Dholaria, Bhagirathbhai R

Abstract Background: CD19 CAR T cell therapies have demonstrated high initial complete remission (CR) rates of 70-80% in relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with durable remissions observed in a subset of patients. Despite the remarkable initial CR rate, relapses occur in 20-45% of patients and with increasing use of CD19 CAR T cell therapies in ALL, a key remaining clinical question is the role of post-CAR HCT. Methods: Patients up to 26 years treated with the commercial (i.e., tisagenlecleucel) or investigational CD19 CAR T cell products from 2014 to 2019 in the United States were included. The objectives were to examine the impact of post-CAR HCT on mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), leukemia relapse, GVHD and transplant related mortality among HCT recipients. The intent of HCT was analyzed as consolidation when there was no evidence of post-CAR T cell relapse prior to HCT. Cox regression multivariable analysis used HCT as time-dependent variable along with age, performance status and time from diagnosis to CAR-T cell infusion to evaluate its impact on outcomes. Results: We identified 347 patients who received CD19 CAR T cells from 86 centers. Median age was 13 (range, 0.4-26 years) with 39% of patients from Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin. Patients were high risk and heavily pretreated; 56% had poor cytogenetics, 51% had ≥3 line of prior therapies and 34% had prior HCT. Most of the patients (74%) received tisagenlecleucel. Disease burden at the time of CAR T cell infusion included morphologic disease (≥5% bone marrow blasts) (65%), measurable residual disease (MRD) positive (16%) and negative CR (18%). CRS of all grades was observed in 57.6% and grade 3-4 CRS in 13%; neurotoxicity of all grades was observed in 25% and grade 3-4 in 8%. With a median follow-up of 12.7 months (range, 2.2-60.3), DFS at 3, 6 and 12 months following CAR T cell infusion was 80.9% % (95% CI: 76.6%-84.9%), 71.2% (95% CI: 66.1%-76.0%) and 57.6% (95% CI: 51.8%-63.3%), respectively. OS at 3, 6 and 12 months was 93.6% (95% CI: 90.8%-96.0%), 89.8% (95% CI: 86.4%-92.8%) and 79.4% (95% CI: 74.7%-83.6%), respectively. Incidences of relapse without censoring at subsequent HCT at month 3, 6 and 12 were 18.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-22.8%), 28.2% (95% CI: 23.5%-33.3%), and 40.6% (95% CI: 35.0%-46.3%), respectively. Of the 347 patients who received CD19 CAR therapy, 62 patients (18%) had subsequent HCT in CR as a consolidation post-CAR with a median time from CAR T to HCT of 4.7 months (range, 1.1-18.6). 36% had a prior HCT (i.e., pre-CAR), 87% received myeloablative regimen and among the 57 patients with MRD evaluation 56 were negative (98%). Frequencies of post-CAR HCT did not change during the 5-year study period. Overall, transplant related mortality (TRM) at month 6 was 8.9% (95% CI: 3.6-16.1), and grade 2-4 acute GvHD was observed in 38.0% (95% CI: 28.4-48.2) of patients at month 6. Post-CAR HCT used as a consolidation was associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.37; p=0.037) but no significant impact on mortality (HR 0.75, p=0.51) or DFS (HR=0.46, p=0.057). When accounting for any HCT performed after CAR T cell, HCT was associated with higher mortality (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest clinical series to date examining the impact of post-CAR HCT on clinical outcome of R/R B-ALL patients. We found that 18% of the patients had post-CAR HCT as a consolidation therapy with a favorable safety profile of 8.9% TRM rate despite a prior transplant rate of 36%. Consolidation HCT after CAR T cell resulted in significant reduction in leukemia relapse with a trend towards better DFS. Consolidation HCT seem safe and incurred a benefit by reducing disease relapse. Further studies in understanding the role of consolidation HCT as planned, or post-CAR T cell response-based strategy or treatment for early B-cell recovery are needed to further define the best candidates for HCT after tisagenlecleucel . Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Park: BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Ahmed: Merck: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cairo: Servier: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dholaria: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Grover: Kite: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC: Other: Advisory Board; Tessa: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mussetti: GILEAD: Other: Clinical trials participation, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trials participation. Pulsipher: Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria; Adaptive: Research Funding; Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medexus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other. Reshef: Gilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Rizzieri: Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acrotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution. Schultz: BMS DSMB: Other: payment; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Turtle: Century Therapeutics Ad hoc advisory boards (last 12 months): Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene, PACT Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eureka Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; T-CURX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloid Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArsenalBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Minerva: Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Other; Juno Therapeutics/BMS: Other: Payments, Patents & Royalties: Patent licensed to Juno Therapeutics.; Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Myeloid Therapeutics, ArsenalBio: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Perales: MorphoSys: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria.

In the last decade, a better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas has resulted in the development of novel targeted therapies, such as small molecule inhibitors of select kinases in the B-cell receptor pathway, antibody–drug conjugates, and small molecules that target a variety of proteins (eg, CD-19, EZH2, and XPO-1–mediated nuclear export). Anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, first approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, has also emerged as a novel treatment option for R/R follicular lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma. These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight the new targeted therapy options included in the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of R/R disease.

SummaryRuxolitinib for steroid‐refractory acute graft‐versus‐host disease (SR‐aGVHD) results in resistance or intolerance in 1/5 of patients. Outcomes of such patients are undefined. We identified these patients in a multicentre review and reported outcomes. Ruxolitinib‐resistant aGVHD was identified in 48/307 patients. Among patients receiving additional therapy, the overall response rate to next therapy was 36%. Median survival was 21 days. Ruxolitinib intolerance led to treatment discontinuation in 16/307 patients. Ten intolerant patients received additional therapy with 50% experiencing continued improvement of aGVHD. Median survival was 50 days in these patients. These data serve as a baseline for future SR‐aGVHD studies.

Introduction T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (T-PLL) is a rare and aggressive malignancy with limited treatment options, frequent relapse, and poor long-term survival. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is reported to be effective in T-PLL yielding durable remissions and improved survival. Rates of survival and non-relapse mortality vary; data is scant and limited to small retrospective series. Whether regimen intensity - a modifiable factor- is associated with outcomes is unknown. Here, we report an analysis of patients with T-PLL undergoing allo-HCT in 87 centers using data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Methods A retrospective multicenter study was conducted utilizing the CIBMTR dataset, which captures all consecutive patients transplanted in participating centers. The study population included patients aged 18 or older with T-PLL who underwent allo-HCT between 2008 and 2018. All donor types, graft sources, and conditioning intensities are summarized (Table 1). Cox regression analysis was used to assess overall mortality, treatment-related mortality (TRM), relapse or progression, disease-free survival (DFS) and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Due to the strong correlation between regimen intensity and patients' age, a combined variable was constructed, and in all models, interactions between age/regimen and significant covariates were examined. Results A total of 266 pts were identified and included in this analysis (Table 1). Median follow up of survivors was 49 months (range 3-117); the completeness of survival data out to four years was 95%. In univariate analysis, the 4-year overall survival (OS) rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.8-36.5%). The 4-year DFS, relapse, TRM rates were 25.72% (95%CI: 20-32%), 41.9% (95%CI: 35.5-48.4%), and 32.4% (95%CI: 26.4-38.6%), respectively. Cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 acute GVHD at day +180 and chronic GVHD at 1-year were 22.5%% (95%CI: 16.8- 28.9%) and 38.3% (95%CI: 32.9-44.9%), respectively. Multivariate analyses was performed using age (Age >60 vs Age ≤60) and conditioning intensity (myeloablative [MAC] vs. reduced intensity/non-myeloablative [RIC/NMA]) as main effect (Table 2). Poor performance status was associated with inferior TRM, DFS and OS. Compared to MAC/Age ≤ 60, RIC/NMA/Age≤ 60 correlated significantly with less TRM (hazard ratio [HR] 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.55, p= 0.0022, superior DFS [HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.81, p= 0.0029; (Figure 3) and OS HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75, p= 0.0009; (Figure 2). Similar trend was observed for RIC/NMA/ Age> 60 for all 3 outcomes but did not reach statistical significance. Remission status at time of allo-HCT (stable disease or progression vs. complete remission) correlated with relapse (hazard ratio [HR] of relapse=2.13, 95%CI 1.23-3.71, p=0.0072), however degree of response (partial response vs. complete remission did not significantly correlate with relapse (HR of relapse=1.41, 95%CI 0.91-2.17, p=0.1257). In vivo T cell depletion with ATG (N=47) or alemtuzumab (N=2) was associated with worse TRM [HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.08-3.08, p= 0.0255] and inferior DFS [HR of death or progression=HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.05-2.15, p= 0.0276]. The most common cause of death was disease relapse (52%) followed by infection (15%) and GVHD (13%). Conclusion This CIBMTR study, with the largest cohort of allo-HCT in T-PLL to date, demonstrates allo-HCT is effective in providing durable remissions. MAC and poor performance status were predictive of inferior TRM and OS. Disease relapse was most common cause of death, and pre-allo-HCT remission inversely correlated with relapse rate. The data suggest that reduced intensity conditioning and avoidance of post-transplant ATG/alemtuzumab may be beneficial. Novel strategies are needed both pre and post-allo-HCT to further improve outcomes. Disclosures Dholaria: J&J: Research Funding; bms: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding. Jagadeesh:Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Debiopharm Group: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Oran:Celgene: Consultancy; ASTEX: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nakamura:Viracor: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Support on seminar; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; NapaJen Pharma: Consultancy; Alexion: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Merck: Other: advisory board meeting; Kadmon Corporation: Other: Advisory board meeting; Kyowa-Kirin: Other: Support on a meeting presentation. Sauter:Spectrum Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite - a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Background: Primary and secondary [post-essential thrombocythemia (ET) or polycythemia vera (PV)] Myelofibrosis (MF) are clonal hematopoietic neoplasms marked by constitutive JAK-STAT activation, bone marrow fibrosis, cytopenias, and constitutional symptom burden. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative option in this disease. Median overall survival (OS) after JAK inhibitor (JAKi) discontinuation is poor, ranging from 6-24 months (Harrision et al. Ann Hematol. 2020). Haploidentical (Haplo)-HCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has improved donor availability, but data on post-HCT outcomes in MF remain scarce. Herein, we describe clinical outcomes of patients (pts) with MF who underwent haplo-HCT with PTCy. Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional study where we retrospectively reviewed charts to obtain pt, disease, and treatment characteristics of MF pts who underwent haplo-HCT from 2000 to 2019. Graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), relapse, and non-relapse mortality (NRM) were described as cumulative incidences. OS and relapse free survival (RFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate analyses were conducted with Cox or Fine and Gray regression. Results: Fifty-eight adult pts from 11 centers underwent haplo-HCT and were included in the analysis. Pt, disease, and HCT characteristics are listed in Table 1. Thirty-four (59%) pts were over 60 years of age at the time of HCT. Of the 53 pts in whom driver mutation data was available, JAK2 was reported in 34 (64%), CALR in 10 (19%), MPL in 4 (8%), and 5 (9%) were triple-negative. Twenty-two (38%) pts had HCT-CI ≥ 3. Median CD34+ cell dose was 6.81 (range: 2.3-28.6) x 106/kg. All pts received PTCy as a part of GVHD prophylaxis regimen. Median follow-up in this study was 28 (range: 3.3-75.7) months. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment was reported in 53 (91%) and 47 (81%) pts at a median time of 20 (range: 14-70) and 31 (range: 15-225) days, respectively. Five pts (9%) had graft failure. The cumulative incidences of all-grade acute and chronic GVHD were in 44% (95% CI: 31-56%) at 6 months and 31% (95% CI: 18-44%) at 2 years. Grade 3-4 acute GVHD was seen in 5 (9%) pts. Post-HCT relapse/disease persistence occurred in 12 (21%) pts with a median of 416 (range: 28-917) days. The 2-year estimates of OS, RFS, relapse and NRM were 69% (95% CI: 55-80%), 52% (95% CI: 37-65%), 21% (95% CI: 11-34%) and 27% (95% CI: 16-39%) respectively (Fig 1). On univariate analyses (Table 2), older age (HR 2.17, P=.012) and a higher HCT-CI (HR 1.4, P<.001) was associated with higher NRM. Higher HCT-CI was also associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.38, P=.003). Bone marrow as a graft source was associated with a higher risk of relapse (HR 5.04, P<0.001, Fig 2), but did not significantly affect OS (HR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.18-3.46), RFS (HR 1.89, 95% CI: 0.71-5.02) or NRM (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.09-3.84). JAKi use prior to HCT, spleen size or type of driver mutation did not significantly affect outcomes. Conclusions: Based on this study, we conclude that haplo-HCT with PTCy is a valid option in pts with MF. The graft failure rates appear to be similar to those reported with sibling and unrelated donors. Older age, higher HCT-CI and bone marrow as graft source were associated with inferior outcomes. JAKi use prior to HCT or type of driver mutation did not significantly affect outcomes. Disclosures Grunwald: Trovagene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Premier: Consultancy; Premier: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Premier: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding. Dholaria:J&J: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; bms: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding. Abedin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn Healthcare: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Helsinn Healthcare: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol MyersSquibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Gerds:Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Jain:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: for advisory board participation; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; CareDx: Other: Advisory Board.

Abstract Introduction Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an acquired disorder characterized by immune-mediated platelet destruction along with decreased platelet production. Adults with ITP are treated initially with glucocorticoids, intravenous immunoglobulin, and/or anti-D, but as many as 80% of patients (pts) will eventually relapse and become steroid-refractory. There is no universally agreed upon 2nd line therapy for ITP and consensus guidelines recommend either rituximab (R) or splenectomy (S) as acceptable, potentially curative options. Long-term responses to 2nd line S have been reported around 60%, and around 25% for R. It is unknown whether long-term outcome in the 3rd line setting is influenced by sequence of therapy. We evaluated the impact of sequence of 2nd and 3rdline therapy with R and/or S. Methods We identified all pts with ITP treated from 1990 through 2015 at the three Mayo Clinic (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota) sites that were treated with R and/or S. Patients were excluded who were <18 years of age at the time of second-line treatment. Those with secondary ITP that received specific treatment for an infectious, autoimmune, or malignant condition causing thrombocytopenia were excluded. Patients with Evan's syndrome were included if the treatment was for thrombocytopenia, and not primarily for hemolytic anemia. For this analysis, secondary ITP was defined as ITP associated with hematologic malignancy. Hematologic malignancies did not require specific therapy at the time of treatment for ITP. Patients with uncontrolled infections or uncontrolled autoimmune disorders were excluded from analysis. We collected data from medical records regarding demographics, medical history, treatment history, response to treatment, and relapse. Medical history was captured for all concurrent diagnoses that could be considered associated with ITP including infectious and autoimmune conditions. Primary end-points were freedom from relapse after 2nd and 3rd line treatment with R or S. We used Kaplan-Meier method to estimate freedom from relapse after 2nd and 3rd line treatments. We also evaluated response to treatment, as defined by a platelet count >30,000/mm3 according to consensus guidelines. We performed three separate analyses for the entire cohort, primary ITP, and secondary ITP (separating out those with a concurrent diagnosis of malignancy). Results We identified 222 patients with a diagnosis of ITP, of which 191 had primary and 31 had secondary ITP. Treatment characteristics were similar in all groups except that pts treated initially with S were younger at diagnosis than pts treated with R (49 vs 60 years, P=0.003) and at time of 2ndline treatment (51.5 vs 61 years, P=0.018). For the overall cohort, patients treated with S as second-line therapy were more likely to achieve CR (86.6% vs 44%, P<0.0001), and had a significantly higher freedom from relapse at 5y (53.57% v. 14.96%, P<0.0001). Patients treated with S followed by R (S to R) had a trend towards higher 2y freedom from relapse than those treated with R followed by S (R to S) (69.48% v. 58.43%, P=0.3264). These data remained similar when primary ITP and secondary ITP were separated (data not shown). Conclusions These data support that S provides superior FFR at 5 years compared to R as second line treatment and suggests that, when needed, splenectomy followed by rituximab as opposed to rituximab followed by splenectomy might have a slight advantage. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with high-risk features carries a poor prognosis despite treatment with immunochemotherapy regimen incorporating rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP). Hence, dose adjusted rituximab, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin (DA.R-EPOCH), a higher intensity regimen, is suggested as an upfront treatment of high-risk DLBCL. In our study, we analyzed the outcomes in a prospectively followed cohort of patients with de novo high-risk DLBCL who received DA.R-EPOCH, and compared them to the patients who received R-CHOP. Furthermore, we conducted a cost analysis to determine which of the two treatments produces a larger financial burden. Method Patients diagnosed with DLBCL who received chemo-immunotherapy at our center between January 2011 to December 2016 were included in the analysis. High-risk DLBCL was defined by the presence of any of the following features at diagnosis: NCCN- IPI score ≥4, tumor measuring ≥5 cm, MYC ± BCL2 or BCL6 rearrangement by FISH or MYC overexpression (>40% by immunohistochemistry [IHC]), Ki-67 index ≥80% and non-GCB immunophenotype by Hans algorithm. Responses were evaluated at middle and end of chemotherapy. Overall (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated. For the cost analysis, standardized costs were obtained from Mayo Clinic Florida cost data warehouse based upon patient encounters and treatments. Report cost-to-charge ratios were multiplied by the charges for all hospital billed services, and all resulting costs were adjusted to 2016 dollars with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Implicit Price Deflator. Patients who did not receive their complete planned treatment at our facility were excluded from the cost analysis. Results Of 80 patients with high-risk DLBCL, 52 (65%) patients were treated with R-CHOP and 28 (35%) with DA.R-EPOCH. The median follow-up was 11.2 months (range: 0.7- 151.3 months). The planned treatment completion rate and complete remission rate at the end of treatment were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in OS and PFS among the patients treated with DA.R-EPOCH compared to R-CHOP. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.79 (95% CI- 0.28-2.29, P=0.67) and OS was 0.86 (95% CI- 0.26-2.78, P=0.80) (Figure 1). In Cox-regression analysis, low baseline albumin, ECOG performance status ≥2, above-normal LDH, high NCCN- IPI and low cumulative chemotherapy doses were associated with poor OS and PFS. Overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, neuropathy, and unplanned hospitalizations were similar between the two treatment groups. Patients treated with DA.R-EPOCH required more red cell transfusions during the treatment (P=0.004). The total mean cost associated with DA.R-EPOCH and R-CHOP regimens was $106,940 ± $39,351 and $58,509 ± 24,588, respectively (P<0.001). The cost associated with hospital services, laboratory testing and evaluation and management were higher in DA.R-EPCOH group compared to R-CHOP group (P<0.001) (Table 2). Conclusion Our study showed that there was no significant difference in PFS and OS of patients with DLBCL with high-risk features when treated with R-CHOP compared to DA.R-EPOCH. DA.R-EPOCH was associated with higher red cell transfusion requirement and treatment related expenses. A prospective randomized comparison is warranted between these two regimens specifically for patients with high-risk DLBCL. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.