Ragon, Brittany Knick

Abstract Background: Dissemination and implementation science (D+I) efforts often begin after clinical trial (CT) efficacy data are available. However, delaying this work limits opportunities to identify barriers and facilitators that can enhance adoption of evidence-based practices. Integrating D+I during trial development, activation, and conduct supports more timely, effective, and scalable implementation. The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) includes >125 centers, conducting transplant and cellular therapy (TCT) trials with practice-changing potential, with >17,000 patients enrolled since 2001. Data from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) provides a way to measure real-world adoption. With this comprehensive structure in place, the BMT CTN launched a D+I Committee that established a D+I process to better understand uptake of CT findings and to leverage that information to promote adoption. Methods: Informed by established D+I frameworks, a structured, cyclical process to integrate implementation considerations spanning the CT lifecycle was developed. A multidisciplinary team including experts in D+I, clinicians, and investigators iteratively refined the proposed D+I algorithm. The process begins upstream when a trial concept is approved to move forward, it is shared with the D+I Committee for initial assessment. This includes a landscape review for studies in development using CIBMTR data, literature, and expert experience. The Committee then reviews the developing protocol with the BMT CTN protocol team to proactively identify implementation barriers and facilitators to implementation in real-world settings and outline plans for dissemination. The Committee also provides recommendations for integrating relevant implementation data collection and analyses within the protocol. After study completion, both clinical efficacy and implementation outcomes are analyzed, followed by active dissemination. Additional assessment using surveys, qualitative methods, and CIBMTR data occurs after dissemination to understand adoption. Insights gathered also inform further refinement of the process. Tools and templates are in development to build capacity and ensure consistency for Committee members. Results: To date, the Committee has published three peer-reviewed articles addressing implementation implications of three BMT CTN trials (PMC7735536, PMC8578257, PMC9364468) and a fourth is in press. Using the designed D+I process flow, a current effort used a survey sent to US CIBMTR centers, to evaluate factors influencing the implementation of results of the BMT CTN 1703 trial of post-transplant cyclophosphamide as graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis and assessed dissemination and adoption considerations for the upcoming BMT CTN 2203 CT of ruxolitinib as GvHD prophylaxis. CIBMTR data is being analyzed to demonstrate practice patterns before, during, and after BMT CTN 1703 study completion. This effort has allowed for further refinement of the BMT CTN D+I process flow and has highlighted critical opportunities for incorporating dissemination and implementation objectives and endpoints into BMT CTN protocols. We also used the process to guide a review of severe aplastic anemia treatment gaps and ongoing studies. This review underscored how proactive transplant and non-transplant stakeholder engagement and early implementation planning, core elements of this process, can bridge evidence to practice and advance access to care. A complementary survey on current practice patterns in severe aplastic anemia is ongoing. Conclusions: With the existing structure of the BMT CTN and associated practice registry of the CIBMTR, the BMT CTN D+I Committee developed a systematic process to build D+I considerations into trial workflows to increase real-world impact. This process aims to ensure that barriers to uptake of trial results can be identified and addressed appropriately, improving care quality for patients undergoing TCT.

Abstract Severe aplastic anemia (SAA) is a rare and life-threatening bone marrow failure disorder. Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) with antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine has long been a frontline treatment option in SAA; however, its limited durability and risk of long-term complications such as secondary malignancies remain a drawback in this treatment modality. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a potentially curative option with significantly improved outcomes over the long term, particularly with HLA-matched related donors. However, the use of alternative donors, such as haploidentical, mismatched, or matched unrelated donors, has previously been limited due to increased transplant-related morbidity, particularly graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). HCTs have therefore been limited to young recipients and those with HLA-matched related donors, creating significant disparity for older adults and those who lack matched donor options. Nevertheless, more recent advances in HCT, such as posttransplant cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis, have led to improved outcomes of HCT with alternative donors; however, alternative donor HCT remains underused as up-front therapy, in part because of limited multicenter trial data. This review discusses current SAA treatment approaches, including both IST and HCT, and highlights remaining gaps. It also discusses how ongoing clinical trials such as CureAA and TransIT could help address these gaps. Furthermore, we discuss the importance of stakeholder engagement and implementation science in the integration of research-based evidence into clinical practice. Bridging these gaps is necessary for achieving equitable access for patients historically excluded from frontline HCT, including older adults and racially or ethnically diverse populations.

Abstract The overall survival (OS) has improved significantly in multiple myeloma (MM) over the last decade with the use of proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug-based combinations, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) and subsequent maintenance therapies in eligible newly diagnosed patients. However, clinical trials using auto-HSCT followed by lenalidomide maintenance have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM), including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We evaluated the impact of SPM and SHM on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients with MM after auto-HSCT using CIBMTR registry data. Adult patients with MM who underwent first auto-HSCT in the United States with melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011 to 2018 and received maintenance therapy were included (n = 3948). At a median follow-up of 37 months, 175 (4%) patients developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid, 36 (20%) myeloid, 24 (14%) SHM, not otherwise specified, and 3 (2%) lymphoid malignancies. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that SPM and SHM were associated with an inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.62, P < .001 and HR 5.01, P < .001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P < .001 and HR 8.13, P < .001, respectively). In patients who developed SPM and SHM, MM remained the most frequent primary cause of death (42% vs 30% and 53% vs 18%, respectively). We conclude the development of SPM and SHM leads to a poor survival in patients with MM and is an important survivorship challenge. Given the median survival for MM continues to improve, continued vigilance is needed to assess the risks of SPM and SHM with maintenance therapy post–auto-HSCT.

8057 Background: Following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto HCT), maintenance therapies improve survival, reduce relapse risk in multiple myeloma (MM), and are the de facto standard-of-care. However, clinical trials have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM) with maintenance therapy, including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We examined data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to evaluate the impact of SPM on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and the utilization of allogeneic HCT in patients with therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (t-MN). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with MM who underwent first auto HCT in the United States with a melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011-2018 and subsequently received maintenance therapy were included (N=3948). The primary endpoint of interest was the impact of SPM and SHM on OS. Multivariate analytic (MVA) modelling was applied, accounting for competing risks while integrating significant covariates to determine the impact of SPM on PFS and OS. Finally, we studied the utilization and survival following allogeneic HCT for SHM. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Maintenance regimens used were lenalidomide (2836, 72%), bortezomib (370,9 %) or lenalidomide + bortezomib (372, 9%) based combinations. At a median follow up of 37 months, 175 (5%) pts developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid 36 (21%) myeloid, and 27 (15%) lymphoid cancers. In MVA, the development of SPM and SHM was associated with an inferior PFS (HR 2.62, P<0.001 and HR 5.01, P<0.001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P<0.001 and 8.13, P<0.001, respectively). The two commonest causes of death were MM (42%) and SPM (30%) for those developing SPM. Similarly, MM (53%) and SHM (18%) were the two commonest causes of death for those developing SHM. Nine (14%,5 t-MDS and 4 t-AML) of 63 patients with SHM underwent an allogeneic HCT. Patients undergoing allogeneic HCT were more likely to have Karnofsky score ≥90 (100% vs. 50%, P=0.02) compared to those who did not. One year survival from allo SCT was 66.7% (CI 34.6-92%). Conclusions: The three-year cumulative incidence of SPM was 3.3 (2.6-4)% in this large contemporaneous CIBMTR cohort. Disease relapse remains the primary cause of death in MM patients who develop SPM or SHM. Given the median OS for MM is now > 10 years, longer follow-up is needed to assess the SPM and SHM risks with maintenance therapy post-auto HCT.