Horowitz, Mary M.

Abstract Introduction: The gut microbiome is a potentially modifiable factor in treatment related outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Prior studies have linked pre- or mid-treatment gut microbiome diversity with risk for treatment related morbidity and mortality. However, these studies have been limited by the inclusion of one or only a few institutions and the lack of longitudinal sampling with high quality metadata. These limitations complicate the interpretation of microbiome alterations over the course of HCT. Methods: To overcome these, we devised and implemented a large-scale biospecimen collection protocol in conjunction with BMT CTN 1703, a randomized, multicenter, Phase III trial of tacrolimus/methotrexate vs. post-transplant cyclophosphamide/tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil in reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT (NCT03959241). Patients enrolled on 1703 were optionally co-enrolled in the companion immune and microbiome profiling study, 1801 (MI-IMMUNE). This involved blood, urine and stool sampling before conditioning (PCON), then weekly starting on day 0 through day 77 (through day 84 for blood), and on days 98, 180, 270, 365 and 730. For all enrolled participants where the donor consented, residual donor cells were saved from the empty hematopoietic stem cell product bag for later analysis. Additionally, the protocol included one-time blood, urine and stool sample collection from consented matched related donors (MRDs) prior to stem cell collection. Starting with protocol version 4.0 on February 1, 2021, participation in 1801 stool collection was required for the first six out of eighteen sample collection timepoints. Participation in later stool and urine timepoint collections remained optional. Here we review the feasibility of creating a multi-institutional biobank. Additionally, we assess the success of our strategies by calculating sample collection compliance and standard deviation in compliance across centers for each timepoint. Results: On June 18, 2021, BMT CTN 1703/1801 closed to accrual with 431 patients enrolled on 1703; 323 patients from 36 centers were co-enrolled on 1801. 304 (94%) provided study samples, making this the largest prospective microbiome and immune profiling study in HCT patients to date. As of July 6, 2021, 3,683 blood, 2,668 urine, and 2,098 stool samples had been collected. Across the first 6 timepoints for all participating centers, blood, urine and stool sample collection averaged 93%, 82%, and 74% compliance, respectively. Of the 99 (30%) patients enrolled on 1801 with a MRD, 34 (34%) donors consented to sample collection. Sample collection compliance was lower for MRDs than for patients on the study with 76%, 74%, and 62% of expected blood, urine and stool samples collected, respectively, from this group. For stool collection exclusively, a median of 5 samples were collected per patient across the first 6 timepoints (median of 6 across all timepoints) with 93 (31%) of patients completing a full sample set through Day 28. 139 (46%) patients provided at least one sample after day 28; these represented 37% of the total samples collected to date. The PCON sample, which provides an important measure of pre-treatment gut microbiome diversity, had the third highest compliance with 74% of patients providing a sample. Surprisingly, Day 28 had the lowest compliance (66%) and highest standard deviation (37%) possibly because this timepoint often falls around the time of hospital discharge. Between PCON and day 28, the standard deviation between sites in the average collection compliance (24%) and number of samples collected per patient (1.1) was small indicating the successful adoption of stool collection across institutions. Table 1 summarizes sample collection statistics. Conclusion: Overall this study has resulted in a large, novel biobank of blood, urine and stool samples from patients undergoing RIC allogeneic HCT at 36 centers across the US. This will serve as a valuable resource for investigating the role of the gut microbiome in long term health outcomes following HCT. Although the results of 1801 are forthcoming given ongoing sample collection, the size and composition of the biobank to date clearly demonstrate the feasibility of implementing multi-institutional stool collection. This study represents a critical step towards the large-scale adoption of microbiome sampling as a diagnostic tool. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chhabra: GSK: Honoraria. Clark: Kadmon: Consultancy. Horowitz: Mesoblast: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: 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; Sanofi: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Jenq: Microbiome DX: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Prolacta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kaleido: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seres: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; LisCure: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MaaT Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karius: Consultancy. Levine: Equillium Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kamada: Research Funding; Biogen: Research Funding; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Symbio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Talaris Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent with royalties from Viracor; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Research Funding; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Riches: ATARA Biotherapeutics: Other: Payment; BioIntelect: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Payment. Sung: Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Enterome: Research Funding; Seres: Research Funding; AVROBIO: Consultancy; Abbott Nutrition: Honoraria; Clasado: Other: Research Product; DSM: Other: Research Product. Al Malki: Neximmune: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Rigel Pharma: Consultancy; Hansa Biopharma: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy. Rezvani: Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding; US Department of Justice: Consultancy. Bolaños-Meade: Incyte Corp: Consultancy. Holtan: Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Generon: Consultancy. Saber: Govt. COI: Other. Hamadani: Sanofi, Genzyme, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Omeros, Morphosys, Kite: Consultancy; Takeda, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Kean: Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Patents & Royalties: From clinical trial data, Research Funding; Vertex: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Consultancy. Perales: Cidara: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Medigene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Celgene: Honoraria.

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.

Lay Summary People who have advanced myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) may live longer if they get a bone marrow transplant (BMT) instead of other therapies. However, only 15% of people with MDS actually get BMT. Experts say community physicians and transplant physicians should team up with insurance companies and patient advocacy groups to 1) spread this news about lifesaving advances in BMT, 2) ensure that everyone can afford health care, 3) provide emotional support for patients and families, 4) help patients and families get transportation and housing if they need to travel for transplant, and 5) improve care for people of under‐represented racial and ethnic backgrounds.

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.

Background: Recent advances in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) have improved patient survival and quality of life (QOL), while reducing transfusion burden. However, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), widely used in younger MDS patients, remains the only curative therapy for MDS. While transplantation outcomes among selected older patients with MDS are similar to younger patients with MDS, early transplantation for older patients is infrequently offered since the relative benefits of HCT over non-HCT therapy in have not been well defined in this patient group. We conducted a multi-center, biologic assignment trial in older individuals with high risk MDS to define the benefit of HCT over non-HCT therapy. Methods: The study was a multicenter, biologic assignment trial in subjects aged 50-75 with higher risk de novo MDS (IPSS Intermediate-2 (Int-2) or High) who were candidates for reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT, comparing outcomes of those with a suitable 8/8 HLA-matched donor to those without a donor. The trial was conducted by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 1102, NCT02016781). Eligible subjects were enrolled prior to a formal donor search, and before or after MDS treatment was initiated. Biological assignment to the Donor or No Donor arm was based on high-resolution HLA typing of eligible family members and a search of the unrelated donor registries. Subjects were initially assigned to the No Donor arm and re-assigned to the Donor arm when a suitable donor was identified. Subjects who died or whose 90-day donor search ended without identifying a suitable donor remained in the No Donor arm. Subjects in the Donor arm were expected to undergo RIC HCT within 6 months of enrollment. Subjects underwent RIC HCT or non-HCT therapy according to institutional standards. The primary analysis compared three-year overall survival (OS) between arms using adjusted survival estimates to account for the potential bias resulting from biological assignment. The sample size was selected to provide at least 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in 3-year OS. Between January 2014 and November 2018, 384 subjects (Donor n=260, No Donor n=124) were enrolled at 34 centers. The study arms were well balanced for age, gender, KPS, IPSS risk, MDS disease duration and responsiveness to hypomethylating therapy (Table). The median follow-up time for surviving patients 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. Results: In an intent-to-treat analysis, adjusted OS at 3 years from study enrollment in the Donor arm was 47.9% (95% CI: 41.3%-54.1%) compared with 26.6% (95% CI: 18.4%-35.6%) in the No Donor arm (p=0.0001, absolute difference 21.3%, 95% CI: 10.2%-31.8%)(Figure). A sensitivity analysis excluding subjects assigned to the No Donor arm who died or withdrew prior to the end of the 90-day search window showed no effect on outcome (Adjusted OS: 48.0% vs. 28.1%, p=0.0004). Leukemia-free survival (LFS) at 3 years was greater in the Donor arm (35.8%, 95% CI: 29.8%-41.8%) compared with the No Donor arm (20.6%, 95% CI: 13.3%-29.1%, p=0.003), with no changes in the sensitivity analysis. An OS and LFS benefit was seen across all subgroups tested (Figure). There were no clinically significant differences in QOL between Donor and No Donor arms as measured by the FACT-G, the MOS-SF36 Physical and Mental Component Scores and the EQ-5D utility score at all time points. The overall non-compliance rate for the trial was 26.3%. Reasons for non-compliance included the use of myeloablative conditioning or failure to proceed to RIC transplant in the Donor arm, and the use of alternative donors in the No Donor arm. In an as-treated analysis, comparison of the HCT and No HCT arms demonstrated a significant advantage in 3-year OS (47.4% vs. 16.0%, p<0.0001) and LFS (39.3% vs. 10.9%, p<0.0001) for subjects who underwent HCT. Conclusions: We observed a significant OS advantage in older patients with Int-2 and High IPSS risk de novo MDS who are RIC HCT candidates and have an HLA-matched donor, when compared with those without a donor. The benefit of having a matched donor was seen across subgroups, including those who were of Medicare age (>65) and below. HCT should be offered to all individuals between the ages of 50-75 with Int-2 and High IPSS risk MDS in whom a suitable donor can be identified. Table Disclosures Nakamura: Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Kyowa-Kirin: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Alexion: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Merck: Other: advisory board meeting; NapaJen Pharma: Consultancy; Kadmon Corporation: Other: Advisory board meeting; Celgene: Other: Support on seminar; Viracor: Consultancy. Scott:Alexion, Incyte, Novartis, Regeneron: Consultancy; Agios, BMS: Honoraria; BMS, Novartis: Research Funding. Oran:ASTEX: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Maziarz:Novartis, Incyte, CRISPR Therapeutics, Artiva Biotherapeutics, and AlloVir: Consultancy; Novartis and Athersys: Other: DSMB participant; Athersys: Patents & Royalties; Incyte, Kite, BMS/Celgene, PACT Pharma, Orca BioSystems, and Omeros: Honoraria; Novartis and Juno: Research Funding. McGuirk:Allo Vir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cutler:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kadmon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medsenic: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Generon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: Cryopreservation of peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) or bone marrow (BM) grafts is rarely performed, thus information about the effect of cryopreservation on graft characteristics and HCT outcomes is limited. Given the global pandemic leading to changing practices for donor graft collection and increasing utilization of cryopreservation, we evaluated the outcomes of HCT recipients who received either fresh or cryopreserved allogeneic BM or PBSC grafts. The primary endpoint was engraftment. Secondary endpoints were incidence of acute graft-vs.-host disease (aGVHD), relapse, transplant related mortality (TRM), disease free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Methods: We included 7397 patients transplanted between 2013 and 2018. 1883 cryopreserved graft recipients were divided into three cohorts based on graft source and donor type: matched related (MRD) PBSC (n=1,051), matched unrelated (MUD) PBSC (n=678), and matched related or unrelated bone marrow donors (n=154). All patients received conventional calcineurin-based GVHD prophylaxis strategies. Patients who received cryopreserved grafts were matched with 5514 patients who received fresh adjusting for graft type (BM vs. PB), donor source (MRD vs. 8/8 MUD), Disease Risk Index (DRI, low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. high risk), recipient age (within 5-years) and propensity score (within 1 standard deviation from pooled sample). The propensity score was based on age, Karnofsky score, diagnosis, disease risk index, HCT-comorbidity index, and conditioning intensity. The level of statistical significance for the main analyses was p<0.01 due to multiple comparisons. The reason for cryopreservation was available on a subset of URD product recipients. Results: Baseline characteristics for all cohorts are shown in Table 1. CD34+ doses reflect enumeration at infusion. In univariate analyses, rates of graft failure and neutrophil recovery at day 28 were similar for cryopreserved and fresh grafts for BM or related PBSC recipients but differed in cryopreserved vs. fresh MUD PBSC (5% vs 2%, p<0.001 and 87 vs 94%, p<0.001, respectively). Rates of platelet recovery within 28 days were similar in marrow cohorts, but lower with cryopreserved related (92% vs 96%, p<0.001) and MUD PBSC (87 vs 94%, p<0.001) grafts. In matched pair multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in any outcomes with cryopreserved vs fresh BM grafts, irrespective of donor type. With related donor PBSC, cryopreservation was associated with decreased platelet recovery (HR=0.73, CI=0.68-0.78, p<0.001) and an increased risk of both grade II-IV (HR=1.27, CI=1.09-1.48, p=0.002) and grade III-IV (HR=1.48, CI=1.19-1.84, p<0.001) aGVHD, but had no impact on other outcomes. In contrast, with MUD PBSC grafts, cryopreservation was associated with delayed engraftment of neutrophils (HR=0.77, CI=0.71-0.84, p<0.001) and platelets (HR=0.61, CI=0.56-0.66, p<0.001), an increased risk of TRM (HR=1.4, CI=1.18-1.66, p<0.001) and relapse (HR=1.32, CI=1.11-1.58, p=0.002), and decreased DFS (HR=1.36, CI=1.20-1.55, p<0.001) and OS (HR=1.38, CI=1.22-1.58, p<0.001) but did not affect the incidence of aGVHD. In a subset analysis of 299 URD recipients, the most common reason for cryopreservation was delays due to patient-related events, eg., additional chemotherapy, infection. These recipients had decreased OS compared to products cryopreserved for non-patient reasons (HR=0.65, CI=0.44-0.96, p=0.029). Conclusions: The retrospective nature of this analysis, and the fact that cryopreservation is likely to have been performed in recipients with a different (higher) risk profile compared to those receiving fresh products limits our ability to draw firm confusions. Despite these limitations, we conclude that cryopreservation in some patient populations may have a negative impact on engraftment and transplant outcomes. The decision to cryopreserve donor grafts, particularly PBSC grafts, should be carefully considered and highlights the need for further investigation of the effect of cryopreservation of allogeneic grafts where patient factors can be controlled for. Disclosures Farhadfar: CSL Behring: Research Funding; Incyte pharmaceutical: Other: Member of GVHD advisory forum. Frey:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Syntax: Consultancy, Honoraria. Devine:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy. Shaw:Orca Bio: Consultancy. Wingard:Shire: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Ansun: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Merck: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Cidara: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; ReViral: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial.

Abstract Abstract 3009FN2 Objective: To determine toxicity and efficacy of adding fludarabine (FLU) to a regimen of total body irradiation (TBI), anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and cyclophosphamide (CY), with de-escalation of the CY dose. The goal is to minimize CY-related toxicities while preserving (or improving) engraftment and survival in patients with SAA receiving an unrelated donor marrow transplant. Patients and Methods: Since May 2006, the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN), sponsored by the NHLBI and NCI, has conducted a prospective Phase I/II clinical trial of unrelated donor marrow transplantation in SAA (BMT CTN 0301). Patients with SAA are eligible if they are < 65 years, have adequate organ function, and have an available unrelated marrow donor matched 7 of 8 HLA-A, B, C, DRB1 loci. Patients with Fanconi anemia and other marrow failure syndromes are excluded. All patients receive TBI 200 cGy, ATG (either thymoglobulin: 3 mg/kg IV or ATGAM 30 mg/kg IV daily × 3, days –4 to –2), FLU (30 mg/m2 IV daily × 4, days –5 to –2). The Phase I portion of the trial sequentially tested four CY dose levels: 150 mg/kg (administered days –4 to –2); 100 mg/kg (days –3 to –2); 50 mg/kg (day –2); and, 0 mg/kg, and allowed enrollment of up to six patients at each CY dose level unless toxicity or graft failure boundaries were crossed. In the Phase II portion of the trial, patients enroll onto the optimal CY dose level, which is chosen using adaptive Bayesian criteria to rank desirability of the CY doses. All patients are followed for two years after transplantation. Early stopping guidelines are used to monitor for graft failure and early transplant-related mortality through day 100. Results: Twenty-one patients accrued to the Phase I portion of the trial. CY dose level 0 mg/kg was closed after all three enrolled patients developed secondary graft failure. All received a second allograft. One patient remains alive at 23 months after the first transplantation. The other two died from adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at 114 days after the first transplant and idiopathic pneumonia at 200 days after the first transplant. Review of Phase I results for the other three dose levels suggested CY dose 150 mg/kg as the optimal dose level for Phase II testing. However, after an additional eight patients were treated at this dose, the level was closed to further accrual because of excess toxicity. Seven of the 14 patients receiving 150 mg/kg of CY (and 7 of the last 8 enrolled) died. Causes of death were cardiac/pulmonary/multi-organ failure (n=4), ARDS (n=2), and parainfluenza virus type 3 pneumonia (n=1). Bayesian evaluation of the two remaining dose levels indicates very similar desirability scores and accrual continues at both the CY 100 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg levels. As of July 15, 2011, a total of 61 patients have been enrolled, 17 on the two closed levels, 33 on the 100 mg/kg level and 11 on the 50 mg/kg level. Conclusions: Early analysis of this trial, made necessary by these unexpected severe adverse events, revealed two important findings among patients receiving low-dose TBI, ATG, and FLU at the doses outlined: 1) CY dose 0 mg/kg is associated with higher than expected graft failure; and, 2) CY dose 150 mg/kg is associated with excess transplant-related toxicity. Neither CY dose level should be tested further in the context of the regimen used in this trial. To date, the two intermediate CY dose levels (100 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg) have not crossed the graft failure or fatality stopping boundaries and accrual is in progress. Disclosures: Pulsipher: Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 897 Recent changes in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) including increased use of reduced-intensity conditioning, peripheral blood cells as the graft source (PB) and unrelated donors (URD) warrant re-evaluation of risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) and its impact on overall survival (OS). Risk factors for these outcomes were analyzed using more recent data from CIBMTR observational database. Methods: The cohort included adult patients ≥ 20 y transplanted from an HLA-identical sibling (SD) (n=3191) or URD (N=2370) for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), or myelodsyplastic syndrome (MDS) using a T-cell replete graft from 1999–2005. Six groups were created to evaluate the impact of conditioning [(myeloablative (MA) and reduced-intensity or non-myeloablative (RIC)], total-body irradiation (TBI) and graft source [(bone marrow (BM) or PB] as follows: MA+TBI+PB (group 1), MA+TBI+BM (group 2) MA+ no TBI+PB (group 3), MA+ no-TBI+BM (group 4), RIC+PB (group 5) and RIC+BM (group 6). Separate analyses were performed for SD and URD. IBMTR grade was used to classify aGVHD. A p-value of ≤ 0.01 was considered significant. Results: Among the SD cohort, the probability of aGVHD grade B-D and grade C-D at 100 days was 39% (95% CI, 37–41%) and 16% (95% CI, 14–17%). In multivariate analyses, non-TBI based MA regimens with a BM graft (group 4), RIC conditioning with PB (group 5) and tacrolimus plus methotrexate aGVHD prophylaxis were associated with lower odds ratio of grade B-D aGVHD (Table 1). The probability of OS was 51% (95% CI: 49–53%) at 3 y and 46% (95% CI: 44–49%) at 5 y. In multivariate analyses, grade B-D aGVHD was associated with a higher risk of death. Other independent risk factors for OS are shown in Table 2. Among the URD cohort, the probability of aGVHD grade B-D and C-D at 100 days was 59% (95%, CI 57–61%) and 32% (30-34%). In multivariate analysis, BM with MA (TBI and no TBI) or RIC conditioning (groups 2, 4 and 6) were significantly associated with lower odds ratio of grade B-D aGVHD (Table 1). Other independent risk factors included a diagnosis of CML. HCT from a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD showed a trend for higher incidence of aGVHD (p=0.02). The probability of OS was 38% (95% CI: 35–40%) at 3 y and 33% (95% CI: 31–35%) at 5 y. In multivariate analysis, grade B-D aGVHD was associated with a higher mortality. Table 2 shows other independent risk factors for OS. Conclusion: Intensity of the conditioning regimen, TBI and the graft source has a combined effect on the risk of aGVHD. In both SD and URD cohorts, BM with MA, non-TBI regimens were associated with lower risk of aGVHD. In URD cohort, BM after a RIC also was associated with a reduced risk of aGVHD. Modulation of these risk factors is needed to reduce acute GVHD incidence and death after allogeneic transplantation. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract BMT CTN 0201 was a randomized study of unrelated donor bone marrow (BM) vs. peripheral blood (PB) (N=551) in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for hematologic malignancies. The primary analysis after 2 years of follow up showed similar survival, disease-free survival and treatment-related mortality between the graft types. There was a higher rate of graft failure with bone marrow (9% vs. 3%, p=0.002) and a higher rate of chronic GVHD with peripheral blood (53% vs. 41%, p=0.01). (Anasetti et al, NEJM 2012) Patient reported outcomes (PROs) were collected from patients > 16 years old at enrollment and 0.5, 1, 2 and 5 years after transplantation with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies - Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), Mental Health Inventory (MHI), and Lee chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) symptom scale. At 5 years, 102 BM and 93 PB participants were alive and eligible for the quality of life (QOL) study. Clinically meaningful differences (changes in scores that are noticeable to patients) were considered 0.5 x standard deviation of the total population based on the distribution method. Results: Data as of 5/25/15 were analyzed. 70% completed the pre-randomization assessment, and 74-78% of adult survivors completed the 5 year assessment. Age < 30 at transplant and high risk disease were associated with missing 5 year data, but not graft source. Response rates at 0.5, 1 and 2 years were 28-43% of survivors. There are no differences in any of the primary QOL scores in the first two years after HCT using univariate comparisons, although missing data severely limit conclusions during this period. At 5 years, the FACT-Trial Outcome Index (TOI), the MHI Psychological Well-Being, and the cGVHD symptom scale scores are all significantly better for BM patients, although only the latter two are still significant after adjustment for multiple testing (p<0.0125 because of 4 primary QOL variables). Results were similar when tested in multivariate models adjusting for baseline patient-reported scores and also imputing missing values based on patient characteristics (Table). Of the 7 chronic GVHD subscales, symptoms in the eye, lung, and energy were significantly better with BM (p<0.01). A diagnosis of cGVHD was highly associated with patient-reported cGVHD symptoms but not with QOL or psychological status. Inclusion of extensive cGVHD in the multivariate models did not change the significance of PRO differences suggesting that differences in cGVHD incidence do not explain the PRO findings. With a median follow up of 73 months for survivors, no difference in survival between PB and BM is observed (p=0.84, Figure). Conclusion: At 5 years after transplant, recipients of unrelated donor BM have better psychological well-being and less burdensome chronic GVHD symptoms than recipients of PB. Survival rates are similar. Table. Comparisons of primary QOL variables at 5 years, adjusted for QOL values at baseline and missing data using inverse probability weighting using significant clinical characteristics. QOL scale Bone marrow (n=102) Peripheral blood (n=93) P value Clinically significant difference* Difference between BM and PB (95% CI) FACT-BMT TOI, mean +/- SE (higher scores better) 76.7 +/- 1.6 (n=79) 70.5 +/- 1.9 (n=69) 0.014 8.5 6.2 (1.3-11.1) MHI - Psychological well-being, mean +/- SE (higher scores better) 78.9 +/- 1.7 (n=80) 72.2 +/- 1.9 (n=72) 0.011 8.4 6.7 (1.6-11.8) MHI-Psychological Distress, mean +/- SE (lower scores better) 16.0 +/- 1.3 (n=80) 19.0 +/- 1.5 (n=71) 0.128 6.5 -3.0 (-6.8,0.9) Chronic GVHD symptoms, mean +/- SE (lower scores better) 13.1 +/- 1.5 (n=80) 19.3 +/- 1.6 (n=72) 0.004 7.1 -6.3 (-10.5, -2.0) SE, standard error *0.5 x STD Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Lee: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kadmon: Consultancy. Maziarz:Athersys: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 230 The prognosis for patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are aged 60 years or older at the time of initial diagnosis is poor. Even for pts achieving a first complete remission (CR1), prospects for long-term survival are poor due to the very high risk of relapse. Conventional myeloablative conditioning followed by allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation is associated with significantly less relapse compared with conventional chemotherapy when performed in younger pts with AML in CR1. However, the toxicity of this approach in older pts is prohibitive. A reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen may mitigate the risk of early toxicity and while early results in older AML pts have been encouraging and suggest disease free survival (DFS) rates above 30% at 3 yrs (Farag et al, Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2011), most data are retrospective and pts have not been treated uniformly. We therefore sought to determine the effectiveness of a uniform RIC regimen given to older pts with AML in CR1 on a prospective multi-center phase II trial conducted by the Alliance (formerly Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB)) and the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN). The study, activated in 2004, was initially limited to recipients of a matched related donor (MRD) graft but was amended in 2006 to include matched unrelated donor grafts (URD). The primary endpoint of the study was 2-year DFS. We hypothesized that DFS at 2-years would exceed 20% and powered the study to detect a 2-year DFS probability of 35% for URD recipients. We focused the primary analysis on URD recipients since the majority of older pts require an URD graft. Eligible pts were from 60–74 years old inclusive, had AML in CR1 following induction chemotherapy, availability of a 6/6 MRD or 8/8 URD, and absence of significant end-organ damage prior to transplantation. Adverse events (AE) were initially recorded according to NCI-CTCAE v3.0, amended to v4.0 in 10/2010. Accrual was completed in 12/2011. 132 pts were registered at 21 centers and 123 transplanted (MRD (47%); URD (53%). All donor grafts were mobilized and collected following G-CSF (PBSC). The median age of pts was 65 (range 60–74) and 76 pts (62%) were male. At diagnosis, 67% had an intermediate risk karyotype, 20% adverse risk, <1% favorable, and in 11% data were missing. More than 90% achieved CR following standard “7+3” based induction. CR1 was achieved after 1 (59%) or 2 (41%) induction cycles. Consolidation therapy was administered for one (50%) or two (24%) cycles and 17% received no consolidation with data missing in 9%. All but the initial 8 MRD recipients (who received fludarabine and busulfan alone) were conditioned with the same regimen containing fludarabine (30mg/m2/day × 5), busulfan (6.4mg/kg IV total dose), and antithymocyte globulin (ATG; thymoglobulin) (7.5mg/kg total dose). Only one case of primary graft failure was reported. With a median follow-up of 3.3 yrs, the results in the 123 transplanted pts are depicted below: Event Cumulative incidence at 100 days* or 2yrs† 95% CI Acute GVHD 2-4 9.4%* 4.1–15% Acute GVHD 3-4 3.4%* 1.2–6.7% Chronic GVHD 26%† 17–34% Relapse 47%† 37–57% Treatment related mortality (TRM) 14%† 7.2–21% Event Probability at 2 yrs 95% CI DFS 39% 30–50% DFS URD only 38% 26–55% Overall survival (all pts) 46% 36–57% The rates of both acute and chronic GVHD as well as TRM were relatively low. There were 81 grade 3–5 non-hematologic AE recorded, including 7 grade 5 (4 infections, 1 each cardiac, pulmonary, and second malignancy). Relapse was the most common cause of death. In conclusion, the results of this first prospective US cooperative group trial conducted in a homogeneously treated group of older AML patients in CR1 demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of RIC allografting using MRD or URD PBSC grafts. DFS appears better following a RIC allograft compared to results achieved historically after conventional therapies, warranting prospective comparison in pts with contemporary cytogenetic and molecular disease characterization. Future research should also focus on preventing disease relapse after RIC allografting in this population. Disclosures: Devine: Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Antithymocyte globulin for GVHD prophylaxis is included in the abstract. Vij:Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Shea:Otsuka: Research Funding.