Jaglowski, Samantha

7028 Background: Axi-cel, autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, showed long-term survival and curative potential in R/R LBCL (ZUMA-1; Neelapu et al. Blood . 2023). Few studies have examined long-term outcomes beyond clinical trials. Here we report long-term real-world outcomes of axi-cel in R/R LBCL using large-sample CIBMTR data. Methods: A total of 1500 adults from 79 US centers receiving commercial axi-cel after ≥2 LOT for LBCL from Oct 2017-Aug 2020 were enrolled in a post-marketing requirement study. A protocol was developed prior to the study’s implementation, reviewed by Kite and CIBMTR. This is a secondary analysis of said study. Key outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to next therapy (TTNT), disease-specific mortality (competing risks were non-relapse deaths), subsequent malignancies, and non-relapse mortality (NRM). Outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Cases with missing data were excluded separately for each endpoint. Results: As of Aug 2025, 1446 patients (pts) were included in the analysis. Median age at infusion was 62.2 y (range, 19.6-90.8: 38% of pts ≥65 y); 65% were male. Five percent of pts had ECOG PS ≥2 and 16% had high-grade lymphoma. Pts had a median of 3 (range, 2-4) prior LOT, 28% had prior autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation, and 50% received bridging therapy. At 59.7 mo median follow-up, median PFS (95% CI) was 7.9 mo (6.3-10.9) and 5-y PFS was 30% (27-32). The median OS was 25.7 mo (21.6-30.2); 5-y OS was 38% (35-41). The 5-y cumulative incidence of disease-specific mortality was 51%. Among pts who were progression-free at 2, 3, 4, or 5 y post-infusion, the OS at 6 y (95% CI) was 73% (68-78), 81% (76-86), 90% (84-94), and 94% (89-97), respectively. The median duration of response (DOR) was 25.3 mo (95% CI, 20.7-32.8) and 5-y DOR was 38% (35-41). The median TTNT was 12.2 mo and 30% did not need additional LOT at 5 y. Of pts who received subsequent salvage therapy, 12 (2%) received cell therapy, 39 (7%) received hematopoietic cell transplant, and 475 (90%) received other therapy. The 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-y cumulative incidence of relapse (95% CI) was 49% (46-51), 52% (50-55), 54% (52-57), 55% (53-58), and 56% (53-59), respectively. No new safety signals were observed. The primary causes of death (n=864; 60%) were primary disease (540; 63%), infection (111; 13%), and organ failure (57; 7%). The 5-y cumulative incidence of NRM was 16% (95% CI, 14-18). At 5 y, 11% (95% CI, 10-13) had subsequent malignancies, mostly therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (6%) and non-melanoma skin cancer (3%); none were directly attributed to axi-cel. Conclusions: This real-world study showed sustained survival at 5 y among pts with R/R LBCL treated with axi-cel after ≥2 LOT, consistent with ZUMA-1. Infection and organ failure were common causes of NRM. These results continue to support the use of axi-cel with curative intent in R/R LBCL.

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.

Introduction: Historically, older patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) were often deemed ineligible for curative-intent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) due to age and concern for increased toxicity related to comorbidities. We previously demonstrated in the pivotal ZUMA-7 study that older pts with R/R LBCL can safely receive axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) as second-line (2L) therapy with improved event-free survival (EFS), response rate, and quality of life compared with standard of care (SOC) based on results from the primary EFS analysis (Westin, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2023). At a median follow-up of 47.2 months (mo), results from the ZUMA-7 primary overall survival (OS) analysis demonstrated superior OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; stratified two-sided log-rank P=0.03; Westin, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023; NCT03391466). We now report updated efficacy and safety results from the primary OS analysis among ZUMA-7 pts aged ≥65 years (y) and ≥70 y. Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to axi-cel or SOC (2-3 cycles of platinum-based chemoimmunotherapy; responding pts proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT). The primary OS analysis occurred 5 y after the first pt was randomized (01/25/2018) per protocol. Other endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment and safety. A planned subgroup analysis of pts aged ≥65 y was conducted in addition to an analysis for those ≥70 y. Multivariate analyses were performed to examine treatment efficacy with axi-cel compared with SOC after adjusting for multiple covariates, including sex, disease type, molecular subgroup, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), tumor burden, and age; strata for these analyses included second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI), and relapsed vs refractory disease. Exploratory analyses were conducted to determine the association between OS and axi-cel product characteristics for pts aged ≥65 y. Results: A total of 109 pts were included in the analysis (axi-cel: 51 were ≥65 y, 26 of whom were ≥70 y, maximum age was 80 y; SOC: 58 were ≥65 y, 27 of whom were ≥70 y, maximum age was 81 y). Compared with SOC pts at baseline, more axi-cel pts had high-risk features, including aaIPI 2-3, elevated LDH, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma. At a median follow-up of 46.6 mo, OS was prolonged in the axicel vs SOC arm in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.691; 95% CI, 0.401-1.190) and for those ≥70 y (HR, 0.330; 95% CI, 0.135-0.809). Similar results were observed using the piecewise Cox regression model. The median OS for axi-cel and SOC pts was 43.5 mo (95% CI, 20.9-not estimable [NE]) and 19.6 mo (95% CI, 12.3-NE), respectively, among those aged ≥65 y, and 24.7 mo (95% CI, 12.8-NE) and 11.2 mo (95% CI, 6.1-NE), respectively, among those aged ≥70 y. In the SOC arm, 57% and 52% of pts received subsequent cellular immunotherapy off protocol in pts aged ≥65 y and ≥70 y, respectively. Multivariate analyses demonstrated an even greater OS benefit with axi-cel over SOC when adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.526; 95% CI, 0.266-1.041) and in pts aged ≥70 y (HR, 0.184; 95% CI, 0.045-0.755). PFS assessed by investigator confirmed benefit of axi-cel over SOC in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.406; 95% CI, 0.230-0.715) and in pts aged ≥70 y (HR, 0.206; 95% CI, 0.078-0.547). The median PFS for axi-cel and SOC pts was 28.7 mo (95% CI, 5.1-NE) and 5.0 mo (95% CI, 2.8-7.2), respectively, for those aged ≥65 y, and 11.4 mo (95% CI, 4.1-NE) and 2.7 mo (95% CI, 1.7-5.0), respectively, for those aged ≥70 y. No new treatment-related deaths occurred since the primary EFS analysis. There were no manufacturing failures for any pt who underwent leukapheresis. Similar associations between product characteristics and outcomes were observed among the elderly and overall populations, including improved OS associated with a greater (>median) proportion of juvenile or stem memory T-cell phenotype cells (CCR7+CD45RA+ T cells) in the axi-cel product among pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.369; 95% CI, 0.138-0.984). Conclusion: Axi-cel as 2L therapy prolonged survival over SOC in pts aged ≥65 y, including in pts aged ≥70 y. These findings confirm that age alone should not be a barrier for consideration of CAR T-cell therapy, supporting the use of axi-cel as a curative-intent 2L therapeutic option for older pts with R/R LBCL.

Abstract Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare B‐cell lymphoproliferative malignancy. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto‐HCT) is considered in a subset of WM patients with relapsed disease. While registry data has shown a benefit for auto‐HCT in relapsed WM, there is a paucity of data on outcomes of patients relapsing after auto‐HCT. Eligibility criteria included adult patients with relapsed/refractory WM who underwent auto‐HCT between 2007 and 2017. The primary endpoint was post‐relapse overall survival (PR‐OS). Secondary endpoints were to identify factors prognostic of PR‐OS. Of the 48 patients with WM who underwent auto‐HCT, 22 (46%) experienced relapse following auto‐HCT. Median PR‐OS of relapsed WM patients after auto‐HCT ( n = 22) was not reached (NR) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.5 months‐NR). Among patients who relapsed <1 year versus ≥1 year from auto‐HCT, the median PR‐OS was 18.4 months (95%CI: 0.8‐NR) months and NR (95%CI: 17.5‐NR), respectively ( p = 0.06). Of note, disease status at the time of transplant, CR/VGPR versus partial remission did not appear to impact PR‐OS. The median PR‐OS was significantly longer in patients who received ibrutinib in the post‐transplant setting compared to those who did not (NR vs. 18.4 months, 95%CI: 9.1‐NR, p = 0.02). On univariable analysis, the presence of complex karyotype (RR = 4.87, 95% CI = 1.22–19.53) and a higher number of prior lines of therapy (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.23–2.67) were associated with a significantly higher risk of relapse. This is the only study to date that evaluated outcomes of WM patients who relapsed following auto‐HCT and provides a benchmark for future trials evaluating survival following auto‐HCT relapse.

Abstract Richter syndrome (RS) represents a transformation from chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) to aggressive lymphoma, most commonly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), which is associated with a dismal prognosis. Patients with DLBCL-RS have poor outcomes with DLBCL-directed therapy; thus, consolidation with hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has been used, with durable remissions observed. Studies reporting HCT outcomes in patients with DLBCL-RS have been small, have not evaluated the prognostic impact of cytogenetic risk factors, and were conducted prior to the era of novel targeted therapy of CLL/SLL. We performed a Center for International Blood and Transplant Research registry study evaluating outcomes after autologous HCT (auto-HCT; n = 53) and allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT; n = 118) in patients with DLBCL-RS treated in the modern era. More auto-HCT recipients were in complete response (CR) at HCT relative to allo-HCT recipients (66% vs 34%), whereas a higher proportion of allo-HCT recipients had 17p deletion (33% vs 7%) and had previously received novel agents (39% vs 10%). In the auto-HCT cohort, the 3-year relapse incidence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were 37%, 48%, and 57%, respectively. Among allo-HCT recipients, the 3-year relapse incidence, PFS, and OS were 30%, 43%, and 52%, respectively. In the allo-HCT cohort, deeper response at HCT was associated with outcomes (3-year PFS/OS, 66%/77% CR vs 43%/57% partial response vs 5%/15% resistant; P &lt; .0001 for both), whereas cytogenetic abnormalities and prior novel therapy did not impact outcomes. In our study, HCT resulted in durable remissions in therapy-sensitive patients with DLBCL-RS treated in the era of targeted CLL/SLL therapy, including patients with high-risk features.

Background: Axi-cel, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, is approved for treatment of adult pts with R/R LBCL after ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapy. In the pivotal ZUMA-1 study, axi-cel demonstrated durable responses and a largely manageable safety profile (Locke FL, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). ZUMA-9 (NCT03153462), a multicenter, open-label study, provided pts with R/R LBCL with expanded access to axi-cel until commercial availability (Cohort 1 [C1]) and later, if commercially manufactured product did not meet commercial release specification(s) (Cohort 2 [C2]). Safety and efficacy of axi-cel (C1 and C2) and translational analyses (C2) are presented. Methods: Eligible adults had histologically confirmed R/R LBCL, ECOG ≤ 1, and received prior CD20-targeting and an anthracycline-containing regimen. C2 pts must have had commercial OOS product. Pts underwent leukaphersis and conditioning chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2/day and fludarabine 30 mg/m2/day) for 3 days followed by a single axi-cel infusion (target dose, 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg). C1 and C2 pts with high disease burden could receive bridging therapy before conditioning at investigator's discretion. Endpoints included frequency of adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR) per standard-of-care imaging assessment, overall survival (OS) for C1 and C2, and blood CAR T cells levels and serum cytokines for C2 only. Outcomes were contextualized with the primary analysis of ZUMA-1 C1+2 (n = 101; ≥ 6 mo of follow-up; Neelapu SS, et al. NEJM. 2017). Results: As of 11/29/2019 (C1) and 3/15/2020 (C2), 25 C1 pts and 36 C2 pts received axi-cel with a median follow-up of 27.1 mo (range, 23.6 - 29.6) and 13.2 mo (range, 0.4 - 25.7), respectively. In C1, median age was 56 y (range, 28 - 76), 60% were male, 80% had DLBCL, 48%/0% had ECOG1/≥2, 44% had IPI ≥3, and 64% had ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy. In C2, median age was 61 y (range, 24 - 81), 75% were male, 78% had DLBCL, 58%/17% had ECOG 1/≥2, 56% had IPI ≥3, and 69% had ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy. In C2, 50% of pts had OOS product with low viability, 28% had high IFN-γ, 14% had low IFN-γ, 14% received a low dose, and 6% had high transduction ratio. The ORR was 76% (64% complete response [CR]) for C1, 53% (36% CR) for C2, and 82% (54% CR) for ZUMA-1 C1+2. Median OS was 23.8 mo (95% CI, 13.5 - NE) for C1 and not reached (95% CI, 3.4 - NE) for C2, respectively. ORR and OS were consistent in C2 OOS subgroups (Table). Grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported in 88% and 89% of C1 and C2 pts, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 CRS (Lee et al, Blood. 2014) was not observed in C1 but was reported in 3% of C2 pts (13% in ZUMA-1 C1+2). Grade ≥ 3 neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 36% and 19% of pts in C1 and C2, respectively, and 28% of pts in ZUMA-1 C1+2. No Grade 5 CRS or NEs occurred in C1 or C2. All CRS and NEs resolved in C1, and most CRS (29/30) and NEs (19/24) resolved in C2 as of the data cutoff. Of 3 Grade 5 AEs in C1, 2 were unrelated to axi-cel (clostridial sepsis [on Day (D) 6] and respiratory failure [on D212]) and 1 was related to conditioning (myelodysplastic syndrome [on D563]). Of 3 Grade 5 AEs in C2, 2 were unrelated to axi-cel (multiple organ dysfunction syndrome [on D6] and cardiac arrest [on D482]) and 1 was related to axi-cel (systemic mycosis [on D30]). Median peak CAR T cell levels and median CAR T cell expansion (area under the curve in the first 28 days) were lower in ZUMA-9 C2 (n = 32/36; 12 cells/µL [range, 0 - 442] and 112 cells/µL × days [range, 0 - 3413]) vs ZUMA-1 C1+2 (n = 96/101; 42 cells/µL [range, 1 - 1514] and 462 cells/µL × days [range, 5 - 14,329]). Serum IFN-γ levels peaked within 8 days after axi-cel infusion (median, 170 pg/mL [range, 8 - 1876]) and were lower vs ZUMA-1 C1+2 (median, 477 pg/mL [range, 8 - 8209]). Axi-cel in ZUMA-9 C2 contained fewer, less differentiated CCR7+ naïve and central memory T cells, and a greater proportion of more differentiated CCR7- effector memory and effector T cells vs ZUMA-1 C1+2. No cases of replication-competent retroviruses were reported in C1 or C2. Conclusion: Axi-cel treatment demonstrated a manageable safety profile and meaningful clinical benefit in this expanded access and OOS product study. While CAR T cell therapy showed clinical benefit in C2 (OOS product), the lower CR rate was corroborated by lower CAR T cell expansion and a more differentiated product vs ZUMA-1 C1+2, warranting further investigation. ZUMA-9 C2 is enrolling pts and evaluation is ongoing. Disclosures Jacobson: Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; AXIS: Speakers Bureau; Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Locke:Calibr: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Wugen: Consultancy; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Other: Consultancy with grant options; Allogene: Consultancy. Miklos:Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Allogene Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Vose:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Allogene: Honoraria; Loxo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Wugen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche/Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other. Lin:Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Budde:Roche: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Mustang Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Maloney:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; A2 Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Patents are pending, but not issued, licensed, no royalties, no licensees., Research Funding; Bioline Rx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jaglowski:Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; CRISPR: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riedell:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Perales:Celgene: Honoraria; MolMed: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bellicum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cidara Therapeutics: Other; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Medigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; NexImmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kim:Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Kawashima:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership . Yang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Rossi:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Goyal:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Neelapu:Legend Biotech: Other; Allogene Therapeutics: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Cell Medica/Kuur: Other: personal fees; Incyte: Other: personal fees; Unum Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other; Novartis: Other: personal fees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Calibr: Other; Acerta: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: personal fees; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; N/A: Other.

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of &gt; 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: 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, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.

Abstract Introduction Older patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation may experience a higher degree of morbidity and limitations from transplant related complications. Chronic graft-versus –host disease (GVHD) causes a significant reduction in patients’ quality of life (QOL), physical functioning, and functional status. However, it is not known if moderate to severe chronic GVHD has a worse impact on QOL, or survival outcomes for older patients. Methods We analyzed data of patients with moderate or severe chronic GVHD (N=522, 1661 follow-up visits, a total of 2,183 visits) from the Chronic GVHD Consortium, a prospective observational multicenter cohort. Moderate or severe chronic GVHD was defined by the National Institutes of Health global severity score at the time of enrollment. We examined the relationship between age group (adolescent and young adult “AYA” 18-40, “middle-aged” 41-59, and “older” ≥ 60 years) and clinical manifestations of chronic GVHD, patient-reported outcomes, functional status, non-relapse mortality and overall survival. Clinical manifestations of chronic GVHD were determined by the clinician-reported individual organ scores. Patient-reported outcomes included (1) QOL as measured by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) and the Medical Outcome Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (2) chronic GVHD symptom burden as measured by the Lee Symptom Scale; and (3) physical fitness as measured by the Human Activity Profile (HAP). Functional status was assessed using the 2-minute walk test (2MWT). Because of multiple testing, p-values <0.01 were considered significant. Results There were 115 (22%) AYA, 279 (53%) middle-aged and 128 (25%) older patients with moderate (58%) or severe (42%) chronic GVHD included. At study enrollment, older patients (≥60) were similar to younger patients in sex, time from transplant (median 12 months), prior acute GVHD, percentage of severe chronic GVHD, and current co-morbidity scores but differed in disease distribution and conditioning regimen intensity. At enrollment, in unadjusted analyses using all available data, older patients had similar rates and severity of global and organ-specific manifestations of chronic GVHD compared to younger patients, except for genital involvement, which was more prevalent and severe in AYA patients. Although older patients reported worse physical functioning [SF-36 Physical Functioning (p=0.01)], shorter 2MWT (p=0.002), and lower HAP scores (p=0.001) than AYA and middle-aged patients suggesting they have more physical limitations, older patients had better QOL [FACT-BMT (p=0.01)] scores compared to middle-aged patients and similar to AYA patients. Older patients had better psychological [Lee Psychological Scale (p<0.001), SF-36 Mental Health (p=0.01)] and emotional functioning [FACT-Emotional Well-being (p=0.001)] and less pain [SF-36 Bodily Pain (p=0.006)] than AYA and middle-aged patients but similar chronic GVHD symptom burden [Lee Symptom Scale (p=0.47)]. In multivariable linear mixed models utilizing all visit data and adjusted for clinical covariates, older patients had QOL (FACT-BMT) that was comparable to AYA patients (estimate -0.04, p=0.99) and better than middle-aged patients (estimate 5.7, p=0.004), while the SF36 physical and mental component scores and symptom burden were not different between the groups. Non-relapse mortality and overall survival were similar between the age groups in unadjusted analyses (p=0.23, p=0.17) and after adjusting for clinical covariates (p=0.17, p=0.15) in Cox models. In a subgroup analysis, we found that there were no differences in overall and organ-specific chronic GVHD manifestations, QOL and survival between patients in the 60-64 (n=73), 65-70 (n=39), and >70 (n=16) age groups, except for more moderate-severe skin involvement in the 65-70 year olds. Conclusion Despite higher physical and functional limitations, older patients with moderate or severe chronic GVHD have preserved QOL, comparable disease manifestations and symptom burden, and similar overall survival and non-relapse mortality when compared to younger patients. Therefore we did not find evidence that older age itself is associated with worse QOL or survival in patients with moderate or severe chronic GVHD. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.