Cutler, Corey S.

Abstract To examine the activity of ibrutinib in steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease (SR-cGVHD) after the US Food and Drug Administration approval, we conducted a multicenter retrospective study. Data were standardly collected (N = 270 from 19 centers). Involved organs included skin (75%), eye (61%), mouth (54%), joint/fascia (47%), gastrointestinal (GI) (26%), lung (27%), liver (19%), genital (7%), and others (4.4%). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) severity was mild in 5.7%, moderate 42%, and severe 53%. Thirty-nine percent had overlap subtype. Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was ≥80% in 72%. The median prednisone was 0.21 mg/kg (0-2.27). Ibrutinib was started at a median of 18.2 months after cGVHD onset and in earlier lines of therapy (second line, 26%; third, 30%; fourth, 21%; fifth, 9.6%; sixth, 10%; seventh or higher, 1.2%). Among evaluable patients, the 6-month NIH overall response rate (ORR; complete response [CR]/partial response [PR]) was 45% (PR 42%; CR 3%). The median duration of response was 15 months (range, 1-46). Liver involvement had association with 6-month ORR (multivariate [MVA] odds ratio, 5.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-14.2; P < .001). The best overall response was 56%, with most (86%) achieving by 1 to 3 months. With a median follow-up for survivors of 30.5 months, failure-free survival (FFS) was 59% (53%-65%) at 6 months and 41% (36%-48%) at 12 months. On MVA, increased age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.0-1.02; P = .033), higher baseline prednisone (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.09-3.38; P = .032), and lung involvement (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.1-2.28; P = .016) had worse FFS. Ibrutinib discontinuation was most commonly due to progressive cGVHD (44%) or toxicity (42%). These data support that ibrutinib has activity in SR-cGVHD, provide new insight into factors associated with response and FFS, and demonstrate the toxicity profile associated with discontinuation.

PURPOSE BMT CTN 1102 was a phase III trial comparing reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (RIC alloHCT) to standard of care for persons with intermediate- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). We report results of a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside the clinical trial. METHODS Three hundred eighty-four patients received HCT (n = 260) or standard of care (n = 124) according to availability of a human leukocyte antigen–matched donor. Cost-effectiveness was calculated from US commercial and Medicare perspectives over a 20-year time horizon. Health care utilization and costs were estimated using propensity score–matched cohorts of HCT recipients in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (age 50-64 years) and Medicare (age 65 years and older). EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) surveys of trial participants were used to derive health state utilities. RESULTS Extrapolated 20-year overall survival for those age 50-64 years was 29% for HCT (n = 105) versus 13% for usual care (n = 44) and 31% for HCT (n = 155) versus 12% for non-HCT (n = 80) for those age 65 years and older. HCT was more effective (+2.36 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] for age 50-64 years and +2.92 QALYs for age 65 years and older) and more costly (+$452,242 in US dollars (USD) for age 50-64 years and +$233,214 USD for age 65 years and older) than usual care, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $191,487 (USD)/QALY and $79,834 (USD)/QALY, respectively. For persons age 50-64 years, there was a 29% chance that HCT was cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150K (USD)/QALY and 51% at a $200K (USD)/QALY. For persons age 65 years and older, the probability was 100% at a WTP >$150K (USD)/QALY. CONCLUSION Among patients age 65 years and older with high-risk MDS, RIC HCT is a high-value strategy. For those age 50-64 years, HCT is a lower-value strategy but has similar cost-effectiveness to other therapies commonly used in oncology.

Introduction The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network 1102 study (BMT CTN 1102, NCT02016781) was a multicenter, biologic assignment trial, where patients aged 50-75 with intermediate-2 or high risk de novo myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were assigned to reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) or best supportive care (non-alloHCT) based on donor availability. A parallel economic evaluation was performed alongside BMT CTN 1102. Here, we report on the financial impact of the treatment protocol on patients using a prospective cost diary study conducted within the trial. Methods BMT CTN 1102 enrollees were offered the option to participate in the parallel cost diary study at the same time of primary study enrollment. The cost diary survey instrument, comprised of 19 questions, covered the domains of out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of healthcare and financial hardship indicators. Surveys were distributed at 1- (1M), 7- (7M), and 19-months (19M) after enrollment. Study participants were grouped by actual treatment received, rather than group assignment. Responses were analyzed using univariate Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for association. Results Out of 216 enrollee invitations, 138 patients (64%) returned at least one survey. Total completed surveys at the 1M, 7M, and 19M timepoints were 103 (39%), 93 (35%), and 71 (27%), respectively. 50 (36%) completed only one survey, while 41 (39%) completed surveys at all three timepoints. Of all respondents, median age was 67.7 years (IQR: 64.8-70.3), 88 (64%) were male, 128 (93%) white, and 126 (91%) were non-Hispanic. Among respondents of the 1M, 7M and 19M surveys, 82 (80%), 78 (84%), 65 (92%) received alloHCT, respectively. Mean OOP costs by category are presented in Table 1. While alloHCT patients experienced higher OOP costs compared to non-alloHCT patients across all categories (outpatient services, prescription medications, and accommodations for healthcare), none of the comparisons were statistically significant. However, total OOP costs were significantly higher among alloHCT patients at 1 and 7 months (mean over past 30 days, 1M: $889 vs. $217, p=0.046; 7M: $678 vs. $349, p=0.03; 19M: $328 vs. $103, p=0.15). Financial hardship indicators are presented in Table 2. While alloHCT patients experienced greater financial hardship compared to non-alloHCT patients across all categories (mobilized reserve funds, borrowed money to pay for care, developed debt due to care), none of the comparisons were statistically significant. However, alloHCT patients were significantly more likely to experience at least one of these factors of financial hardship at 7 months (1M: 38% vs. 19%, p=0.13; 7M: 42% vs. 13%; p=0.04; 19M: 37% vs. 0%, p=0.08). Discussion Patients with MDS who received alloHCT incurred substantially more OOP costs overall compared to patients who did not receive alloHCT, most notably for accommodations related to alloHCT. Similarly, alloHCT patients were more likely to develop financial hardship, including mobilizing reserve funds, borrowing money, and developing debt. These findings demonstrate that treatment-related OOP expenditures associated with alloHCT are substantial and may pose significant burdens for some populations receiving alloHCT. Financial navigation and assistance, which have been shown to help patients address cost burden in solid tumor settings, should be considered for MDS patients prior to alloHCT. Small final sample sizes limited our analyses significantly; further research into OOP costs and financial hardship among larger cohorts of alloHCT patients are necessary to confirm these findings. Acknowledgement Support for this study was provided by grants #U10HL069294 and #U24HL138660 to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

AbstractTo develop a prognostic model for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for myelofibrosis (MF), we examined the data of 623 patients undergoing allo-HCT between 2000 and 2016 in the United States (the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research [CIBMTR] cohort). A Cox multivariable model was used to identify factors prognostic of mortality. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to patients who received transplantation in Europe (the European Bone Marrow Transplant [EBMT] cohort; n = 623). Patient age >50 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.96), and HLA-matched unrelated donor (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.98-1.7) were associated with an increased hazard of death and were assigned 1 point. Hemoglobin levels <100 g/L at time of transplantation (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.2-2.19) and a mismatched unrelated donor (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.25-2.52) were assigned 2 points. The 3-year overall survival (OS) in patients with a low (1-2 points), intermediate (3-4 points), and high score (5 points) were 69% (95% CI, 61-76), 51% (95% CI, 46-56.4), and 34% (95% CI, 21-49), respectively (P < .001). Increasing score was predictive of increased transplant-related mortality (TRM; P = .0017) but not of relapse (P = .12). The derived score was predictive of OS (P < .001) and TRM (P = .002) but not of relapse (P = .17) in the EBMT cohort as well. The proposed system was prognostic of survival in 2 large cohorts, CIBMTR and EBMT, and can easily be applied by clinicians consulting patients with MF about the transplantation outcomes.

SummaryThere have been no large studies comparing reduced‐intensity/non‐myeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) to myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens in T‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (T‐NHL) patients undergoing allogeneic transplant (allo‐HCT). A total of 803 adults with peripheral T‐cell lymphoma, anaplastic large cell lymphoma and angioimmunoblastic T‐cell lymphoma (age 18–65 years), undergoing allo‐HCT between 2008–2019 and reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research with either MAC (n = 258) or RIC/NMA regimens (n = 545) were evaluated. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in terms of patient sex, race and performance scores. Significantly more patients in the RIC/NMA cohort had peripheral blood grafts, haematopoietic cell transplantation‐specific comorbidity index (HCT‐CI) of ≥3 and chemosensitive disease compared to the MAC cohort. On multivariate analysis, overall survival (OS) was not significantly different in the RIC/NMA cohort compared to the MAC cohort (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.79–1.29; p = 0.95). Similarly, non‐relapse mortality (NRM) (HR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.61–1.19; p = 0.34), risk of progression/relapse (HR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.98–1.70; p = 0.07) and therapy failure (HR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.92–1.41, p = 0.23) were not significantly different between the two cohorts. Relative to MAC, RIC/NMA was associated with a significantly lower risk of grade 3–4 acute graft‐versus‐host disease (HR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.46–0.99, p = 0.04). Among chemorefractory patients, there was no difference in OS, therapy failure, relapse, or NRM between RIC/NMA and MAC regimens. In conclusion, we found no association between conditioning intensity and outcomes after allo‐HCT for T‐cell NHL.

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

Abstract There is a lack of large comparative study on the outcomes of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transplantation using fludarabine/busulfan (FB) and fludarabine/melphalan (FM) regimens. Adult AML patients from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research who received first RIC allo-transplant between 2001 and 2015 were studied. Patients were excluded if they received cord blood or identical twin transplant, total body irradiation in conditioning, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with in vitro T-cell depletion. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and GVHD. Multivariate survival model was used with adjustment for patient, leukemia, and transplant-related factors. A total of 622 patients received FM and 791 received FB RIC. Compared with FB, the FM group had fewer transplant in complete remission (CR), fewer matched sibling donors, and less usage of anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. More patients in the FM group received marrow grafts and had transplantation before 2005. OS was significantly lower within the first 3 months posttransplant in the FM group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, P < .001), but was marginally superior beyond 3 months (HR = 0.87, P = .05). LFS was better with FM compared with FB (HR = 0.89, P = .05). NRM was significantly increased in the FM group during the first 3 months of posttransplant (HR = 3.85, P < .001). Long-term relapse was lower with FM (HR = 0.65, P < .001). Analysis restricted to patients with CR showed comparable results. In conclusion, compared with FB, the FM RIC showed a marginally superior long-term OS and LFS and a lower relapse rate. A lower OS early posttransplant within 3 months was largely the result of a higher early NRM.

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only potentially curative therapy for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), although it is infrequently offered to older patients. The relative benefits of HCT over non-HCT therapy in older patients with higher-risk MDS have not been defined. METHODS We conducted a multicenter biologic assignment trial comparing reduced-intensity HCT to hypomethylating therapy or best supportive care in subjects 50-75 years of age with intermediate-2 or high-risk de novo MDS. The primary outcome was overall survival probability at 3 years. Between January 2014 and November 2018, we enrolled 384 subjects at 34 centers. Subjects were assigned to the Donor or No-Donor arms according to the availability of a matched donor within 90 days of study registration. RESULTS The median follow-up time for surviving subjects was 34.2 months (range: 2.3-38 months) in the Donor arm and 26.9 months (range: 2.4-37.2 months) in the No-Donor arm. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the adjusted overall survival rate at 3 years in the Donor arm was 47.9% (95% CI, 41.3 to 54.1) compared with 26.6% (95% CI, 18.4 to 35.6) in the No-Donor arm ( P = .0001) with an absolute difference of 21.3% (95% CI, 10.2 to 31.8). Leukemia-free survival at 3 years was greater in the Donor arm (35.8%; 95% CI, 29.8 to 41.8) compared with the No-Donor arm (20.6%; 95% CI, 13.3 to 29.1; P = .003). The survival benefit was seen across all subgroups examined. CONCLUSION We observed a significant survival advantage in older subjects with higher-risk MDS who have a matched donor identified and underwent reduced-intensity HCT, when compared with those without a donor. HCT should be included as an integral part of MDS management plans in fit older adults with higher-risk MDS.

Abstract Introduction: Amphiregulin (AREG) is an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ligand that can restore integrity to damaged intestinal mucosa in murine models of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD). We previously described AREG as a circulating biomarker of late-onset aGVHD, but its relevance combined with clinical risk factors has not yet been tested in a large cohort of patients with aGVHD occurring prior to day 100 post-transplant. We therefore tested samples from two aGVHD first-line treatment trials, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 0302 and 0802, and identified a clinically relevant threshold level of circulating AREG at aGVHD onset. We then investigated whether incorporating AREG into the refined Minnesota Risk Score could further risk-stratify patients. Patients and Methods: Blood samples were obtained at the onset of systemic aGVHD treatment within BMT CTN 0302 (serum) and BMT CTN 0802 (plasma). All patients with response data and samples for analysis from both trials were included (N=251). We determined the association of AREG with clinical outcomes, including risk stratification by the refined Minnesota criteria, day 28 complete/partial response (CR/PR) to first-line therapy, 2-year overall survival (OS) and 6-month and 2-year non-relapse mortality (NRM). We investigated the effect of AREG on clinical endpoints per a doubling in the value of AREG, defined a clinically relevant threshold level in the AREG values using two-fold cross-validation, and confirmed the clinical relevance of this cut-point in independent samples (N=92) from pooled from drawn from the Chronic GVHD Consortium and the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Results: In patients enrolled in BMT CTN 0302/0802, AREG levels were 1.7-fold higher in patients with Minnesota high-risk (HR) compared to standard-risk (SR) aGVHD (HR median 53.4 vs SR 31 pg/ml, p<0.01). Every 2-fold increase in AREG was associated with a 33% decrease in the likelihood of day 28 CR/PR (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, p<0.01, table). Clinical factors alone, as determined by the refined Minnesota Risk Score, were associated with day 28 CR/PR (p=0.02, table). Adding AREG to the Minnesota Risk Score could further risk-stratify patients. Minnesota SR patients with elevated AREG ≥ 33 pg/mL showed a 59% lower odds of day 28 CR/PR than SR patients with low AREG (OR 0.41, p=0.02). Patients with Minnesota HR aGVHD with AREG ≥ 33 pg/mL had the worst outcomes, with an 82% lower odds of day 28 CR/PR in comparison to HR with low AREG (OR 0.18, p<0.01). High AREG was associated with worse OS and NRM in both Minnesota SR (hazard ratios 2-year OS 2.3, p<0.01 and 6 month NRM 2.95, p=0.01, respectively) and HR patients (hazard ratios 2-year OS 3.35, p<0.01 and 6-month NRM 9.38, p<0.01 respectively, figure). Finally, in independent samples from the Chronic GVHD Consortium/MAGIC we confirmed that high AREG was associated with worse day 28 CR/PR (55.2% vs. 79.4%, p=0.02) and significantly worse 6-month survival after the onset of aGVHD (57.1% vs. 82.5%, p=0.01). Conclusion: AREG is elevated in patients with poor aGVHD outcomes and adds to the accuracy of risk stratification when combined with the refined Minnesota Risk Score. AREG ≥33 pg/mL at aGVHD onset is associated with lower day 28 CR/PR and higher mortality in samples from 4 multicenter cohorts. The mechanism of elevated circulating AREG in severe aGVHD is not yet known, although we hypothesize the degree of AREG elevation reflects the intensity of immune-mediated tissue injury resulting in AREG release. With accumulating evidence of altered EGFR ligands in aGVHD, further investigation into epithelial repair pathways involving AREG may lead to new adjunctive therapies to overcome poor steroid response in high-risk aGVHD. Disclosures Holtan: Incyte: Other: One-time advisory board member. Khera: Novartis: Consultancy. Lee: Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Amgen: Other: One-time advisory board member; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Other: One-time advisory board member; Kadmon: Other: One-time advisory board member. Chen: Immudex: Research Funding. Arora: Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Flowers: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Cutler: Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy. Jagasia: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Therakos: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy. Hexner: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Levine: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacMillan: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Background: Recent advances in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) have improved patient survival and quality of life (QOL), while reducing transfusion burden. However, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), widely used in younger MDS patients, remains the only curative therapy for MDS. While transplantation outcomes among selected older patients with MDS are similar to younger patients with MDS, early transplantation for older patients is infrequently offered since the relative benefits of HCT over non-HCT therapy in have not been well defined in this patient group. We conducted a multi-center, biologic assignment trial in older individuals with high risk MDS to define the benefit of HCT over non-HCT therapy. Methods: The study was a multicenter, biologic assignment trial in subjects aged 50-75 with higher risk de novo MDS (IPSS Intermediate-2 (Int-2) or High) who were candidates for reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT, comparing outcomes of those with a suitable 8/8 HLA-matched donor to those without a donor. The trial was conducted by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 1102, NCT02016781). Eligible subjects were enrolled prior to a formal donor search, and before or after MDS treatment was initiated. Biological assignment to the Donor or No Donor arm was based on high-resolution HLA typing of eligible family members and a search of the unrelated donor registries. Subjects were initially assigned to the No Donor arm and re-assigned to the Donor arm when a suitable donor was identified. Subjects who died or whose 90-day donor search ended without identifying a suitable donor remained in the No Donor arm. Subjects in the Donor arm were expected to undergo RIC HCT within 6 months of enrollment. Subjects underwent RIC HCT or non-HCT therapy according to institutional standards. The primary analysis compared three-year overall survival (OS) between arms using adjusted survival estimates to account for the potential bias resulting from biological assignment. The sample size was selected to provide at least 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in 3-year OS. Between January 2014 and November 2018, 384 subjects (Donor n=260, No Donor n=124) were enrolled at 34 centers. The study arms were well balanced for age, gender, KPS, IPSS risk, MDS disease duration and responsiveness to hypomethylating therapy (Table). The median follow-up time for surviving patients was 34.2 months (range: 2.3-38 months) in the Donor arm and 26.9 months (range: 2.4-37.2 months) in the No Donor arm. Results: In an intent-to-treat analysis, adjusted OS at 3 years from study enrollment in the Donor arm was 47.9% (95% CI: 41.3%-54.1%) compared with 26.6% (95% CI: 18.4%-35.6%) in the No Donor arm (p=0.0001, absolute difference 21.3%, 95% CI: 10.2%-31.8%)(Figure). A sensitivity analysis excluding subjects assigned to the No Donor arm who died or withdrew prior to the end of the 90-day search window showed no effect on outcome (Adjusted OS: 48.0% vs. 28.1%, p=0.0004). Leukemia-free survival (LFS) at 3 years was greater in the Donor arm (35.8%, 95% CI: 29.8%-41.8%) compared with the No Donor arm (20.6%, 95% CI: 13.3%-29.1%, p=0.003), with no changes in the sensitivity analysis. An OS and LFS benefit was seen across all subgroups tested (Figure). There were no clinically significant differences in QOL between Donor and No Donor arms as measured by the FACT-G, the MOS-SF36 Physical and Mental Component Scores and the EQ-5D utility score at all time points. The overall non-compliance rate for the trial was 26.3%. Reasons for non-compliance included the use of myeloablative conditioning or failure to proceed to RIC transplant in the Donor arm, and the use of alternative donors in the No Donor arm. In an as-treated analysis, comparison of the HCT and No HCT arms demonstrated a significant advantage in 3-year OS (47.4% vs. 16.0%, p<0.0001) and LFS (39.3% vs. 10.9%, p<0.0001) for subjects who underwent HCT. Conclusions: We observed a significant OS advantage in older patients with Int-2 and High IPSS risk de novo MDS who are RIC HCT candidates and have an HLA-matched donor, when compared with those without a donor. The benefit of having a matched donor was seen across subgroups, including those who were of Medicare age (>65) and below. HCT should be offered to all individuals between the ages of 50-75 with Int-2 and High IPSS risk MDS in whom a suitable donor can be identified. Table Disclosures Nakamura: Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Kyowa-Kirin: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Alexion: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Merck: Other: advisory board meeting; NapaJen Pharma: Consultancy; Kadmon Corporation: Other: Advisory board meeting; Celgene: Other: Support on seminar; Viracor: Consultancy. Scott:Alexion, Incyte, Novartis, Regeneron: Consultancy; Agios, BMS: Honoraria; BMS, Novartis: Research Funding. Oran:ASTEX: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Maziarz:Novartis, Incyte, CRISPR Therapeutics, Artiva Biotherapeutics, and AlloVir: Consultancy; Novartis and Athersys: Other: DSMB participant; Athersys: Patents & Royalties; Incyte, Kite, BMS/Celgene, PACT Pharma, Orca BioSystems, and Omeros: Honoraria; Novartis and Juno: Research Funding. McGuirk:Allo Vir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cutler:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kadmon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medsenic: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Generon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.