Champlin, Richard E.

Background: Ph-like ALL is a high-risk subset of B-lineage ALL that responds poorly to standard chemotherapy regimens. While allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is routinely recommended for patients with Ph-like ALL, large multicenter data addressing its role is limited. Here, we conducted a multicenter study to evaluate the role of HCT in adolescent and young adult (AYA) and adult patients (pts) with Ph-like ALL and compare their outcomes to pts with Ph-pos and Ph-neg (non-Ph-like) ALL. Methods: The study included pts (age ≥18) with B-lineage ALL who received HCT in first complete remission (CR1) at 3 academic centers (MD Anderson Cancer Center, City of Hope and Mayo Clinic) between 2006 and 2021. Pts were divided into 3 main subgroups: Ph-like, Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL. Ph-like ALL cases were identified using cumulative data obtained by targeted RNA sequencing, conventional cytogenetics, FISH studies, whole genome chromosomal microarray and flow cytometry. Measurable residual disease (MRD) prior to HCT was measured using flow cytometry with a sensitivity of 0.01% for Ph-neg and Ph-like ALL, and with a PCR assay for BCR::ABL1 for Ph-pos ALL. MRD-negativity was defined as <0.01%. Predictors of relapse were evaluated in univariate and multivariate analysis using Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard models considering non-relapse mortality (NRM) as a competing risk. Results: 673 patients were identified, 83 (12.3%) had Ph-like ALL, of which 73% had CRLF2-alterations. The remaining patients were classified either as Ph-pos (N=271, 40.3%) or Ph-neg ALL (N=319, 47.4%). Patients with Ph-like ALL were younger (median age 40 years vs 48 and 46 years for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively, p=0.01), more likely to be of Hispanic ethnicity (69% vs 32% and 48% for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL respectively, p<0.001). Patients with Ph-like ALL were also more likely to have induction failure (24% vs 2% and 11% for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively, p=0.001). A summary of pts characteristics for each subgroup can be found in Table 1. The median follow-up was 30, 52 and 48 months for patients with Ph-like, Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively. In univariate analysis, 3-yr OS and PFS did not differ significantly (66% and 59% vs 59% and 54%, p=0.1) between patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL, respectively. Similarly, the cumulative incidence of relapse was comparable between patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL (22% vs 20%, respectively, p=0.7). In contrast, the 3-yr OS (75%, p<0.001) and PFS (70%, p=0.001) were significantly higher and relapse rate significantly lower (12%, p=0.003) in pts with Ph-pos ALL compared with Ph-like or Ph-neg ALL (Figure 1). The inferior survival in patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL was likely attributable to higher relapse rates (22% and 20% vs 12%, respectively, p=0.003) compared to Ph-pos ALL. Finally, the 3-yr NRM rate in patients with Ph-like ALL was comparable (20% vs 18% and 23%, respectively, p>0.1) to Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL. We confirmed that the relapse rate in patients with Ph-like ALL was comparable to the rate in pts with Ph-neg ALL (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.6-1.8, p=0.9) on multivariate analysis (MVA). Ph-pos ALL was associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with Ph-neg ALL (HR=0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, p<0.001). MRD positivity prior to allo-HCT was the only additional significant predictor for relapse on MVA (HR=2.9, 95% CI 1.8-4.7, p<0.001). Conclusions: HCT appears to overcome the poor prognosis of patients with Ph-like ALL. Despite higher induction failure rates, patients with Ph-like ALL undergoing HCT in CR1 had similar outcomes to other Ph-neg ALL subsets. The impact of effective salvage therapy leading to MRD-negativity in CR1 in this group is under investigation and will be reported. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of different Ph-like alterations on HCT outcomes. Outcomes for patients with Ph-pos ALL are significantly better than other groups, likely due to the use of TKIs pre- and post-HCT.

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.

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.

4519 Background: Tandem HDC with carbo/etoposide (CE) is curative for a portion of relapsed GCT pts. However, outcomes of refractory or high-risk relapsed pts remain poor. We tested a new HDC regimen of GemDMC, based on DNA damage repair inhibition. We combined BEV with HDC given their potential synergy and the high vascularity of GCT metastases. Methods: Eligibility: Intermediate (int)/high-risk (Beyer Model), creatinine ≤1.8 mg/dL and adequate organ function. HDC included BEV (5 mg/kg) preceding GemDMC (HDC #1) and ifosfamide/CE (ICE) (HDC #2). Following accrual of 42 pts, we amended the trial omitting BEV. The trial was powered to distinguish a target 50% 2-yr RFS from an expected 25% in this population. Results: We enrolled 69 male pts in cohorts 1 (BEV, N=42) and 2 (no BEV, N=27) (Table). Pts were heavily pretreated and most had refractory tumors. Main AE: mucositis and renal (4 HDC-related deaths in cohort 1, 1 in cohort 2). Tumor markers normalized in 90% pts with active tumors at HDC. After HDC, 19 pts were in CR and 28 in PRm- (of these, 22 had residual lesions resected with no viable tumor found in 20/22, 2 xRT, 4 monitored). Median f/u = 39 (2-105) mo. The 2-yr RFS rates in cohorts 1 and 2 = 52% and 78%, respectively. Their respective 2-yr OS rates = 55% and 81%. Conclusions: Sequential HDC with GemDMC–ICE shows encouraging outcomes in heavily pretreated and refractory GCT, exceeding the anticipated results. Addition of BEV increases toxicity but not tumor control. Clinical trial information: NCT00936936. [Table: see text]

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.