McCarty, John M.

Abstract Despite concerns about the toxicity of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in older patients, prospective data characterizing prevalence or risk stratification for geriatric morbidity such as disability or frailty are limited. We prospectively assessed the prognostic impact of the novel composite health assessment risk model (CHARM), a score established to predict 1-year nonrelapse mortality (NRM), among 1105 patients aged ≥60 years enrolled on the Bone Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Study 1704. Secondary end points were assessed post-alloHCT at day 100 (D100), D180, and D365 in multivariable models adjusted with predetermined clinical variables. Among alloHCT survivors, the prevalence of disability by instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), frailty by the Physical Frailty Phenotype, and physical function impairment by Patient Reported Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was highest at D100 and lower on D180 and D365. Higher CHARM scores were independently associated with greater disability (coefficient, −0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.85 to −0.43; P< .001), increased frailty (coefficient, 0.19; CI, 0.081-0.31; P< .001), worse PROMIS physical function, greater PROMIS depression, increased serious organ toxicity by D100, more cognitive decline at D100, and higher mortality after acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) but not significantly associated with PROMIS anxiety or acute GVHD. Higher CHARM scores predicted worse disability-free survival (odds ratio [OR], 2.03; CI, 1.66-2.48; P< .001) and lower frailty-free survival (OR, 2.00; CI, 1.61-2.49). In summary, CHARM is an independent prognostic scoring system not only for NRM but also for geriatric morbidity and functional limitation–free survival through 1 year after alloHCT. Pre-alloHCT CHARM is a novel tool to aid shared decision-making for older patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03992352.

ABSTRACTAlthough recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CAR‐T) therapy in relapsed large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL) with MYC rearrangement (R‐MYC), the data comparing CAR‐T to autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (auto‐HCT) in such patients who achieve a complete or partial response (CR/PR) after salvage therapies are limited. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with R‐MYC LBCL (including double and triple hit lymphomas) who underwent CAR‐T or auto‐HCT after achieving a CR/PR with salvage therapies using the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research registry. Among the 252 patients (auto‐HCT = 98, CAR‐T = 154), relative to auto‐HCT, CAR‐T was associated with significantly lower overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] 2.09, 95% CI 1.38–3.15, p < 0.001) on multivariate analysis. There were no differences in progression‐free survival (PFS) (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81–1.8 p = 0.36), risk of relapse (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.71–1.69 p = 0.68), nonrelapse mortality (NRM) (HR 1.74, 95% CI 0.64–4.7 p = 0.28) while the post‐relapse survival was longer in auto‐HCT relative to CAR‐T (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.21–3.06 p = 0.01). On propensity score matched analysis accounting for differences in characteristics across the two cohorts, we detected no significant differences in OS (HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.92–3.21 p = 0.09), PFS (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64–1.68 p = 0.88), NRM (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35–4.2 p = 0.76), relapse (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.54–1.6 p = 0.8) and post‐relapse survival (HR 2.25, 95% CI 0.98–5.17, p = 0.06). These data, although retrospective, support consideration for auto‐HCT in patients with R‐MYC LBCL who achieve a CR/PR after salvage therapies, particularly in regions with no or limited access to CAR‐T.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is potentially curative for older adults with hematologic malignancies. Concerns on nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in older adults limit allo-HCT utilization. We executed a prospective, observational study BMT-CTN 1704 (Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network) enrolling allo-HCT recipients aged ≥60 years from 49 centers in the United States. We analyzed associations between 13 measurements of older adult health and NRM within 1 year to construct a comprehensive health assessment risk model (primary-CHARM) using multivariate Fine-Gray model and grouped penalized variable selection. Two machine learning (ML) models (Cox and pseudo-value boosting) were also explored. Models’ performances were compared using area under the curve (AUC), with bootstrap and cross-validation sampling to correct for optimism, decision curve analysis (DCA), calibration, and Brier scores. Among 1105 patients with median age of 67 (range, 60-82) years who received allo-HCT, NRM was 14.4% and overall survival (OS) 71.7% at 1 year. Factors statistically selected for inclusion in primary-CHARM were higher comorbidity burden, lower albumin, higher C-reactive protein, older age, higher weight-loss percentage, lower patient-reported performance score, and cognitive impairment. Primary-CHARM scores were independently associated with higher NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; P &lt; .0001) and worse OS (HR, 2.09; P &lt; .0001). Bootstrap bias–corrected AUC for primary-CHARM was 0.591. Comparing primary-CHARM with HCT-comorbidity index and 2 ML-CHARM models, calibration, Brier score, and DCA analysis favored primary-CHARM. Primary-CHARM, with mostly simple and readily available parameters, risk stratifies older adults for allo-HCT. Adopting primary-CHARM in practice may promote broader use of HCT by quantifying risk and enhance the design of strategies to improve outcomes. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03992352.

Introduction: The BMT CTN 1704 study developed and validated the CHARM that stratified risk for non-relapse mortality and overall mortality among older adults, performing better than the HCT-CI alone (Artz A et al, Blood. 2023;142:109) and equally to two machine learning models. CHARM assigns a total score for 7 health variables: increasing age, higher HCT-CI scores, lower albumin, higher C-reactive protein, higher percent of weight loss over the preceding year, lower patient-reported performance status scores, and lower cognitive score per Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA). A CHARM calculator is available at:https://cibmtr.org/CIBMTR/OffNav/DevSandbox/CHARM-Risk-NRM-Calculator No multi-institutional prospective data exist on functional trajectories and morbidity after HCT in older patients. We now report on the association of CHARM to trajectories of secondary morbidity outcomes among allo-HCT survivors of this large, prospective study. Patients and Methods: Allo-HCT candidates, aged ≥60 years (yrs), were enrolled (n=1226) from 49 centers in the US between 2019 - 2021. The primary analysis includes 1105 patients proceeding to allo-HCT on study and secondary endpoints were assessed at day (D) 100, 180 and 365 except MoCA and organ toxicity were restricted to D100 and frailty had inadequate data for D100. A sequential multiple imputation strategy was implemented to impute endpoints for survivors at each time point with missing data. Analyses on multiply imputed datasets were conducted and the results combined using Rubin's rule. Associations between CHARM scores and secondary outcomes were analyzed using a multivariable Cox, Fine-Gray, Generalized Estimating Equations, and logistic regression model for survival, competing risks, continuous, and binary outcomes, respectively, with latter two focused on surviving patients. Models were adjusted for other variables including conditioning intensity, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimen, disease-risk index, donor-recipient gender match, ethnicity, baseline value of the dependent variable, and visit timepoints. Results: Higher CHARM scores were associated with development of serious organ toxicities by D100 (OR: 2.05, [1.52-2.78], p&lt;0.0001) and ≥2 worsening score on the MoCA (odds ratio (OR) 1.55 [1.16-2.1], p=0.003). Among survivors at all timepoints, higher CHARM scores were associated with greater disability by instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) (Slope -0.640 [-0.433-0.846], p&lt;0.001) and worsening Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Reporting System (PROMIS) physical function (Slope -0.981 [-0.057 - -1.904], p=0.037), depression (Slope 0.763 [0.042-1.484], p=0.038) and in a lesser magnitude anxiety (Slope 0.659, p=0.076). Among survivors at D180 and D365, higher CHARM scores were associated with worse frailty (Slope 0.193 [0.081-0.305], p&lt;0.001). CHARM scores were not associated with development of acute GVHD grades 2-4 or 3-4 but were associated with post-GVHD increased mortality (HR: 1.61, [1.25-2.08], p=0.0002). Higher CHARM scores are associated with a lower incidence of chronic GVHD (HR: 0.83, p=0.026), likely due to the effect of CHARM on the competing risk of death leaving fewer patients at risk for chronic GVHD. Conclusions: The novel primary CHARM, originally developed to predict risks of NRM, also predicts worse frailty, disability, cognitive decline, and serious organ toxicities; outcomes that are critically important to older recipients of allo-HCT. CHARM therefore informs risks of transplant morbidity, separate from risks of developing acute GVHD. Results further support adopting CHARM in practice to counsel patients, expedite HCT referrals for lower risk CHARM, and design trials for high CHARM score patients.

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with AML harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 ( FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202 ) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005]; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387]; P = .575). CONCLUSION Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.

Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains the only therapy for long-term disease control for many high-risk hematologic malignancies (HM). HCT use in older HM patients (pts) continues to increase. However, concerns of excessive transplant-related morbidity and non-relapse mortality (NRM) limit referrals and broader application of curative intent HCT. The HCT-comorbidity index (HCT-CI) was initially developed to improve risk-stratification of NRM. More recently, geriatric assessment (GA) and biomarkers have emerged as promising additional tools that may refine estimates of these risks. We hypothesized that a combination of health assessments by GA and biomarkers would constitute a robust and valid model, CHARM, for accurate personalized estimation of one-year (1-yr) NRM. Here, we report the results of the largest, first of its kind, prospective study of older recipients of HCT through the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 1704 study (NCT03992352). Patients and Methods: Adults aged ≥60 years (yrs) with HM institutionally eligible for HCT were enrolled (n=1226) from 49 centers in the US between 2019 - 2021. Within 21 days of conditioning, 13 prospectively identified older pt.-specific health variables, informed from prior studies, were collected: age, HCT-CI, % of weight loss over the past yr, pt reported Karnofsky performance status, PROMIS physical function scale, instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), number of falls, PROMIS depression scale, number of prescribed medications, 4-meter walk speed, cognition by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin. The CHARM score to predict NRM within 1 yr was built using a multivariable (MVA) Fine-Gray model, with multiple imputation to handle modest missingness in covariates and grouped penalized variable selection using SCAD to identify variables to retain in the model. Final variables were used as continuous. The model further considered adjustment for conditioning intensity, CMV serostatus, and donor type. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated to validate the CHARM and compare to HCT-CI alone, with bootstrap sampling to correct for optimism in the within-sample AUC. MVA of overall survival (OS) within 1 yr used the CHARM score and adjusted for other significant variables derived from stepwise regression. Results: The primary analysis included 1105 pts who were confirmed eligible and proceeded to transplant. Median age was 67 (range 60-82) and 32% were ≥ 70 yrs. AML (45%) and MDS (30%) were the most common indications and matched donors the most frequent donor type at 72%. Reduced intensity conditioning with fludarabine (flu)-melphalan (38%) and flu-busulfan (20%) were the most common regimens. Baseline geriatric vulnerabilities among evaluable pts were frequent including slow walk speed (&lt;0.8 meter/second) in 22%, any IADL limitation in 37%, and cognitive impairment (MoCA &lt; 23) in 12%. 1-yr NRM was lower than expected at 14.4% with 1-yr OS of 72%. In the MVA model, albumin, CRP, HCT-CI, and weight loss were independently associated with NRM (Table) and comprised the CHARM. Of note, increasing age did not significantly affect NRM. The CHARM had within sample and bootstrap corrected AUC of 0.641 and 0.607 whereas the HCT-CI alone achieved corresponding AUC values of 0.601 and 0.598. NRM by tertiles is shown in Figure. Each point increase in the CHARM (median -2.2504, range -3.6327 to 0.1381), was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.83 (95% CI 2.12 - 3.78, p &lt; 0.0001) for NRM. The CHARM also predicted overall mortality within 1-yr with a HR of 2.04 (1.65- 2.53, p &lt;0.0001) per one point increase, independent of the disease risk index, which had a HR of 1.5 (95% CI 1.12 - 1.99, p =0.0059) for high/very high vs low/intermediate categories. Conclusions: We report on the first prospectively established tool, CHARM, to risk-stratify older adult HCT comprised of simple and readily available parameters in transplant and oncology clinics. Adopting CHARM in practice may promote HCT referrals and access for older pts, given low risks of NRM among CHARM lower 2/3 rd tertiles. Identifying high-risk CHARM pts pre-HCT will promote developing novel strategies to reduce NRM. Further analysis of the impacts of the 13 health assessment variables on geriatric morbidity such as disability trajectories is in-process.

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 (&gt; 10 dUCB, n=117, 10 centers), Haplo center (&gt;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 (&gt; 5 vs ≤ 5) experience, and considered the outcomes based on the donor experience vs. others (e.g. dUCB &gt; 10 vs. ≤ 10; haplo &gt; 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 &gt; 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 &gt; 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 &lt; 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.

SummaryIn young and fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), intensive induction therapy followed by a consolidative autologous haematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT) is the standard of care in the front‐line setting. Recently, time‐to‐event analysis has emerged as an important risk assessment tool in lymphoma, though its impact in MCL is not well defined. We utilized the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database to evaluate the effect of post‐autoHCT time to relapse on overall survival (OS) over time in 461 patients who underwent autoHCT within 12 months of MCL diagnosis. On multivariate analysis, the impact of relapse on OS was greatest at the six‐month [hazard ratio (HR) = 7·68], 12‐month (HR = 6·68), and 18‐month (HR = 5·81) landmark timepoints. Using a dynamic landmark model we demonstrate that adjusted OS at five years following each landmark timepoint improved with time for relapsing and non‐relapsing patients. Furthermore, early relapse (<18 months) following autoHCT defines a high‐risk group with inferior post‐relapse OS. This retrospective analysis highlights the impact of time to relapse on OS in MCL patients undergoing up‐front autoHCT and emphasizes the need to consider novel therapeutic approaches for patients suffering early relapse.

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 Background: AMD3100 (plerixafor)+G-CSF (A+G) was generally safe and more effective in mobilizing CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells compared to placebo+G-CSF (P+G) in a Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study conducted in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). In the intent-to-treat analysis, 78/148 (53%) patients in the P+G group and 20/150 (13%) patients in the A+G group failed to mobilize ≥ 2 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg, p<0.0001. Of these failure patients, 52 in the P+G group and 10 in the A+G group consented to enter into the rescue arm of the study. This abstract reports the outcomes of these rescue patients. Methods: Patients enrolled in the Phase III study who failed to mobilize ≥2 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg could enter into the rescue arm of the study and receive A+G. The patient’s treatment assignment in the study remained blinded. Following a rest period of ≥7 days, patients were given G (10 μg/kg/day) subcutaneously (SQ) for 4 days. In the evening around 10PM on Day 4, patients were given a dose of A (240 μg/kg SQ). On Day 5, all patients returned to clinic to receive a morning dose of G before apheresis. Patients continued to receive the evening dose of A followed by morning dose of G and apheresis the next day for up to a total of 4 aphereses or until ≥5 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg were collected. Pooled cells were allowed for transplantation. Results: After rescue therapy, 33/52 (63%) patients who previously failed P+G and 4/10 (40%) patients who previously failed A+G collected ≥2 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg. Seven of the 33 patients who previously failed with P+G collected ≥ 5 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg. Six of the ten A+G patients and 46/52 P+G patients were transplanted. Median time to PMN engraftment was Day 10 and Day 11 for the A+G and P+G groups, respectively. Median time to platelet engraftment was Day 22 and Day 20 for the A+G and P+G groups, respectively. One patient in the P+G group never had platelet counts > 50,000 and was counted as a failure to engraft, even though the patient was clinically stable through 6 months post-transplant. In the re-mobilized group, 9 patients died (2 patients were never transplanted and 7 patients had disease progression). Grafts were durable for ≥100 days in all 6 rescued A+G patients and all 41 rescued P+G patients who engrafted. The predominant adverse events were mild gastrointestinal effects (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain) and injection site reactions. There were no drug-related serious adverse events reported in these re-mobilized patients. Conclusions: The addition of AMD3100 to G-CSF successfully mobilized sufficient stem cells for transplant in 63% of NHL patients who previously failed mobilization with G-CSF alone. The high success rate is consistent with the Compassionate Use Protocol experience. AMD3100 was generally well tolerated. The 40% success rate in the patients who previously failed AMD3100+G-CSF suggests that re-mobilization with the same combination is a potentially useful strategy for similar patients.