Locatelli, Franco

In REACH3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03112603 ), ruxolitinib was investigated versus best available therapy (BAT) for 3 years in patients with steroid-refractory/dependent chronic graft-versus-host-disease (SR/D-cGVHD). Patients received ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) or BAT for 24 weeks; thereafter (weeks 24-156), patients continued randomized treatment, entered long-term survival follow-up, or crossed over from BAT to ruxolitinib. In 329 randomly assigned patients (ruxolitinib: 165; BAT: 164), the median failure-free survival (FFS) was 38.4 months for ruxolitinib versus 5.7 months for BAT (hazard ratio, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.27 to 0.49]). Median duration of response (DOR) was not reached for ruxolitinib versus 6.4 months for BAT. Ruxolitinib-treated patients had a higher probability of FFS (ruxolitinib: 56.5%; BAT: 18.2%) and maintaining a response (ruxolitinib: 59.6%; BAT: 26.7%) at 36 months. Median overall survival was not reached. Nonrelapse mortality and malignancy relapse/recurrence events were low. In 70 patients who crossed over to ruxolitinib, the overall response rate (50.0%) at week 24 and best overall response (81.4%) during the crossover period were consistent with the primary analysis of randomly assigned patients. No new safety signals were observed. Ruxolitinib provided longer FFS and DOR than BAT, demonstrating sustained efficacy and manageable safety over 3 years of follow-up in patients with SR/D-cGVHD.

Introduction: Corticosteroids (CS) are the standard first-line treatment for patients (pts) with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD), but pts can be unresponsive or become refractory to or dependent on CS (SR/D).Ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/2 inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of pts ≥12 years of age with SR/D-cGVHD, based on the primary outcomes from the randomized, phase III REACH3 (NCT03112603) study, which demonstrated the superior efficacy of RUX vs best available treatment (BAT) in pts with SR/D-cGVHD. Here, we present the final, long-term efficacy and safety outcomes from REACH3. Methods: Pts ≥12 years of age with moderate or severe SR/D-cGVHD were randomized 1:1 to receive either RUX 10 mg twice daily (BID) or investigator-selected BAT and followed for 3 years, till discontinuation or death. The primary analysis was conducted at week 24 (Cycle 7 Day 1 [C7D1]) in randomized pts, then pts entered the extension period (C7-39) in which they continued treatment, switched from BAT to RUX (crossover cohort), or discontinued treatment and entered long-term survival follow-up (FU). Failure-free survival (FFS; key secondary endpoint), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), malignancy relapse (MR), and safety were analyzed at 3 years (week 156; final data cut off 15 Dec 2022). Overall response rate (ORR) and best overall response (BOR) during the crossover treatment period were analyzed for pts who switched from BAT to RUX on or after C7D1. Results: Of 329 pts randomized, 53 completed the treatment period and 276 discontinued, 115 entered survival FU (RUX: 73/165; BAT:42/164); 70 pts crossed over from BAT to RUX of which 16 completed the crossover treatment period and 24 entered survival FU. Median FFS was longer in the RUX vs BAT arms (38.4 vs 5.7 months; hazard ratio [HR]=0.361, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.268, 0.485) with 12-month FFS probabilities of 64.0% (95% CI: 56.1, 70.8) and 28.8% (95% CI: 21.8, 36.1), respectively. Median OS was not reached and there was no difference in risk of death between the arms (HR=0.851, 95% CI: 0.544, 1.331) [Table 1]. Median DOR was 6.4 months (95% CI: 4.9, 11.4) in the BAT arm but was not reached for the RUX arm; notably, the probability of maintaining DOR at 3 years was higher in RUX (59.6%; 95% CI: 50.4, 67.6) vs BAT (26.7%; 95% CI: 18.5, 35.5). NRM event rates were similar between the arms (RUX: 29/165; BAT 34/164), and MR events were similar and low in both arms (13/156 and 11/160, RUX and BAT respectively) up to 3 years. The ORR at week 24 after crossover from BAT to RUX was 50.0% (95% CI: 37.8, 62.2), including complete response (CR) in 4 (5.7%) pts and partial response (PR) in 31 (44.3%) pts. The BOR during crossover was 81.4% (95% CI: 70.3, 89.7), including CR of 7.1% and PR of 74.3%; disease progression only occurred in 1 pt. Almost all pts treated during the main treatment period (RUX: 100%; BAT: 93.7%) experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE) and, in general, AE rates were higher in the RUX vs BAT arms [Table 2], likely due to prolonged FU and exposure to RUX (median exposure to treatment of 52.9 weeks vs. 24.1 weeks for RUX and BAT, respectively).Anemia was the most common AE (RUX: 33.9%; BAT: 15.8%) and grade ≥3 AE for RUX (17.6% vs BAT 9.5%, respectively); grade ≥3 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, alanine aminotransferase increase, and gamma-glutamyltransferase increase were also ≥5% higher for RUX than BAT. Anemia (24.2%; grade ≥3, 10.3%) and thrombocytopenia (3.8%) were the most common RUX and BAT treatment-related AEs, respectively. Infections, excluding tuberculosis, were the most common AE of special interest (77.6% vs. 68.4%; grade ≥3, 31.5% and 26.6%, for RUX and BAT, respectively). On-treatment deaths were mainly due to cGvHD (n/N, RUX: 10/18; BAT 6/12). Conclusions: After 3 years of treatment in REACH3, the longer FFS and higher DOR with RUX vs BAT indicated that cGVHD was more in control with RUX treatment. Notably, efficacy was demonstrated in pts who switched from BAT to RUX with an ORR similar to that in pts randomized to RUX. RUX was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicities and safety that was consistent with earlier studies. Overall, the long-term control of cGVHD and tolerability of RUX was demonstrated for pts ≥12 years of age with SR/D-cGvHD.

Introduction: Immune-mediated graft failure (also termed graft rejection) is a feared complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and there is no effective intervention. Multiple pre-transplant risk factors for graft failure are known and recent studies from our groups identified interferon gamma (IFNγ) as a mechanistically important and pharmacologically targetable cytokine involved in graft failure pathophysiology. CXCL9, a downstream marker of IFNγ production, was also identified as a biomarker. We describe an international multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of emapalumab (EMA), an IFNγ neutralizing agent, for the prevention/treatment of immune-mediated graft failure after HSCT. Methods: The safety and preliminary efficacy of EMA were studied in predominantly pediatric patients who received EMA using two different strategies: 1) graft failure treatment and 2) graft failure prophylaxis. Patients at US centers were treated with EMA if they developed clinical and laboratory signs of graft failure after HSCT. All treatment patients met 2 or more of the following criteria: 1) HLA mismatched donor and/or prior graft failure, 2) unexplained fever >39°C (or >38°C if prior history of graft failure) after HSCT, 3) absolute neutrophil count decline after initial engraftment, 4) delayed neutrophil engraftment after HSCT, 5) real-time CXCL9 > 2.5x upper limit of normal (ULN). Temperature and CXCL9 cutoffs were based on a prior graft failure biomarker publication (Sabulski et al, Blood Advances 2021). Patients treated at European centers received prophylactic EMA to prevent graft failure if they were deemed at high-risk prior to transplant. High-risk patients had a prior history of graft failure after HSCT or had two or more of the following established risk factors: a) affected by a disease with high risk of graft failure, including acquired severe aplastic anemia, thalassemia, primary HLH; b) ex-vivo T cell-depleted stem cell product; c) transplant from unrelated cord blood unit or mismatched related/unrelated donor. Results: Thirty-six HSCTs used EMA for graft failure treatment or prophylaxis and were included in this study.EMA was used for graft failure treatment in 25 HSCTs wherein patients developed clinical and laboratory signs of graft failure (Table 1). Most HSCTs in the treatment cohort were performed for bone marrow failure syndromes (n=16). All patients tolerated EMA without complications and no side effects or infections were attributed to EMA. Fifty six percent (14/25) of patients treated with EMA for impending graft failure engrafted and had resolution of graft failure concerns, while the remaining 44% suffered graft failure. Responders had a median ANC of 0.29 x10 3 cells/μL (range 0.05-0.79) prior to EMA, which increased to a median of 0.6 x10 3cells/μL (range, 0-5.1) and 2.97 x10 3 cells/μL (range, 0.85-8.7) on days 3 and 7 after EMA dosing. Eighty percent (20/25) of CXCL9 levels were elevated in the treatment cohort prior to EMA dosing. The median CXCL9 level prior to EMA dosing was elevated 2.4 x ULN (range, 0.3-157.8). The median pre-EMA CXCL9 level in patients who ultimately suffered graft failure in the treatment cohort was 3.3x ULN (range, 0.7-157.8) compared to a median of 2.2x ULN (range, 0.3-30.4) in subjects who had signs of graft failure but did not suffer graft failure (p=0.24). Eleven patients received prophylactic EMA based on a prior history of graft failure or other pre-transplant risk factors. EMA was well tolerated in these patients and 91% (10/11) of patients engrafted while one patient with prior history of graft failure suffered recurrent graft failure. The pre-HSCT (day -2) CXCL9 level in the lone prophylactic patient who suffered graft failure was 4x the ULN. Conclusions: This study reports the largest cohort of HSCTs that used EMA therapy for the novel purpose of treating or preventing graft failure. EMA was well tolerated in all patients. Efficacy conclusions are preliminary and limited by the study design, however our treatment study successfully identified a cohort of patients with a markedly high graft failure rate (44%) and we show preliminary evidence to suggest emaplaumab prevented graft failure in patients who had signs of impending graft failure at the time of treatment. The safety and preliminary efficacy observations in this study support a larger prospective study of IFNγ blockade for graft failure prevention after HSCT.

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the primary cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, does not always respond to treatment with high dose systemic corticosteroids. We have recently shown that a combination of three biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) measured at onset of GVHD can predict day 28 response to treatment and 6-month NRM (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to determine if the same biomarker-based Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm can alsopredict treatment response andmortality whenapplied after one week of systemic corticosteroid treatment. The study population consisted of 378 patients (pts) with acute GVHD from 11 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. All pts were treated with systemic steroids and provided a plasma or serum sample obtained after one week of treatment (±3 days). The median starting dose of systemic steroids for Grade II-IV GVHD was 2.0 mg/kg/day and for Grade I was 1.0 mg/kg/day, after which treatment varied. Patients were divided into test (n=236) and validation (n=142) cohorts. We applied the Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm to concentrations of TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α measured after one week of treatment to generate a predicted probability of 6-month NRM, which we term the treatment score (TS). We employed unsupervised k-medoidclustering to partition TS values from the test cohort into two groups (high and low). This unbiased approach identified a high score group made up of 25% of pts (n=58) in the test cohort. We observed that the day 28 response rate (complete, CR + partial, PR) was significantly lower in pts with high scores compared to low scores in the test cohort (24% vs 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1A). Analysis of the validation cohort using the same TS definitions showed similar differences in response rates (22% vs 61%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1B). Further, nearly four times as many pts with high scores in both cohorts died within 6 months from non-relapse causes compared to pts with low scores (test: 57% vs 17%, p<0.0001; validation: 57% vs 14%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1C/D). As expected, the majority of non-relapse deaths in pts treated for GVHD were directly attributable to GVHD (test: 95%; validation: 89%). Relapse rates for high and low score pts were similar (data not shown), and thus pts with a high TS experienced significantly worse overall survival in both cohorts (test: 37% vs 72%, p<0.0001; validation: 38% vs 79%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1E/F). Approximately half of the pts in each cohort (test: 48%; validation: 44%) responded (CR+PR) to the first week of steroids and these ptshad significantly lower 6-month NRM than non-responders (NR) (test: 17% vs 36%, p=0.0002; validation: 13% vs 36%, p=0.0014). Yet the TS continued to stratify mortality risk independently of clinical response. In the test cohort, pts with a high score comprised 16% of all early responders and experienced more than twice the NRM of early responders with a low score (33% vs 13%, p=0.022) (Fig 2A). Conversely, test cohort pts who did not respond by day 7, but had a low score, fared much better than non-responders with a high score (NRM 21% vs 68%, p<0.0001) (Fig 2B). Two thirds of early non-responders comprised this more favorable group. These highly significant results reproduced in the independent validation cohort in similar proportions (CR+PR: 45% vs 6%, p=0.0003; NR: 61% vs 22%, p=0.0001) (Fig 2C/D). Finally, a subset analysis revealed that pts classified as NR after one week of steroids due to isolated, yet persistent, grade I skin GVHD (24/378, 6%) overwhelmingly had low treatment scores (22/24, 92%) and experienced rates of NRM (9%) comparable to responders with low scores, thus forming a distinct, albeit small, subset of pts with non-responsive GVHD that fares particularly well (Fig 3). In conclusion, a treatment score based on three GVHD biomarkers measured after one week of steroids stratifies pts into two groups with distinct risks for treatment failure and 6-month NRM. It is particularly noteworthy that the TS identifies two subsets of pts with steroid refractory (SR) GVHD who have highly different outcomes (Fig 2B/D). The much larger group, approximately two thirds of all SR pts, may not need the same degree of treatment escalation as is traditional for clinical non-response, and thus overtreatment might be avoided. Because the TSis measured at a common decision making time point, it may prove useful to guide risk-adapted therapy. Disclosures Mielke: Novartis: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel grants; JAZZ Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent.

Abstract No laboratory test can predict non-relapse mortality (NRM) after hematopoietic cellular transplantation (HCT) prior to the onset graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Recently, we have shown that a signature of three GVHD plasma biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) can predict response to GVHD therapy and NRM at the onset of clinical GVHD (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to identify a blood biomarker signature that could predict lethal GVHD and six-month NRM well in advance of the onset of GVHD symptoms. Patient samples on day +7 after HCT were obtained from 1,287 patients from 11 HCT centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Samples from two large centers (n = 929) were combined and randomly assigned to a training set (n = 620) and test set (n = 309). 358 patients from nine others centers constituted an independent validation set. The overall cumulative incidences of 6-month NRM were 11%, 12%, and 13% for the training, test, and validation sets respectively. The incidence of lethal GVHD, defined as death without preceding relapse while under steroid treatment for acute GVHD, were 18%, 24%, and 14% in the same groups, respectively. The median day of GVHD onset was 28 days in the training set and 29 days in the test and validation sets. We measured four GVHD related biomarkers [ST2, REG3α, TNFR1, and IL2Rα] in all samples and used the training set alone to develop competing risks regression models that used all 13 possible combinations of one to four biomarkers to predict 6-month NRM. The best algorithm, which we rigorously confirmed through Monte Carlo cross-validation of 75 different combinations of training sets, included ST2 and REG3α. No combination of one, three, or four biomarkers was superior to the combination of these two biomarkers. The day 7 algorithm identified high risk (HR) and low risk (LR) groups with 6-month NRMs of 28% and 7%, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig 1A). The relapse rates did not differ between risk groups so that overall survival (OS) was 60% for HR and 84% for LR (p<0.001) (Fig 1B). When applied to the test set (Fig 1C/D), the algorithm identified 54/309 (17%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 33% vs 7% for LR patients (p<0.001) and 6-month OS of 57% and 81% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). In the independent validation set (Fig 1 E/F), the algorithm identified 72/358 (20%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 26% vs 10% for LR patients (p<0.001) and OS of 68% and 85% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). High risk patients were three times more likely to die from GVHD than LR patients in each cohort (p<0.001) (Fig 2). The GI tract is the GVHD target organ that is most resistant to treatment and represents a major cause of NRM, and we observed twice as much severe GI GVHD (stage 3 or 4) in HR patients as in LR patients (p<0.001, data not shown). The algorithm successfully separated HR and LR strata for 6 month NRM in several groups with differing risks for GVHD and NRM, including donor type, degree. of HLA-match, age group, and conditioning regimen intensity (Fig 3). In conclusion, we have developed a blood biomarker algorithm that predicts the development of lethal GVHD seven days after HCT, which performed successfully in large multicenter validation sets. The GVH reaction is already in progress by day +7, even though clinical symptoms may not occur until days or weeks later. We speculate that the blood biomarker concentrations at this early time point reflect subclinical GI pathology, a notion that is reinforced by the fact that ST2 and REG3α, the two biomarkers in the algorithm, are closely associated with GI GVHD. The algorithm identified HR and LR strata in several patient groups with different overall risk for lethal GVHD (donor, HLA match, conditioning regimen intensity, age). This day +7 algorithm should prove useful in clinical BMT research by identifying patients at high risk for lethal GVHD who might benefit from aggressive preemptive treatment strategies. Disclosures Chen: Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent.

Abstract Clinical GVHD staging varies between centers and is not agreed upon by independent reviewers (Weisdorf, BBMT 2003). These inconsistencies help explain why promising GVHD treatments from single center studies have not reproduced in multicenter trials. To address this issue, our international GVHD research consortium has developed guidance that has been refined through consensus following case discussions, resulting in uniform and reproducible GVHD clinical symptom reporting. We record all raw target organ symptom data and apply staging based upon this data (Table 1). Only areas of erythema, bullae and desquamation are quantified because other skin changes are not typical of active GVHD rash. Upper GI symptoms must meet thresholds to diagnose GVHD: anorexia with associated weight loss, nausea and/or 2+ vomiting episodes/day lasting 3+ days. For lower GI GVHD we collect stool volumes excluding formed/mostly-formed stools. Unquantified episodes are counted at 200 ml per episode (3 ml/kg for children <50kg) based upon a chart review of 300 patients with post-BMT diarrhea from any cause. Non-GVHD rectal bleeding that results in flecks or streaks of blood in the stool are ignored for staging. We use the highest daily stool output in the 3 days prior to the diagnosis of lower GI GVHD to determine onset stage and, when available, a 3-day average stool volume for subsequent staging to smooth daily variability. We classify biopsy report interpretation into four standardized categories: Positive (unequivocal presence of GVHD), Equivocal (findings suggestive of GVHD, but the pathologist cannot confirm the diagnosis), Non-diagnostic (no abnormalities or subtle findings insufficient to determine etiology), and Non-GVHD etiology (definitive evidence of another diagnosis without concomitant features suggestive of GVHD). We then combine the biopsy interpretation with clinical decision making to assign an overall confidence level to the diagnosis of GVHD in each target organ (Table 2): Confirmed (positive biopsy, regardless of clinician treatment decision), Probable (GVHD diagnosis is sufficiently favored that treatment is given without a positive biopsy), Possible (symptoms present without a positive biopsy; not treated as GVHD), Negative (no symptoms or symptoms are present but a GVHD diagnosis is not entertained and a non-GVHD etiology is identified). Uniform clinical data collection is essential for future GVHD trials and requires application of clear guidance. While still subject to refinement, these guidelines, in use for 2 years by an international research consortium, are designed to be clear, easy to apply, and for clinical trial use. Table 1. GVHD Target Organ Staging Stage Skin (active erythema only) Liver (bilirubin) Upper GI Lower GI (stool output/day) 0 No active (erythematous) GVHD rash < 2 mg/dl No or intermittent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: < 500 ml/day or <3 episodes/day Child: < 10 ml/kg/day or <4 episodes/day 1 Rash < 25% BSA 2-3 mg/dl Persistent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: 500-999 ml/day or 3-4 episodes/day Child: 10 -19.9 ml/kg/day or 4-6 episodes/day 2 Rash 25 - 50% BSA 3.1-6 mg/dl - Adult: 1000-1500 ml/day or 5-7 episodes/day Child: 20 - 30 ml/kg/day or 7-10 episodes/day 3 Rash > 50% BSA 6.1-15 mg/dl - Adult: >1500 ml/day or >7 episodes/day Child: > 30 ml/kg/day or >10 episodes/day 4 Generalized rash (>50% BSA) and bullous formation or desquamation > 5% BSA >15 mg/dl - Severe abdominal pain with or without ileus, or grossly bloody stool (volume independent) Table 2. Confidence Levels Pathologic evidence Clinician assessment Treatment for acute GVHD Comments Confirmed Unequivocal evidence of GVHD GVHD is the etiology for symptoms Not required GVHD is clearly present even if other etiologies co-exist simultaneously Probable Not required (includes equivocal and non-diagnostic biopsies) GVHD most likely etiology for symptoms Yes GVHD is most likely present but other etiologies may also explain the symptoms and there insufficient evidence to make a confirmed diagnosis Possible GVHD in differential diagnosis (but no treatment is being provided) No GVHD may be present, but other etiologies are favored Negative Unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD (e.g., drug rash) GVHD is not considered as an explanation for the symptoms No and the symptoms resolve without GVHD treatment A "negative" biopsy (e.g., normal skin) is not unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD Disclosures Devine: Genzyme: Research Funding. Chen:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy.

BACKGROUND. No laboratory test can predict the risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) or severe graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after hematopoietic cellular transplantation (HCT) prior to the onset of GVHD symptoms. METHODS. Patient blood samples on day 7 after HCT were obtained from a multicenter set of 1,287 patients, and 620 samples were assigned to a training set. We measured the concentrations of 4 GVHD biomarkers (ST2, REG3α, TNFR1, and IL-2Rα) and used them to model 6-month NRM using rigorous cross-validation strategies to identify the best algorithm that defined 2 distinct risk groups. We then applied the final algorithm in an independent test set ( n = 309) and validation set ( n = 358). RESULTS. A 2-biomarker model using ST2 and REG3α concentrations identified patients with a cumulative incidence of 6-month NRM of 28% in the high-risk group and 7% in the low-risk group ( P < 0.001). The algorithm performed equally well in the test set (33% vs. 7%, P < 0.001) and the multicenter validation set (26% vs. 10%, P < 0.001). Sixteen percent, 17%, and 20% of patients were at high risk in the training, test, and validation sets, respectively. GVHD-related mortality was greater in high-risk patients (18% vs. 4%, P < 0.001), as was severe gastrointestinal GVHD (17% vs. 8%, P < 0.001). The same algorithm can be successfully adapted to define 3 distinct risk groups at GVHD onset. CONCLUSION. A biomarker algorithm based on a blood sample taken 7 days after HCT can consistently identify a group of patients at high risk for lethal GVHD and NRM. FUNDING. The National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.

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.