Bornhäuser, Martin

Background: CMML is a heterogeneous disease with overlapping features of MDS and MPN. Several risk scores have been proposed in CMML, including CPSS (Such Blood 2013) that identifies 4 risk groups (low, intermediate-1 [int-1], int-2 and high risk) with median overall survival (OS) ranging from 12 months to > 5 years. HSCT is the only curative treatment in CMML, with an expected 20-40% post-transplantation OS. Current guidelines, common to MDS and CMML recommend rapidly transplanting higher-risk CMML and delaying transplant in lower-risk disease (de Witte Blood 2017). Retrospective transplant studies have shown better outcome in lower-risk CMML (Liu et al BBMT 2017). Whether this translates into a survival benefit compared to a delayed transplant strategy requires prospective studies. Multistate models based on retrospective data from transplant and non-transplant patients (pts) have addressed similar issues in MDS (Koreth JCO 2013, Della Porta Leukemia 2017). Through a large collaborative study, we address the question of optimal timing for HSCT in CMML patients through a similar large international collaborative study. Method: We retrospectively selected pts from 2 registries: International MDS/MPN Working Group (IWG cohort, Padron Blood Cancer J 2015) and EBMT with the following criteria: WHO-defined CMML, age ≤ 70y, ECOG 0-2, diagnosis after 2000, available CPSS at the time of diagnosis. Different states were considered in higher- (CPSS int-2 and high) and lower- risk (CPSS low/int-1) pts: diagnosis, AML transformation, transplantation and death. IWG data was used to estimate transition probabilities from diagnosis to AML, transplantation and death and from AML to transplantation and death. EBMT data was used for transplantation to death transitions (Figure 1). Results: 719 and 403 pts were identified in the IWG and EMBT registry, respectively (resp). Median age was 64 (range 16-70) in IWG and 58 (19-70) years in EBMT cohort. Patients were male in 69% and 67% of IWG and EBMT cohorts, respectively (resp). CPSS was low in 22% and 13%, int-1 in 31% and 31%, int-2 in 40% and 45% and high in 8% and 11% of the IWG and EBMT pts, resp. In the IWG cohort, the 1 year cumulative incidence of transformation into AML were 7.3% and 18.2% in lower and higher risk patients, resp. Among the 719 pts from IWG, 102 received HSCT. At the time of diagnosis the expected life time of higher risk (int-2 and high) patients was 25.2 months while it was 44.1 months in lower risk (int-1 and low) patients. Table 1 reports gain or loss in expected life time (until 60 months after diagnosis) for transplantation at different intervals from diagnosis (within 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) for patients who have survived and not transformed to AML until the prediction time point, taking into account CPSS at diagnosis. Expected life time is also given separately for higher risk pts after transformation into AML. There was a modest gain of life expectancy with transplantation in higher risk patients (CPSS int-2 and high) while it was not the case in lower risk patients. The survival gain in higher risk pts with HSCT rose from 1.11 at 6 months to 3.4 months at 24 months. There was also a survival benefit of HSCT in higher risk pts who were transformed to AML during their follow-up which was even higher in terms of gain of months: from 9.89 month if HSCT performed within 6 months to 14.25 months if performed within 18 months. Of note, the loss of survival in lower risk patients who underwent HSCT decreased over time: 11.1 months if HSCT is performed within 6 months and 3.7 months if HSCT is performed within 24 months, probably owing to transition to higher-risk CMML at this stage in some pts, a transition that could not be captured in the present dataset. Conclusion: For the first time, using a multistate model, we could provide evidence that the transplant benefit in CMML is restricted to higher-risk pts, in line with findings in MDS and current guidelines. More analyses will be performed to analyze other subgroups of patients, especially regarding their risk (other classification than CPSS, the role of somatic mutation…). More studies are needed to analyze the role of pre HSCT treatment and its potential impact on post-transplant outcome. Disclosures Robin: Novartis Neovii: Research Funding. Beelen:Medac GmbH Wedel Germany: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fenaux:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding. Kroeger:Riemser: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria; DKMS: Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria. Nazha:Tolero, Karyopharma: Honoraria; MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmacutical: Research Funding; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Rampal:Agios, Apexx, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, Constellation, and Jazz: Consultancy; Constellation, Incyte, and Stemline Therapeutics: Research Funding. Finke:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau. Komrokji:Agios: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; JAZZ: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Killick:JAZZ: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALEXION: Honoraria. Blaise:Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Few data are available on the outcomes of patients who fail to engraft following URD transplantation. We describe the results of 122 patients reported to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) between 1990 and 2005, who received a second bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood (PB) URD transplant after failing to achieve an absolute neutrophil count of ≥ 500/mm3 without evidence of recurrent disease. Patients were transplanted for leukemia (n=83), myelodysplastic disorders (n=16), severe aplastic anemia (n=20) and other disease (n=3). The median age at first transplant was 29 years. Approximately one third were in each age range, < 20 (33%), 20–40 (37%) and >40 (29%). The initial transplant was BM in 84% of patients while 51% received BM for the subsequent transplant. One hundred ten of these patients received two transplants, 11 received three and one received 4 transplants. Twenty four used a different donor whereas 98 used the original donor for the second transplant; 28 of these used cells that had been cryopreserved at the initial transplant date. Nearly two thirds of the patients received reduced intensity conditioning or no conditioning for the second transplant. Sixty one percent had ATG as a component of their second transplant. The median interval from first transplant to second transplant was 48 (range, 18–126) days. The median nucleated cell dose was 2 × 108/kg (range, <1–23) for the first transplant and 2 × 108/kg (range, <1–50) for the second. The median follow up of survivors after second transplant was 77 (range, 2–144) months. Univariate probabilities of outcomes for these patients after second transplant were: Outcome N eval Probability (95% CI) *cumulative incidence Neutrophil engraftment* 122 @ 28 days 43 (34–52) % @100 days 48 (39–57) % 30 day mortality 122 39 (31–48) % 100 day mortality 122 75 (67–82) % Overall survival (OS) @ 1 year 122 11 (6–17) % Treatment related mortality (TRM) @ 1 year* 99 86 (79–92) % Disease free survival (DFS) @ 1 year 99 7 (2–12) % Of the 122 patients analyzed, only 10 remain alive. The most common causes of death were graft failure or rejection (33%), organ failure/interstitial pnuemoniatis (22%), infection (15%), GVHD (14%) and recurrent disease (6%). Of the 37 patients who had persistent graft failure 21 (57%) died from infectious causes. We observed no differences between patients who received a graft from the same donor vs. different donor, fresh vs. cryopreserved cells, or small initial graft size vs. large initial graft size. Patients who received a T-cell depleted graft at the time of their first transplant had significantly worse survival at 1 year after their second transplant, 4% (95% CI, 0–11) compared to those patients who had a non T-cell depleted initial graft, 16% (95 % CI, 8–25)(P = 0.02). It appears that a second salvage transplant strategy may be effective in a small group of patients, although the overall DFS at 1 year of only 7% is disappointing. To improve these results, efforts might focus on early identification and treatment of those at highest risk for non engraftment to determine whether such a strategy can alter the natural history we have described.

Abstract Abstract 680 Cytogenetics play an essential role in determining the prognosis of patients with AML. However, there is still no validated cytogenetics grouping scheme that specifically applies to patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which hampers accurate prognostication and risk stratification. We studied 821 adult patients (median age 41, range 18–74) who underwent SCT between 1999 and 2004 for AML (excluding APL) in CR1 or CR2 and who were reported to the CIBMTR from centers with >20 patients meeting study criteria. 75% of patients received a myeloablative conditioning. 496 patients had a normal karyotype. The primary cytogenetics reports were manually reviewed for 92% of the patients with an abnormal karyotype. We compared the ability of the 6 existing grouping schemes (MRC, CALGB, EORTC/GIMEMA, SWOG/ECOG, DFCI, and Monosomal Karyotype (MK) classifications) to stratify patients, using both the Akaike Information Criterion in multivariable models and the C-statistic. Among all existing schemes, the DFCI system provided a marginally superior stratification for overall and leukemia-free survival. We also built a new classification using individual cytogenetic abnormalities in a Cox model that included other significant covariates (performance status, therapy-related disease, conditioning intensity, graft source, donor match, duration of CR1, and gender match). This CIBMTR scheme (see Table), which is similar to the DFCI scheme except for the inclusion of patients with t(8;21) in the intermediate group, could stratify patients into 3 groups with similar treatment-related mortality but significantly different overall survival, leukemia-free survival, and incidence of relapse. This scheme appeared to apply to both patients in CR1 and in CR2 (see FiguresF2). This transplant-specific scheme could be adopted for prognostication purposes and to stratify patients with karyotypic abnormalities entering transplantation clinical trials. Future studies may clarify the relative outcome of patients with t(8;21) and refine this scheme with the inclusion of molecular abnormalities. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

BACKGROUNDPatients with FMS like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3)‐mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have a poor prognosis and are referred for early allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).METHODSData from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) were used to evaluate 511 adult patients with de novo AML who underwent HCT during 2008 through 2011 to determine whether FLT3 mutations had an impact on HCT outcomes.RESULTSIn total, 158 patients (31%) had FLT3 mutations. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed an increased risk of relapse at 3 years in the FLT3 mutated group compared with the wild‐type (WT) group (38% [95% confidence interval (CI), 30%‐45%] vs 28% [95% CI, 24%‐33%]; P = .04; relative risk, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.15‐2.22]; P = .0048). However, FLT3 mutation status was not significantly associated with nonrelapse mortality, leukemia‐free survival, or overall survival. Although more patients in the FLT3 mutated group died from relapsed primary disease compared with those in the WT group (60% vs 46%), the 3‐year overall survival rate was comparable for the 2 groups (mutated group: 49%; 95% CI, 40%‐57%; WT group: 55%, 95% CI, 50%‐60%; P = .20).CONCLUSIONSThe current data indicate that FLT3 mutation status did not adversely impact overall survival after HCT, and about 50% of patients with this mutation who underwent HCT were long‐term survivors. Cancer 2016;122:3005‐3014. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

PurposeAdvanced systemic mastocytosis (SM), a fatal hematopoietic malignancy characterized by drug resistance, has no standard therapy. The effectiveness of allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (alloHCT) in SM remains unknown.Patients and MethodsIn a global effort to define the value of HCT in SM, 57 patients with the following subtypes of SM were evaluated: SM associated with clonal hematologic non–mast cell disorders (SM-AHNMD; n = 38), mast cell leukemia (MCL; n = 12), and aggressive SM (ASM; n = 7). Median age of patients was 46 years (range, 11 to 67 years). Donors were HLA-identical (n = 34), unrelated (n = 17), umbilical cord blood (n = 2), HLA-haploidentical (n = 1), or unknown (n = 3). Thirty-six patients received myeloablative conditioning (MAC), and 21 patients received reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC).ResultsResponses in SM were observed in 40 patients (70%), with complete remission in 16 patients (28%). Twelve patients (21%) had stable disease, and five patients (9%) had primary refractory disease. Overall survival (OS) at 3 years was 57% for all patients, 74% for patients with SM-AHNMD, 43% for those with ASM, and 17% for those with MCL. The strongest risk factor for poor OS was MCL. Survival was also lower in patients receiving RIC compared with MAC and in patients having progression compared with patients having stable disease or response.ConclusionAlloHCT was associated with long-term survival in patients with advanced SM. Although alloHCT may be considered as a viable and potentially curative therapeutic option for advanced SM in the meantime, given that this is a retrospective analysis with no control group, the definitive role of alloHCT will need to be determined by a prospective trial.