Estrada‐Merly, Noel

Abstract Introduction POEMS syndrome is a rare disease associated with a plasma cell dyscrasia with limited information regarding the role of ASCT. Small single institution series have demonstrated deep and durable responses after ASCT along with neurological improvement. Despite these benefits, ASCT is thought to have higher treatment related morbidity and mortality, limiting its use. We describe the outcomes from an international multicenter database of patients with POEMS syndrome undergoing ASCT. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing ASCT for POEMS syndrome. Standard descriptive methods were used to report patient characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predicators for non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). NRM was compared between POEMS and multiple myeloma (MM) patients who underwent ASCT during the same time period. Results Between 2008-2018, 331 pts with POEMS syndrome who underwent ASCT were identified. The median age was 51 years, with 66% males. Racial distribution was 65% Caucasians, 19% African American, 5% other, and 10% missing. Pre-transplant characteristics included 70% patients had Karnofsky score <90, and 50% had HCT-CI ≥ 3, reflecting underlying disease severity and symptoms. The most common comorbidity was pulmonary (52%). Only 14% of patients were in very good partial response or better at the time of ASCT and 72 (22%) patients underwent ASCT without prior treatment. The median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 7 months and 74% underwent ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis. The most common mobilization strategy was GCSF +/- plerixafor in 50% of pts and 87% of pts received conditioning with 200mg/m2 of Melphalan. The median follow up was 48 (range 3-137) months. At day 100, NRM was 0.9 % (95% CI: 0.2-2.2%). At 4 years, NRM was 4.9% (95% CI: 2.6-7.9%), relapse 15.4% (95% CI 11.3-20.1%), PFS 79.7% (95% CI 74.5-84.3%) and OS 92% (95% CI 89.2-95.6%). Subsequent neoplasms were seen in 16 (5%) with 4 myeloid malignancy and 12 solid tumors. On multivariate analysis, age ≥ 60 years was associated with greater hazards of mortality, HR 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-5.6), p 0.01. The figure shows the comparable NRM between POEMS and MM (p 0.31). Conclusions: We report outcomes of the largest ASCT series of POEMS patients. Despite a high HCT-CI and low functional status among patients with POEMS syndrome, no difference in NRM was seen when compared to MM. Post-transplant outcomes were excellent and support single center data on the role of ASCT in this rare disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kansagra: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alynylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cota Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dispenzieri: Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Qazilbash: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Biolline: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Shah: GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Indapta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Teneobio: Research Funding; CareDx: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. D'Souza: Sanofi, Takeda, Teneobio, CAELUM, Prothena: Research Funding; Imbrium, Pfizer, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Prothena: Consultancy.

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.

8022 Background: Maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) after first autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT1) is considered standard of care. Data regarding maintenance therapy after a salvage AHCT (AHCT2) in the setting of relapsed MM are scarce. Therefore, we used data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to examine the use of maintenance therapy after AHCT2 in MM patients and its effect on post-transplant patient outcomes. Methods: We included US adult MM patients who underwent AHCT2 after melphalan conditioning regimen from 2010-2018, and excluded patients who underwent tandem transplants. Outcomes of interest included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (REL), progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). Cox proportional hazards models were developed to study the main effect (maintenance use) with other covariates of interest including age, sex, race, performance status, HCT-comorbidity index, MM subtype, stage, creatinine, cytogenetic, conditioning melphalan dose, disease status at transplant, and time from AHCT1 to AHCT2. Results: Of 522 patients, 342 received maintenance therapy and 180 did not after AHCT2. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Median follow up was 58 months in the maintenance group and 61.5 months in the no-maintenance group. Common maintenance regimens included immunomodulatory drugs (IMID)-lenalidomide (N = 145, 42%) or pomalidomide (N = 46, 13%) and proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib (N = 45, 13%). Univariate analysis showed superior outcomes at 5 years in maintenance compared to the no-maintenance group: NRM 2 (0.7-3.9)% vs 9.9 (5.9-14.9)%, p < 0.001, REL 70.2 (64.4-75.8)% vs 80.3 (73.6-86.3)%, p 0.003, PFS 27.8% (22.4-33.5) vs. 9.8% (5.5-15.2), p < 0.001, and OS 54% (47.5-60.5) vs 30.9% (23.2-39.2) p < 0.001, respectively. IMID-containing maintenance regimens were associated with an improved 5-year PFS and OS compared to other maintenance regimens. Use of maintenance therapy retained its association with improved outcomes in multivariate analysis, including NRM: hazard ratio (HR) 0.19 (0.08-0.44), p 0.0001, REL: HR 0.58 (0.47-0.72), p < 0.0001, PFS HR 0.52 (0.43-0.64), p < 0.0001, and OS HR 0.46 (0.36-0.60), p < 0.0001. We conducted additional analyses to investigate a possible selection bias in the maintenance group including landmark analysis at 100-days and 6-months post-AHCT2 as well as a subgroup analysis of patients who received melphalan 200mg/m2 as conditioning for AHCT2 (as a surrogate for fitness)- all these analyses also showed improved outcomes in the maintenance group. Second cancers were reported in 17 (5%) patients in the maintenance group and 6 (3%) patients and no-maintenance group (p 0.39). Conclusions: Maintenance therapy after AHCT2 is associated with superior outcomes in MM patients.

Introduction: VRD (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) and VCD (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone) are the two most commonly used triplet induction regimens in transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM). VCD is commonly used in patients with renal dysfunction at diagnosis. Given the variable results seen in head to head comparison of these (or similar) regimens to date, no definitive conclusion can be made on whether they are equivalent. This large CIBMTR registry study compares the outcomes with VRD vs. VCD induction therapy in patients undergoing upfront autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: Patients were included if they underwent upfront ASCT for MM from January 2013 to December 2018 within 6 months of diagnosis, received VRD or VCD induction therapy and achieved at least a partial response pre-transplant. Of 1,135 patients, 914 patients received VRD and 221 received VCD therapy. Cox proportional hazards models were created for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The following covariates were adjusted in the models: induction regimen (main effect), age, sex, race, performance score, hematopoietic cell transplant-comorbidity index (HCT-CI), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at diagnosis, immunoglobulin subtype, cytogenetics, ISS stage, response status at transplant, melphalan dose, and maintenance therapy. Results: As shown in Table 1, patients in the VRD and VCD cohorts had similar age at transplant, adjusted HCT-CI scores, and distribution of high-risk cytogenetics. Patients in the VCD group were more likely to have renal impairment and ISS stage III disease. An eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) at diagnosis &lt; 60 was seen in 26% of VRD patients vs. 48% of VCD patients. ISS stage III was seen in 17% vs. 34% of patients, respectively. Treatment and Response: Pre-transplant response in the VRD cohort was: complete response (CR)- 17%, very good partial response (VGPR)- 48% and partial response (PR)- 35%. Response in the VCD cohort was: CR- 17%, VGPR- 42% and PR- 41%. Conditioning dose was melphalan 200 mg/m2 in 80% of patients receiving VRD vs. 69% in the VCD group. Post-transplant response was at least VGPR in 74% vs. 75% of patients, respectively. Maintenance in the VRD group was: lenalidomide based (+/- bortezomib)- 80%, bortezomib based- 5%, other-3% and none- 12% of patients. In the VCD group, maintenance was: lenalidomide based- 63%, bortezomib based- 11%, other- 1% and none- 24%. Survival: Patients receiving VRD induction had superior outcomes compared to VCD induction with median PFS from transplant of 44.6 (38.0-55.8) months vs 34.1 (25.8-44.7) months, p 0.004 respectively. Median OS was not reached for either group, with 5-year OS 79 (74-83)% for VRD and 60 (50-69)% for VCD, p &lt;0.001. Univariate PFS and OS outcomes by induction regimen and eGFR at diagnosis are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. Multivariate analysis is shown in Table 3. After adjusting for prognostic factors, there was no statistically significant difference between the two induction regimens, with hazard ratio (HR) for PFS in the VCD vs VRD group being 1.22 (95% CI: 0.96-1.55, p=0.10). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for PFS. Similarly, on multivariate analysis for OS, there was no statistically significant difference in the two groups, with HR for OS in VCD vs VRD group being 1.33 (95% CI: 0.93-1.92, p=0.12). ISS stage, cytogenetics, disease status prior to transplant, and maintenance were independent prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: In patients with MM undergoing upfront transplant after VRD or VCD induction, no difference in outcomes was seen based on the induction therapy received after adjusting for other prognostic factors. As several MM patients with renal dysfunction are started on VCD, it is reassuring to see that VCD was not associated with inferior PFS, likely due to the eventual transition to maintenance therapy in the majority due to subsequent improvement of renal function. The use of maintenance treatment was uniformly associated with superior outcomes. Disclosures Sidana: Janssen: Consultancy. Kumar:Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Giralt:Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Actinuum: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OMEROS: Research Funding; SPECTRUM Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PFIZER: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jensenn: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MILTENYI: Research Funding; JAZZ Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qazilbash:Janssen: Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. D'Souza:Janssen: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Imbrium: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Teneobio: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding.

Introduction T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (T-PLL) is a rare and aggressive malignancy with limited treatment options, frequent relapse, and poor long-term survival. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is reported to be effective in T-PLL yielding durable remissions and improved survival. Rates of survival and non-relapse mortality vary; data is scant and limited to small retrospective series. Whether regimen intensity - a modifiable factor- is associated with outcomes is unknown. Here, we report an analysis of patients with T-PLL undergoing allo-HCT in 87 centers using data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Methods A retrospective multicenter study was conducted utilizing the CIBMTR dataset, which captures all consecutive patients transplanted in participating centers. The study population included patients aged 18 or older with T-PLL who underwent allo-HCT between 2008 and 2018. All donor types, graft sources, and conditioning intensities are summarized (Table 1). Cox regression analysis was used to assess overall mortality, treatment-related mortality (TRM), relapse or progression, disease-free survival (DFS) and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Due to the strong correlation between regimen intensity and patients' age, a combined variable was constructed, and in all models, interactions between age/regimen and significant covariates were examined. Results A total of 266 pts were identified and included in this analysis (Table 1). Median follow up of survivors was 49 months (range 3-117); the completeness of survival data out to four years was 95%. In univariate analysis, the 4-year overall survival (OS) rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.8-36.5%). The 4-year DFS, relapse, TRM rates were 25.72% (95%CI: 20-32%), 41.9% (95%CI: 35.5-48.4%), and 32.4% (95%CI: 26.4-38.6%), respectively. Cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 acute GVHD at day +180 and chronic GVHD at 1-year were 22.5%% (95%CI: 16.8- 28.9%) and 38.3% (95%CI: 32.9-44.9%), respectively. Multivariate analyses was performed using age (Age &gt;60 vs Age ≤60) and conditioning intensity (myeloablative [MAC] vs. reduced intensity/non-myeloablative [RIC/NMA]) as main effect (Table 2). Poor performance status was associated with inferior TRM, DFS and OS. Compared to MAC/Age ≤ 60, RIC/NMA/Age≤ 60 correlated significantly with less TRM (hazard ratio [HR] 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.55, p= 0.0022, superior DFS [HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.81, p= 0.0029; (Figure 3) and OS HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75, p= 0.0009; (Figure 2). Similar trend was observed for RIC/NMA/ Age&gt; 60 for all 3 outcomes but did not reach statistical significance. Remission status at time of allo-HCT (stable disease or progression vs. complete remission) correlated with relapse (hazard ratio [HR] of relapse=2.13, 95%CI 1.23-3.71, p=0.0072), however degree of response (partial response vs. complete remission did not significantly correlate with relapse (HR of relapse=1.41, 95%CI 0.91-2.17, p=0.1257). In vivo T cell depletion with ATG (N=47) or alemtuzumab (N=2) was associated with worse TRM [HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.08-3.08, p= 0.0255] and inferior DFS [HR of death or progression=HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.05-2.15, p= 0.0276]. The most common cause of death was disease relapse (52%) followed by infection (15%) and GVHD (13%). Conclusion This CIBMTR study, with the largest cohort of allo-HCT in T-PLL to date, demonstrates allo-HCT is effective in providing durable remissions. MAC and poor performance status were predictive of inferior TRM and OS. Disease relapse was most common cause of death, and pre-allo-HCT remission inversely correlated with relapse rate. The data suggest that reduced intensity conditioning and avoidance of post-transplant ATG/alemtuzumab may be beneficial. Novel strategies are needed both pre and post-allo-HCT to further improve outcomes. Disclosures Dholaria: J&J: Research Funding; bms: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding. Jagadeesh:Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Debiopharm Group: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Oran:Celgene: Consultancy; ASTEX: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nakamura:Viracor: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Support on seminar; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; NapaJen Pharma: Consultancy; Alexion: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Merck: Other: advisory board meeting; Kadmon Corporation: Other: Advisory board meeting; Kyowa-Kirin: Other: Support on a meeting presentation. Sauter:Spectrum Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite - a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Background The relative benefits of haploidentical HCT using PTCy compared to traditional matched-sibling donor, traditional unrelated donor and umbilical cord blood (UCB) allogeneic HCT for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is still being defined. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database comparing post-HCT outcomes of haploidentical donors with PTCy to HLA-identical sibling donors, 8/8 HLA-MUDs, 7/8 HLA-MUDs, and UCB. Outcomes were overall survival (OS) leukemia-free survival (LFS), relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM), grade 2-4 and grade 3-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), and chronic GVHD (cGVHD). Eligible patients were adults with ALL in complete remission (CR1, CR2, or CR3) undergoing first allogeneic HCT from 2013 to 2017. Key exclusion included not receiving PTCy for haploidentical HCT and ex vivo T-cell depleted or CD34-selected grafts. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression analysis was used to compare the treatment groups. Results 4201 patients were studied: 393 haploidentical donor (92 centers), 1627 HLA-identical sibling donor (206 centers), 1646 8/8 HLA-MUD (181 centers), 230 7/8 HLA-MUD (90 centers), and 305 UCB (79 centers). Groups were well matched, however, notable differences between included race, time from diagnosis to HCT (CR1 only), conditioning regimen intensity, donor age, graft source for non-cord (peripheral blood or bone marrow), GVHD prophylaxis modality, and the use of in vivo T-cell depletion. Compared to other groups, haploidentical HCT had the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic white patients (43% vs. 49-74%), was more likely to use reduced-intensity conditioning (42% vs 17-25%), and was more likely to use bone marrow (41% vs. 14-29%). In multivariate analysis comparing haploidentical to matched-sibling donor HCT, no differences were observed in OS, LFS, NRM, relapse, or aGVHD. Compared to haploidentical HCT, the risk of cGVHD was significantly higher with matched-sibling donor HCT (D/R sex match F/M, HR 2.59, P&lt;0.001, D/R sex match, other, HR 1.37, P=0.003). Comparing haploidentical to 8/8 HLA-MUD HCT, no differences were seen in OS, LFS, relapse, or Grade 2-4 aGVHD but 8/8 HLA-MUD HCT was associated with increased incidences of NRM (HR 1.42, P=0.02), grade 3-4 aGVHD (HR 1.59, P=0.005), and cGVHD (HR D/R sex match F/M, HR 2.91, P&lt;0.001, D/R sex match, other, HR 1.38, P=0.001). Comparing haploidentical to 7/8 HLA-MUD HCT, no differences were seen in LFS or relapse but 7/8 HLA-MUD HCT was associated with worse OS (HR 1.38, P=0.01) and increased incidences of NRM (HR 2.13, P=&lt;0.001), grade 2-4 aGVHD (HR 1.33, P=0.04) , grade 3-4 aGVHD (HR 1.86, P=0.003), and cGVHD (HR 1.72, P=&lt;0.001). Comparing haploidentical to UCB HCT, no differences were seen in late OS (&gt;18 months), late LFS, relapse, or cGVHD. Compared to haploidentical HCT, UCB HCT was associated with worse early OS (≤18 months, HR 1.93, P&lt;0.001), worse early LFS (HR 1.40, P=0.007) and increased incidences of NRM (HR 2.08, P&lt;0.001), grade 2-4 aGVHD (HR 1.83, P&lt;0.001), and grade 3-4 aGVHD (HR 1.97, P&lt;0.001). Similar outcomes were observed in sensitivity analyses restricting cohorts to (1) MA conditioning with peripheral blood stem cells and (2) calcineurin inhibitor-based GVHD prophylaxis for matched-sibling, unrelated donor, and UCB HCT. Conclusions For OS and LFS, haploidentical HCT using PTCy for adult ALL was superior to traditional HCT using 7/8 HLA-MUDs and UCB but equivalent to traditional HCT using matched-sibling donors and 8/8 HLA-MUDs. Results were consistent across all subgroups. Haploidentical HCT had a lower incidence of aGVHD compared to 8/8 HLA-MUD, 7/8 HLA-MUD, and UCB HCT and a lower incidence of cGVHD compared to matched-sibling donor, 8/8 HLA-MUD, and 7/8 HLA-MUD HCT. Based on these data, haploidentical HCT with PTCy results in similar survival with less GVHD compared to traditional matched-sibling and 8/8 HLA-matched donor HCT and is the superior alternative donor option for adult patients with ALL needing allogeneic HCT in CR. Figure Disclosures Wieduwilt: Leadiant: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Macrogeneics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de Lima:Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; BMS: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees, advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kadmon: Other: Personal Fees, Advisory board. Kebriaei:Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Jazz: Consultancy. Hourigan:Merck: Other: Research Support (CRADA); Sellas: Other: Research Support (CRADA). Weisdorf:FATE Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding.

8515 Background: AL is a clonal plasma cell (PC) disorder causing multiorgan dysfunction from amyloid fibril deposition. While bortezomib (B) induction has been used prior to AHCT recently, AHCT without prior induction has been a common practice. The primary objective of this study was to compare outcomes of AL patients who proceeded to AHCT without induction to those receiving pre-AHCT induction with B. Methods: Outcomes of 426 systemic AL AHCT recipients between 2014-2018 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) were reviewed. Patients receiving induction with therapy other than B, AHCT occurring > 9 months after diagnosis, no documented AL end-organ involvement, myeloma-defining events and conditioning other than melphalan (MEL) monotherapy were excluded. Multivariate analysis (MVA) was conducted to identify prognostic factors associated with relapse, PFS and overall survival (OS). Results: 286 patients received B induction therapy vs 140 patients receiving no induction. Age, gender, number and type of organs involved, and AL AHCT center volume were similar between the groups. Patients receiving induction had greater PC burden compared with no induction (PC ≥ 10%, 41% vs 11%, p < 0.01). Induction was B, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (D) in 83% followed by B, lenalidomide and D (10%) or B+D (7%). Median follow-up was 24.9 months. At 2 years, B induction vs. no induction was associated with 13% (95% CI 10-17%) vs 22% (95% CI 15-30%) relapse risk (p = 0.03); 83% (95% CI 79-87%) vs 74% (95% CI 66-81%) PFS (p = 0.04); 93% (95% CI 90-95%) vs 94% (95% CI 89-97%) OS (p = 0.7). On MVA, the B induction group had improved PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, p < 0.001) with similar OS (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.2, p = 0.1) compared with no induction. Creatinine < 2 mg/dl (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.02) and Karnofsky score ≥90 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33-0.78, p < 0.01) were also associated with improved PFS. MEL dose < 180 mg/m2 was associated with inferior PFS (HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.31-3.61, p < 0.01) and OS (HR 3.6, 95% CI 1.5-8.6, p < 0.01). No deaths were seen in the first 100 days post-AHCT. At last follow-up, 32 deaths occurred, 26 (81%) due to AL. Conclusions: Compared with prior CIBMTR analyses, B induction use has increased in AL AHCT recipients and a higher PC burden was the only clinical determinant. Furthermore, B induction was associated with lower relapse and improved PFS at 2 years with no OS difference despite higher proportion of patients with > 10% PC, which has been associated with poor outcomes.