Chen, Andy I.

Abstract Abstract 3110 High-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL), although the optimal conditioning regimen remains uncertain. The three drug alkylating agent regimen, BuMelTt, has been established as our institutional regimen. We performed a retrospective review of outcomes obtained with BuMelTt compared to those achieved with other standard conditioning regimens. 133 patients with relapsed/refractory HL who underwent ASCT between January 1990 and December 2009 were analyzed. 62 patients received BuMelTt and 71 patients received other standard preparative regimens (Standard) consisting of CBV (44), CyVp16TBI (20), BEAM (4), CyTBI (2), and Mel (1). The median follow-up (range) was 4.3 years (0.01–14.24) in BuMelTt and 3.9 years (0.07–20.21) in Standard. The two groups (BuMelTt vs Standard) were balanced for gender (65% male vs 65% male), median age (29 vs 33), median number of prior regimens (2 vs 2), and pre-transplant disease status. Disease status was categorized as PR2/CR2 (48% vs 42%), primary induction failure sensitive (16% vs 17%), and Other which included PIF-refractory, 1st relapse refractory, and greater than 1st relapse (35% vs 41%). The 5 year overall survival (OS) was superior for patient who received BuMelTt conditioning (74% vs 54%, p = 0.03). There was also a trend for improved 5 year event free survival (EFS) for BuMelTt at 56% vs 39% for Standard (p=0.07). Other risk factors for outcome after ASCT were also analyzed and included disease status, more than 2 chemotherapy regimens before ASCT, Karnofsky score < 90% at ASCT, time from diagnosis to ASCT < 12 months, prior extranodal involvement, and age > 40 years. By univariate analysis, >2 chemotherapy regimens before ASCT (HR 1.7, p=0.05) and disease status of Other (HR 2.8, p<0.01) were predictive for lower OS. There was a trend for influence on OS for BuMelTt (HR 0.6, p=0.07) and PIF-sensitive (HR 1.9, p=0.09). By multivariate analysis, disease status of PIF-sensitive or Other predicted worse outcomes for OS (HR 2.4 & 2.9, p 0.03 & <0.01, respectively), and there was still a trend for benefit with BuMelTt (HR 0.6, p=0.09), although >2 chemotherapy regimens lost significance (p=0.22). For EFS, disease status of PIF-sensitive or Other were prognostic in univariate analysis (HR 2.1 or 2.3, p=0.02 or <0.01, respectively), and there was a trend for improved EFS with BuMelTt (HR 0.66, p=0.08). In multivariate analysis, disease status of PIF-sensitive or Other remained prognostic (p=0.03 & 0.004, respectively), while BuMelTt was not significant (p=0.27). There was no significant difference in 100 day non-relapse related mortality for BuMelTt vs Standard conditioning (5% vs 3%, p=0.88). More patients developed NCI CTCAE grade 3/4 mucositis with BuMelTt than Standard (89% vs 61%, p<0.01), but fewer patients had bacteremia with BuMelTt than Standard (7% vs 23%, p=0.02). There was no difference in duration of hospitalization, episodes of febrile neutropenia, incidence of veno-occlusive disease, time to neutrophil engraftment, or time to platelet engraftment. Our results suggest that BuMelTt may improve OS and EFS compared to standard conditioning regimens with increased but manageable toxicity. A case matched control study is planned. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Key Points There was no difference in overall survival after allogeneic transplant between patients aged 55-64 years and patients ≥65 years. Age alone should not be a determinant for allogeneic transplant eligibility among older non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

BACKGROUNDEarly treatment failure (ETF) in follicular lymphoma (FL), defined as relapse or progression within 2 years of frontline chemoimmunotherapy, is a newly recognized marker of poor survival and identifies a high‐risk group of patients with an expected 5‐year overall survival (OS) rate of approximately 50%. Transplantation is an established option for relapsed FL, but its efficacy in this specific ETF FL population has not been previously evaluated.METHODSThis study compared autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto‐HCT) with either matched sibling donor (MSD) or matched unrelated donor (MUD) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) as the first transplantation approach for patients with ETF FL (age ≥ 18 years) undergoing auto‐HCT or allo‐HCT between 2002 and 2014. The primary endpoint was OS. The secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival, relapse, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM).RESULTSFour hundred forty FL patients had ETF (auto‐HCT, 240; MSD hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [HCT], 105; and MUD HCT, 95). With a median follow‐up of 69 to 73 months, the adjusted probability of 5‐year OS was significantly higher after auto‐HCT (70%) or MSD HCT (73%) versus MUD HCT (49%; P = .0008). The 5‐year adjusted probability of NRM was significantly lower for auto‐HCT (5%) versus MSD (17%) or MUD HCT (33%; P < .0001). The 5‐year adjusted probability of disease relapse was lower with MSD (31%) or MUD HCT (23%) versus auto‐HCT (58%; P < .0001).CONCLUSIONSPatients with high‐risk FL, as defined by ETF, undergoing auto‐HCT for FL have low NRM and a promising 5‐year OS rate (70%). MSD HCT has lower relapse rates than auto‐HCT but similar OS. Cancer 2018;124:2541‐51. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Summary For diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma ( DLBCL ) patients progressing after autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (auto HCT ), allogeneic HCT (allo HCT ) is often considered, although limited information is available to guide patient selection. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research ( CIBMTR ) database, we identified 503 patients who underwent allo HCT after disease progression/relapse following a prior auto HCT . The 3‐year probabilities of non‐relapse mortality, progression/relapse, progression‐free survival ( PFS ) and overall survival ( OS ) were 30, 38, 31 and 37% respectively. Factors associated with inferior PFS on multivariate analysis included Karnofsky performance status ( KPS ) <80, chemoresistance, auto HCT to allo HCT interval <1‐year and myeloablative conditioning. Factors associated with worse OS on multivariate analysis included KPS <80, chemoresistance and myeloablative conditioning. Three adverse prognostic factors were used to construct a prognostic model for PFS , including KPS <80 (4 points), auto HCT to allo HCT interval <1‐year (2 points) and chemoresistant disease at allo HCT (5 points). This CIBMTR prognostic model classified patients into four groups: low‐risk (0 points), intermediate‐risk (2‐5 points), high‐risk (6‐9 points) or very high‐risk (11 points), predicting 3‐year PFS of 40, 32, 11 and 6%, respectively, with 3‐year OS probabilities of 43, 39, 19 and 11% respectively. In conclusion, the CIBMTR prognostic model identifies a subgroup of DLBCL patients experiencing long‐term survival with allo HCT after a failed prior auto HCT .

SummaryPre‐existing central nervous system (CNS) involvement may influence referral for autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for patients with non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The outcomes of 151 adult patients with NHL with prior secondary CNS involvement (CNS+) receiving an AHCT were compared to 4688 patients without prior CNS lymphoma (CNS−). There were significant baseline differences between the cohorts. CNS+ patients were more likely to be younger, have lower performance scores, higher age‐adjusted international prognostic index scores, more advanced disease stage at diagnosis, more aggressive histology, more sites of extranodal disease, and a shorter interval between diagnosis and AHCT. However, no statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups by analysis of progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 5 years. A matched pair comparison of the CNS+ group with a subset of CNS− patients matched on propensity score also showed no differences in outcomes. Patients with active CNS lymphoma at the time of AHCT (n = 55) had a higher relapse rate and diminished PFS and OS compared with patients whose CNS lymphoma was in remission (n = 96) at the time of AHCT. CNS+ patients can achieve excellent long‐term outcomes with AHCT. Active CNS lymphoma at transplant confers a worse prognosis.