 2 cohorts. Conclusion In this large registry analysis of DLBCL patients undergoing auto‐HCT, the addition of rituximab to the BEAM conditioning regimen had no impact on transplantation outcomes. Older age, absence of CR pre auto‐HCT, and early chemoimmunotherapy failure were associated with inferior survival.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Burkitt Lymphoma (BL) represents approximately 40% of all childhood and adolescent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Miles/Cairo, BJH 2012). Children with relapsed or progressive BL develop chemoimmunotherapy-resistant disease and can rarely be cured with salvage therapy (Cairo et al, JCO 2012). Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is a regulator of normal B-cell development and is activated upon B-cell receptor (BCR) stimulation. Chronic active BCR signaling through BTK activation can be inhibited by the selective and covalent BTK inhibitor, ibrutinib (Young/Staudt et al, Nat Rev Drug Dicov 2013). Preclinical studies of ibrutinib in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) suggest that its inhibitory effect on cell proliferation is in the range of 1.0uM to 25.0uM (Herman et al, Blood 2011; Cinar et al, Leuk Res 2013), which is higher than the typical plasma concentration range in patients at the recommended dose of 560mg (<0.6uM) (Advani et al, JCO 2013). Despite these relatively high IC50 values in vitro, ibrutinib has been highly effective in the treatment of patients with refractory CLL and MCL (Byrd et al, NEJM 2013 and Wang et al, NEJM 2013). Ibrutinib was initially approved by the FDA (IMBRUVICA, USPI) for patients with MCL in November 2013 and CLL in February 2014, who have received at least one prior therapy. BL, however, is associated with tonic vs chronic active BCR signaling; while, both CLL and MCL have chronic active BCR signaling. These findings suggest that the antitumor activity of ibrutinib in BL, which is associated with tonic BCR signaling, may be less pronounced than in Activated B cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (ABC-DLBCL), CLL or MCL. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that ibrutinib may be a potential adjuvant agent in the treatment of BL. Therefore, we investigated the in vivo anti-tumor activity of ibrutinib in BL xenografted NSG mice. METHODS: Raji Burkitt lymphoma (BL) cells (ATCC) were exposed to ibrutinib (0-10uM, generously provided by Janssen R&D LLC) alone and in combination with dexamethasone (1uM) for 5 days and then MTS cell proliferation assay (Promega) was performed. The IC50 values were determined with CompuSynTM software (Chou and Martin, ComboSyn, 2005) based on data derived from MTS assay. Raji BL cells were stably transfected with a firefly luciferase expression plasmid (ffluc-zeo), kindly provided by Laurence Cooper MD, PhD. NSG mice (NOD.Cg-PrkdcscidIl2rgtm1Wjl/SzJ, 6-8 weeks old) from Jackson laboratory were irradiated (2.5 Gy) and then mice were subcutaneously injected with one million ffluc-zeo tumor cells. Tumor progression and tumor burden were monitored by Bioluminescent Imaging system using the Xenogen IVIS-200 (Caliper Life Sciences). Mice were orally gavaged with either vehicle or ibrutinib (12.5mg/kg) for 10 days (once a day) at post-tumor cells injection. Analysis of survival rates were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method and differences evaluated by log-rank test using the Prism Version 6.0 software. RESULTS: Ibrutinib compared to control induced a significant dose-dependent decrease in cell proliferation in Raji BL cells (5uM, 0.561 ± 0.170, p<0.03, IC50=5.20uM) following 120 hours (5 days) of ibrutinib treatment. Interestingly, we observed a significant decrease in cell proliferation in Raji BL cells (5uM, 0.213 ± 0.078, p<0.002, IC=0.50 ± 0.374uM) following ibrutinib and 1uM dexamethasone combination treatment following 120 hours (5 days) of treatment. We observed a significant decrease of tumor progression by tumor luminescence signal intensity following ibrutinib treated Raji BL xenografted NSG mice at day 20 (12.5mg/kg, p<0.001 and 25mg/kg, p<0.05) and day 25 (12.5mg/kg, p<0.05 and 25mg/kg, p<0.05) compared to control (Figure 1A).Ibrutinib (12.5 mg/kg) treated mice (n=39) significantly prolonged survival compared to vehicle controls (n=28) (p<0.0001) (Figure 1B). CONCLUSIONS: Ibrutinib (12.5mg/kg) significantly decreased tumor progression and significantly increased survival in Raji BL xenografted NSG mice, suggesting that ibrutinib may be a potential adjuvant agent for therapy in the treatment of BL. Future studies will investigate the efficacy of combination therapy with ibrutinib on survival in BL xenografted NOD/SCID mice. Disclosures Galardy: Mission Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3094 The HLA class II DRB1 antigen DR15 is an important immunobiologic marker in immune mediated marrow failure states. DR15 has also been reported in small studies to be associated with favorable outcomes (reduction in acute GVHD and reduced relapse resulting in improved overall survival) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. To elucidate the impact of DR15 on major transplant outcomes, we conducted a retrospective study of 2, 891 recipients of first marrow or mobilized peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (n=1038), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n=700), chronic myeloid leukemia (n=948), or myelodysplastic syndrome (n=205) between 1990–2008 and reported to the CIBMTR registry. Selection was confined to HLA-identical sibling transplantation to avoid HLA-disparity as a driving force for observed differences. All patients received conventional myeloablative conditioning, T-replete grafts and cyclosporine plus methotrexate- based GVHD prophylaxis. DNA-based HLA typing allowed categorization of 732 (25.3%) patients as positive and 2159 (74.7%) patients as negative for DRB1*15 :01 or *15 :02 (DR15). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the HLA DR15-positive and -negative groups. In univariate analysis, HLA-DR15 status had no impact on neutrophil engraftment, acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) II-IV or III-IV, chronic GVHD, treatment related mortality, relapse, disease-free survival or overall survival. Confining the univariate analysis to myeloid malignancies did not alter these findings. Multivariate analysis models were constructed with DR15 status forced into the models in all steps of model building and the final model regardless of its statistical significance. Other variables tested included: donor/recipient age, CMV status, disease, disease stage, graft source, Karnofsky score, race and year of transplant. Variables that attained a p-value ≤0.05 were held in the final multivariate models. In multivariate analysis, DR15 status showed no significant difference in the primary outcomes of acute GVHD II-IV or III-IV, chronic GVHD, overall survival, or relapse. In conclusion, DR15 status had no impact on major HLA-matched sibling donor hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes in this large and homogenous cohort of leukemia and MDS patients. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.