Horowitz, Mary M.

Abstract Total body irradiation (TBI)-based conditioning regimens are considered the standard of care for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, due to concerns regarding acute and long-term toxicities, non-TBI regimens, commonly including busulfan (BU), have been increasingly explored. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with the hypothesis that there would be equivalence of these two myeloablative approaches by reviewing outcomes for adult patients (pts), aged 18-60 years, undergoing a first, well-matched sibling, related or unrelated donor HCT in CR1 or CR2 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) from 2005-2014. Eight hundred nineteen pts received TBI (63% 9-12 Gy, 37% ≥13 Gy) combined with etoposide (25%) or cyclophosphamide (Cy) (75%) and 299 pts received intravenous BU combined with a second alkylator Cy (15%) or melphalan (Mel) (13%), or a nucleoside analogue fludarabine (Flu) (41%) or clofarabine (Clo)(30%). The majority of the BU-based pts were treated at the Moffitt or MD Anderson Cancer Center. The BU-based regimens were grouped together for analyses since no significant differences in basic outcomes among the different chemotherapy-only regimens were noted. Patients in the BU-containing group were older but had better performance status, took longer to achieve CR1 and longer to receive HCT; more received peripheral blood than marrow grafts, peri-HCT ATG, pre- and post HCT tyrosine kinase inhibitors ( TKI), and were treated more recently than pts in the TBI-based group (Table 1). With median follow-up of 3.6 years for the BU-based group and 5.3 years for the TBI-based group, adjusted 3 year outcomes showed treatment-related mortality (TRM) BU 19% vs. TBI 25% (p=.04); relapse BU 37% vs. TBI 28% (p=.007); disease-free survival (DFS) Bu 45% vs. TBI 48% (p=.35); and overall survival (OS) BU 57% vs. TBI 53% (p=.35) (Figures A-B). Patients in the BU group had significantly more grade II-IV acute GVHD (47% vs. 40%, p=.025), but marginally less chronic GVHD (49% vs. 55% at 3 years, p=.073). In multivariate analysis, the BU group had a significantly higher rate of acute GVHD after day 50 (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.19-2.58, p=.004), but marginally less chronic GVHD (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.01 p=.059) and higher risk of relapse (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85 p=.002) compared with TBI-based regimens. Despite the observed higher risks of acute GVHD and relapse, BU-based conditioning led to similar TRM, OS, and DFS following HCT for ALL. Table 1 Table 1. Figure Figure. Disclosures Ciurea: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Cyto-Sen Therapeutics: Equity Ownership. Seftel:Otsuka: Research Funding. Pulsipher:Medac: Other: Housing support for conference; Chimerix: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Study Steering Committee. Champlin:Ziopharm Oncology: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Intrexon: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties.

Abstract The optimal source of donor hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) is controversial. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized peripheral blood (G-PB) has replaced bone marrow (BM) as the most common allograft source in adults but is associated with donor morbidity and higher rates of chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) compared to BM. The CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor (Px) mobilizes HSC into the PB (Px-PB) faster than G-CSF and preliminary data suggest both quantitative and qualitative differences in allograft content that may impact clinical outcomes. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of transplanted allografts collected following mobilization with Px alone in HLA-identical sibling transplantation. This was a Phase II, two-strata, multi-center prospective trial (NCT01696461) to evaluate Px-PB allografts prior to reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) and myeloablative conditioning (MAC) based hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Patients aged 18-65 years with an HLA-ID sibling donor and a hematological malignancy suitable for HCT were eligible. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of donors whose cells could be successfully mobilized and collected with a sufficient CD34+ cell dose using Px as the sole mobilizing agent. Px mobilization was considered successful if ≥ 2.0x10^6 CD34+ cells/kg recipient weight were collected in no more than two leukapheresis (LP) collections. All donors receiving Px were included in the analysis of the primary objective based on the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary objectives included the incidence of acute and chronic adverse events in donors, rates of hematopoietic engraftment, donor chimerism, rates of acute and chronic GVHD, non-relapse mortality (NRM), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the recipients. From July 2013 to December 2014, 64 donor/recipient pairs were enrolled at 12 centers. Donors received Px at 240μg/kg subcutaneously 4 hours prior to LP. LP was performed processing at least 4X blood volume for up to two consecutive days (a third day was allowed for low CD34+ cell yields after 2 LP procedures) to achieve a target CD34+ cell dose of ≥ 4.0 x 10^6/kg recipient weight with a minimum goal of ≥ 2.0 x 10^6/kg. All allografts were cryopreserved. GVHD prophylaxis included cyclosporine or tacrolimus in combination with methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, or sirolimus. G-CSF was given routinely post HCT only to MAC recipients. Patient demographics are provided in Table 1. The median donor age was 56 years (18-65). 64% of the donors were male. Donors underwent one (23%), two (72%), or three (5%) LP procedures. 63 of 64 (98%) donors achieved the primary objective. The median total CD34+ cell dose/kg recipient weight collected within 2 days was 4.6 (0.9-9.6). Maximal donor toxicity following Px injection and LP was grades 0 (30%), 1 (52%), 2 (17%), and 3 (2%). Bloating, flatulence, abdominal pain, headache, paresthesisas, injection site reaction, and dizziness were the most commonly observed toxicities. Bone pain was not observed. The one grade 3 toxicity was a vasovagal episode felt related to LP and unlikely to Px. Toxicities typically resolved within a week of LP. The median follow up is 6.3 months. Median days to ANC (>0.5 x10^9/L) and Platelet count (>20 x 10^9/L) recovery were 13.5 (10-148) and 19 (1-76) after MAC and 14.5 (0-25) and 18 (0-141) after RIC, respectively. The cumulative incidence of acute GVHD grades 2-4 and 3-4 at day 100 were 47% (95% CI: 30-64) and 9% (95% CI: 2-22) after MAC and 19% (95% CI: 6-38) and 5% (95% CI: 0-18) after RIC. Probability of NRM at day 100 was 4% (95% CI: 0-13) and 0% after MAC and RIC, respectively. The probability of OS at day 100 was 97% (95% CI: 88-100) and 90% (95% CI: 78-98) after MAC and RIC, respectively. In conclusion, this is the first multi-center trial to demonstrate that as an alternative to G-CSF, Plerixafor rapidly, safely, and effectively mobilizes sufficient numbers of CD34+ cells from HLA-ID sibling donors for HCT following both RIC and MAC regimens. Engraftment was generally prompt and early results of secondary endpoints in recipients are encouraging. Longer follow-up and more extensive analysis of donor allografts and recipient outcomes will be presented at the time of the meeting. Research support was provided in part by Genzyme, a Sanofi Company. Table 1. Characteristics of recipients Table 1. Characteristics of recipients Disclosures Chen: Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Devine:Genzyme: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 739 The combination of a calcineurin inhibitor and methotrexate has been the standard of care in graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis for over 25 years, with resultant rates of grade II-IV acute GVHD between 30–50%. The mTOR inhibitor, sirolimus, has demonstrated promise in a number of Phase II trials as an immunosuppressant used for GVHD prophylaxis. The BMT CTN, sponsored by the NHLBI and NCI, conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of tacrolimus and sirolimus (Tac/Sir) with tacrolimus and methotrexate (Tac/Mtx) as GVHD prophylaxis after matched, related donor (MRD) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Methods: Eligible patients were between ages 2 – 60 years, and had acute leukemia in remission, myelodysplasia or chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic or accelerated phase. All had adequate organ function, and a 6/6 HLA-A, B, DRB1 matched sibling donor. 304 patients were randomly assigned to either Tac/Sir (n = 151) or Tac/Mtx (n = 153) as GVHD prophylaxis after TBI-based conditioning and MRD HSCT. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed on the primary endpoint of Grade II-IV GVHD-free survival 114 days from randomization. Ten subjects who received busulfan-based conditioning and were previously reported were excluded from analysis. Three subjects who did not undergo HSCT are included in the primary analysis, but not secondary analyses. Results: Treatment groups were well balanced. The median age of participants was 44 years (range 13 – 59) and 83% had acute leukemia. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment were both faster in the Tac/Sir group (14 vs. 16 days, p < 0.001; 16 vs. 19 days, p = 0.03, respectively), but this did not affect the time to first hospital discharge (20 vs. 21 days, p = 0.37). The incidence of grade II-IV and grade III-IV acute GVHD at 100 days were lower in the Tac/Sir group (26 vs. 34%, p = 0.17; 8 vs. 15%, p = 0.05). Day 100 treatment-related mortality was no different between groups (7 vs. 7%, p = 0.43). The primary endpoint of 114-day acute GVHD-free survival was not statistically different between groups (67 vs. 62%, p = 0.38, Figure). The cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years from transplantation was not different between groups (27 vs. 30%, p = 0.81). The competing-risk cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was higher in the Tac/Sir arm (54 vs. 43%, p =0.044). Overall toxicities were not different between groups, with two notable exceptions. The peak and average OMAS oral mucositis scores were lower in the Tac/Sir arm (peak 0.70 vs. 0.96, p < 0.001; average 0.31 vs. 0.47, p < 0.001), however, there was an increased rate of the endothelial injury syndromes, veno-occlusive disease (11 vs. 4%, p = 0.03), and thrombotic microangiopathy (5 vs. 1%, p = 0.05) in the Tac/Sir arm. Causes of death were not different between groups. At 2 years from transplantation, disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were not different between study arms (DFS 53 vs. 53%, p = 0.76; OS 60 vs. 61%, p = 0.44). Conclusions: No difference in 114-day acute GVHD-free survival was noted between treatment arms. Compared with Tac/Mtx in MRD HSCT, Tac/Sir is associated with more rapid engraftment, less severe acute GVHD and oral mucositis, excess chronic GVHD and endothelial injury syndromes, and similar long-term outcomes. Understanding the trade-offs between regimens, Tac/Sir can be used as an alternative to Tac/Mtx in MRD HSCT. Disclosures: Cutler: Pfizer, inc: Research Funding; Astellas, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Sirolimus - Prevention of GVHD Tacrolimus - Prevention of GVHD. Waller:Outsuka: Research Funding.

Abstract Plerixafor, a direct antagonist of CXCR4/stromal-derived factor 1, can safely and rapidly mobilize allografts without the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). We conducted a phase 2, multicenter, prospective study of plerixafor-mobilized HLA-identical sibling allografts for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in recipients with hematological malignancies. Donors (n = 64) were treated with subcutaneous plerixafor (240 µg/kg) and started leukapheresis (LP) 4 hours later. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of donors who were successfully mobilized: defined as collection of ≥2.0 × 106 CD34+ cells per kilogram recipient weight in ≤2 LP sessions. Recipients subsequently received reduced intensity (RIC; n = 33) or myeloablative (MAC; n = 30) conditioning. Sixty-three of 64 (98%) donors achieved the primary objective. The median CD34+ cell dose per kilogram recipient weight collected within 2 days was 4.7 (0.9-9.6). Plerixafor was well tolerated with only grade 1 or 2 drug-related adverse events noted. Bone pain was not observed. Plerixafor-mobilized grafts engrafted promptly. One-year progression-free and overall survivals were 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36% to 71%) and 63% (95% CI, 46% to 79%) for MAC and 64% (95% CI, 47% to 79%) and 70% (95% CI, 53% to 84%) for RIC recipients, respectively. Donor toxicity was reduced relative to G-CSF mobilized related donors. This is the first multicenter trial to demonstrate that, as an alternative to G-CSF, plerixafor rapidly and safely mobilizes sufficient numbers of CD34+ cells from matched sibling donors for HCT. Engraftment was prompt, and outcomes in recipients were encouraging. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01696461.

Key Points Tac/Sir prophylaxis provides equivalent GVHD-free survival when compared with Tac/Mtx in MRD transplantation. Tac/Sir is associated with more rapid engraftment and reduced oropharyngeal mucositis after MRD transplantation.

Key Points In combination with cyclophosphamide, intravenous busulfan is associated with better leukemia-free and overall survival in AML than TBI.

Abstract Risk factors for acute GVHD (AGVHD), overall survival, and transplant-related mortality were evaluated in adults receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplants (1999-2005) from HLA-identical sibling donors (SDs; n = 3191) or unrelated donors (URDs; n = 2370) and reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, Minneapolis, MN. To understand the impact of transplant regimen on AGVHD risk, 6 treatment categories were evaluated: (1) myeloablative conditioning (MA) with total body irradiation (TBI) + PBSCs, (2) MA + TBI + BM, (3) MA + nonTBI + PBSCs, (4) MA + nonTBI + BM, (5) reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) + PBSCs, and (6) RIC + BM. The cumulative incidences of grades B-D AGVHD were 39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-41%) in the SD cohort and 59% (95% CI, 57%-61%) in the URD cohort. Patients receiving SD transplants with MA + nonTBI + BM and RIC + PBSCs had significantly lower risks of grades B-D AGVHD than patients in other treatment categories. Those receiving URD transplants with MA + TBI + BM, MA + nonTBI + BM, RIC + BM, or RIC + PBSCs had lower risks of grades B-D AGVHD than those in other treatment categories. The 5-year probabilities of survival were 46% (95% CI, 44%-49%) with SD transplants and 33% (95% CI, 31%-35%) with URD transplants. Conditioning intensity, TBI and graft source have a combined effect on risk of AGVHD that must be considered in deciding on a treatment strategy for individual patients.

AbstractDo some patients benefit from an unrelated donor (URD) transplant because of a stronger graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect? We analyzed 4099 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) undergoing a myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) from an URD (8/8 human leukocyte antigen [HLA]–matched, n = 941) or HLA-identical sibling donor (n = 3158) between 1995 and 2004 reported to the CIBMTR. In the Cox regression model, acute and chronic GVHD were added as time-dependent variables. In multivariate analysis, URD transplant recipients had a higher risk for transplantation-related mortality (TRM; relative risk [RR], 2.76; P < .001) and relapse (RR, 1.50; P < .002) in patients with AML, but not ALL or CML. Chronic GVHD was associated with a lower relapse risk in all diagnoses. Leukemia-free survival (LFS) was decreased in patients with AML without acute GVHD receiving a URD transplant (RR, 2.02; P < .001) but was comparable to those receiving HLA-identical sibling transplants in patients with ALL and CML. In patients without GVHD, multivariate analysis showed similar risk of relapse but decreased LFS for URD transplants for all 3 diagnoses. In conclusion, risk of relapse was the same (ALL, CML) or worse (AML) in URD transplant recipients compared with HLA-identical sibling transplant recipients, suggesting a similar GVL effect.

AbstractImatinib mesylate (IM, Gleevec) has largely supplanted allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) as first line therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Nevertheless, many people with CML eventually undergo HCT, raising the question of whether prior IM therapy impacts HCT success. Data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research on 409 subjects treated with IM before HCT (IM+) and 900 subjects who did not receive IM before HCT (IM−) were analyzed. Among patients in first chronic phase, IM therapy before HCT was associated with better survival but no statistically significant differences in treatment-related mortality, relapse, and leukemia-free survival. Better HLA-matched donors, use of bone marrow, and transplantation within one year of diagnosis were also associated with better survival. A matched-pairs analysis was performed and confirmed a higher survival rate among first chronic phase patients receiving IM. Among patients transplanted with advanced CML, use of IM before HCT was not associated with treatment-related mortality, relapse, leukemia-free survival, or survival. Acute graft-versus-host disease rates were similar between IM+ and IM− groups regardless of leukemia phase. These results should be reassuring to patients receiving IM before HCT.