Krem, Maxwell M.

Abstract We evaluate the impact of donor types on outcomes of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in myelofibrosis, using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry data for HCTs done between 2013 and 2019. In all 1597 patients, the use of haploidentical donors increased from 3% in 2013 to 19% in 2019. In study-eligible 1032 patients who received peripheral blood grafts for chronic-phase myelofibrosis, 38% of recipients of haploidentical HCT were non-White/Caucasian. Matched sibling donor (MSD)–HCTs were associated with superior overall survival (OS) in the first 3 months (haploidentical hazard ratio [HR], 5.80 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.52-13.35]; matched unrelated (MUD) HR, 4.50 [95% CI, 2.24-9.03]; mismatched unrelated HR, 5.13 [95% CI, 1.44-18.31]; P < .001). This difference in OS aligns with lower graft failure with MSD (haploidentical HR, 6.11 [95% CI, 2.98-12.54]; matched unrelated HR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.51]; mismatched unrelated HR, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.58-5.72]). There was no significant difference in OS among haploidentical, MUD, and mismatched unrelated donor HCTs in the first 3 months. Donor type was not associated with differences in OS beyond 3 months after HCT, relapse, disease-free survival, or OS among patients who underwent HCT within 24 months of diagnosis. Patients who experienced graft failure had more advanced disease and commonly used nonmyeloablative conditioning. Although MSD-HCTs were superior, there is no significant difference in HCT outcomes from haploidentical and MUDs. These results establish haploidentical HCT with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide as a viable option in myelofibrosis, especially for ethnic minorities underrepresented in the donor registries.

Abstract Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is a rare hematological malignancy with a poor prognosis and considered incurable with conventional chemotherapy. Small observational studies reported allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) offers durable remissions in patients with BPDCN. We report an analysis of patients with BPDCN who received an allo-HCT, using data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). We identified 164 patients with BPDCN from 78 centers who underwent allo-HCT between 2007 and 2018. The 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM) rates were 51.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42.5-59.8), 44.4% (95% CI, 36.2-52.8), 32.2% (95% CI, 24.7-40.3), and 23.3% (95% CI, 16.9-30.4), respectively. Disease relapse was the most common cause of death. On multivariate analyses, age of ≥60 years was predictive for inferior OS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.35-3.46; P = .001), and higher NRM (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.13-4.22; P = .02). Remission status at time of allo-HCT (CR2/primary induction failure/relapse vs CR1) was predictive of inferior OS (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14-3.06; P = .01) and DFS (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.76; P = .02). Use of myeloablative conditioning with total body irradiation (MAC-TBI) was predictive of improved DFS and reduced relapse risk. Allo-HCT is effective in providing durable remissions and long-term survival in BPDCN. Younger age and allo-HCT in CR1 predicted for improved survival, whereas MAC-TBI predicted for less relapse and improved DFS. Novel strategies incorporating allo-HCT are needed to further improve outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundLenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) results in superior progression‐free survival and overall survival. However, patients with high‐risk multiple myeloma (HRMM) do not derive the same survival benefit from lenalidomide maintenance compared with standard‐risk patients. The authors sought to determine the outcomes of bortezomib‐based maintenance compared with lenalidomide maintenance in patients with HRMM undergoing ASCT.MethodsIn total, the authors identified 503 patients with HRMM who were undergoing ASCT within 12 months of diagnosis from January 2013 to December 2018 after receiving triplet novel‐agent induction in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. HRMM was defined as deletion 17p, t(14;16), t(4;14), t(14;20), or chromosome 1q gain.ResultsThree hundred fifty‐seven patients (67%) received lenalidomide alone, and 146 (33%) received bortezomib‐based maintenance (with bortezomib alone in 58%). Patients in the bortezomib‐based maintenance group were more likely to harbor two or more high‐risk abnormalities and International Staging System stage III disease (30% vs. 22%; p = .01) compared with the lenalidomide group (24% vs. 15%; p < .01). Patients who were receiving lenalidomide maintenance had superior progression‐free survival at 2 years compared with those who were receiving either bortezomib monotherapy or combination therapy (75% vs. 63%; p = .009). Overall survival at 2 years was also superior in the lenalidomide group (93% vs. 84%; p = .001).ConclusionsNo superior outcomes were observed in patients with HRMM who received bortezomib monotherapy or (to a lesser extent) in those who received bortezomib in combination as maintenance compared with lenalidomide alone. Until prospective data from randomized clinical trials are available, post‐transplant therapy should be tailored to each patient with consideration for treating patients in clinical trials that target novel therapeutic strategies for HRMM, and lenalidomide should remain a cornerstone of treatment.

Abstract Little is known about whether risk classification at diagnosis predicts post-hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We evaluated 8709 patients with AML from the CIBMTR database, and after selection and manual curation of the cytogenetics data, 3779 patients in first complete remission were included in the final analysis: 2384 with intermediate-risk, 969 with adverse-risk, and 426 with KMT2A-rearranged disease. An adjusted multivariable analysis detected an increased risk of relapse for patients with KMT2A-rearranged or adverse-risk AML as compared to those with intermediate-risk disease (hazards ratio [HR], 1.27; P = .01; HR, 1.71; P &lt; .001, respectively). Leukemia-free survival was similar for patients with KMT2A rearrangement or adverse risk (HR, 1.26; P = .002, and HR, 1.47; P &lt; .001), as was overall survival (HR, 1.32; P &lt; .001, and HR, 1.45; P &lt; .001). No differences in outcome were detected when patients were stratified by KMT2A fusion partner. This study is the largest conducted to date on post-HCT outcomes in AML, with manually curated cytogenetics used for risk stratification. Our work demonstrates that risk classification at diagnosis remains predictive of post-HCT outcomes in AML. It also highlights the critical need to develop novel treatment strategies for patients with KMT2A-rearranged and adverse-risk disease.

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 &lt; .001), worse early LFS (HR, 1.40; P = .007) and increased incidences of NRM (HR, 2.08; P &lt; .001) and grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.97; P &lt; .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.

Background: Allogeneic HCT continues to be the optimal consolidation strategy for many patients with AML. Cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities are known to influence post-transplant outcomes. We tested the prognostic ability of a modified (mELN) classification system based on available CIBMTR genetic data, to predict post-transplant outcomes. Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of AML in first complete remission (CR1) with available pre-transplant cytogenetic and molecular mutational data, receiving a first allogeneic HCT from 2013-2017, were included. Patients were stratified according to mELN genetic classification in three distinct groups: favorable (Fav), intermediate (IM) and adverse (Adv). Clinical outcomes following HCT were compared among groups after adjusting for significant patient, disease, and transplant-related variables. The primary endpoint was disease free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), cumulative incidence of relapse, acute GVHD, and chronic GVHD. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare endpoints among mELN risk groups, age groups and genetic subsets within the adverse-risk group. Results: Demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1. 2289 patients (Fav, n=181; IM n=1185; and Adv n=923) met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for survivors was 35 months. Importantly, 41% of transplant recipients (n=936) were &gt;60 years, 76% (n=1743) had de novo AML and 48% (n=1111) received a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Univariate analysis (UVA) demonstrated significant differences in 2-year OS (Fav: 67.7%, IM: 64.9% and Adv: 53.9%; p&lt;0.001); DFS (Fav: 57.8%, IM: 55.5% and Adv: 45.3; p&lt;0.001) and relapse (Fav: 28%, IM: 27.5% and Adv: 37.5%; p&lt;0.001) There were no significant differences in NRM (p=0.467) or the incidence of acute (p=0.423) and chronic GVHD (p=0.442) among mELN groups. Initial multivariate analysis (MVA) of mELN risk groups indicated that there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the Fav and IM risk groups. Thus, these groups were combined for subsequent analyses. Adv risk (vs. Fav/IM) led to significantly worse OS (HR 1.39 [1.24-1.57] p=&lt;0.001), DFS (HR 1.32 [1.18-1.48] p=&lt;0.001), and relapse (HR 1.42 [1.23-1.63] p=&lt;0.001) (Table 2). This mELN classification effectively stratified both younger (&lt;60 y/o) and older (&gt;60 y/o) patients for OS (Adv vs. Fav/IM HR for &lt;60: 1.43 [1.21-1.69] p&lt;0.001; &gt;60: 1.44 [1.21-1.72] p&lt;0.001), DFS (Adv HR for &lt;60: 1.31 [1.12-1.53] p&lt;0.001; &gt;60: 1.41 [1.19-1.66] p&lt;0.001) and relapse (Adv HR for &lt;60: 1.44 [1.20-1.74] p&lt;0.001, &gt;60: 1.42 [1.15-1.76] p=0.001). NRM was higher for older patients (&gt;60 y/o) in both the Fav/IM (HR 1.40 [1.10-1.78] p=0.007) and Adv-risk cohorts (HR 1.59 [1.18-2.13] p=0.002). Genetic subset comparisons within the adverse-risk group showed that patients carrying monosomy 5, del(5q) or monosomy 7 had inferior 2-year OS (42.6%, p&lt;0.001) and DFS (35.2%, p&lt;0.001), as well as higher rates of relapse (45%, p= 0.002) when compared to other patients within the Adv-risk cohort (OS 60%, DFS 50.8%, relapse 33.5%). Conclusion: Stratification using mELN criteria resulted in clear prognostic separation of OS, DFS and relapse in this large cohort of AML patients undergoing allogeneic HCT. While Fav and IM groups had similar OS, DFS and relapse rates; patients in the Adv risk group had the highest risk of relapse and inferior DFS/OS. However, the majority of patients in all cohorts had favorable outcomes for HCT in CR1. Our findings confirm the value of a combined genetic prognostic model in the AML HCT setting and justify the use of this stratification system in future HCT trials. Correlation of genetic subtypes with other important transplant variables, such as conditioning intensity and pre-transplant MRD status deserves further evaluation. There remains a subset of Adv-risk patients for which post-transplant outcomes continue to be poor, even when transplanted in CR1. Novel peri-transplant pre-emptive/therapeutic strategies are urgently needed for this high-risk cohort. Disclosures de Lima: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees, advisory board, Research Funding; BMS: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Kadmon: Other: Personal Fees, Advisory board. Komanduri:Kiadis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Jazz: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board. Bhatt:National Marrow Donor Program: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Other; Jazz: Research Funding; Agios: Other: Personal Fees; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees; Partner Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees; Pfizer: Other, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Other: Drug support for a trial; Partnership for health analytic research, LLC: Other: Personal Fees; Omeros: Other: Personal Fees; Abbvie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding. Saad:Orcabio: Other: research support; Kadmon: Other: research support; Amgen: Other: research support; Incyte Pharmaceuticals: Other: Personal Fees; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees. Copelan:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Nishihori:Karyopharm: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Other: Research support to institution. Weisdorf:Incyte: Research Funding; FATE Therapeutics: Consultancy.

AbstractWe studied 2,528 patients with upfront autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) from 2008–2017 to develop a prognostic model to predict outcomes. High‐risk cytogenetics included t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del13q on karyotype, del17p, +1q or 1pdel. A Cox model identified factors prognostic of progression/relapse in a training subset (n = 1,246). A weighted score using these factors was assigned to a validation cohort (n = 774). Presence of high‐risk cytogenetics [hazard ratio, (HR) 1·68 (1·3–2·17)] and pre‐AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% [1·68 (1·33–2·12)] were assigned 4 points each; albumin at diagnosis <3·5 g/dl [1·31 (1·07–1·61)] 2; standard risk cytogenetics 1, and no cytogenetics abnormality, BMPCs <10% at AHCT and albumin ≥3·5 g/dl at diagnosis 0 points each. A three‐category system with low risk (0–3), intermediate risk (4–8) and high risk (9–10) showed 3‐year progression‐free survival in the low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 58% (95% CI: 52–63) vs. 49% (95% CI: 43–56) vs. 31% (95% CI: 12–51), P < 0.001 respectively, and 3‐year OS in low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 88% (95% CI: 84–91) vs. 81% (95% CI: 76–86) vs. 64% (95% CI: 39–80); P < 0·001. Our prognostic scoring system can identify MM patients at risk for early relapse after AHCT.

BackgroundUpfront autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) remains an important therapy in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), a disease of older adults.MethodsThe authors investigated the outcomes of AHCT in patients with MM who were aged ≥70 years. The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database registered 15,999 patients with MM in the United States within 12 months of diagnosis during 2013 through 2017; a total of 2092 patients were aged ≥70 years. Nonrecurrence mortality (NRM), disease recurrence and/or progression (relapse; REL), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were modeled using Cox proportional hazards models with age at transplantation as the main effect. Because of the large sample size, a P value <.01 was considered to be statistically significant a priori.ResultsAn increase in AHCT was noted in 2017 (28%) compared with 2013 (15%) among patients aged ≥70 years. Although approximately 82% of patients received melphalan (Mel) at a dose of 200 mg/m2 overall, 58% of the patients aged ≥70 years received Mel at a dose of 140 mg/m2. On multivariate analysis, patients aged ≥70 years demonstrated no difference with regard to NRM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3; 99% confidence interval [99% CI], 1‐1.7 [P = .06]), REL (HR, 1.03; 99% CI, 0.9‐1.1 [P = 0.6]), PFS (HR, 1.06; 99% CI, 1‐1.2 [P = 0.2]), and OS (HR, 1.2; 99% CI, 1‐1.4 [P = .02]) compared with the reference group (those aged 60‐69 years). In patients aged ≥70 years, Mel administered at a dose of 140 mg/m2 was found to be associated with worse outcomes compared with Mel administered at a dose of 200 mg/m2, including day 100 NRM (1% [95% CI, 1%‐2%] vs 0% [95% CI, 0%‐1%]; P = .003]), 2‐year PFS (64% [95% CI, 60%‐67%] vs 69% [95% CI, 66%‐73%]; P = .003), and 2‐year OS (85% [95% CI, 82%‐87%] vs 89% [95% CI, 86%‐91%]; P = .01]), likely representing frailty.ConclusionsThe results of the current study demonstrated that AHCT remains an effective consolidation therapy among patients with MM across all age groups.