Hayes‐Lattin, Brandon

Abstract Newer approaches to control alloreactivity may produce similar transplant outcomes using HLA-mismatched donors vs HLA-matched unrelated donors (MUD). However, prospective comparisons are lacking. BMT CTN 1702 used a donor search prognosis score to assign patients to an 8/8 HLA MUD or the center’s preference of haploidentical related donors (HAPLO), mismatched unrelated donors (MMUD), or umbilical cord blood (UCB). Outcomes of MUD were compared to HAPLO, MMUD, and UCB transplantation after adjusting for covariates. Patients (n = 1179 [93% adults]) underwent transplantation with MUD (n = 772), HAPLO (n = 254), MMUD (n = 112), and UCB (n = 41) at a median of 3.7, 3.4, 3.9, and 3.8 months from enrollment. Posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) was used in 23.9%, 83.9%, 65.2%, and 0% of MUD, HAPLO, MMUD, and UCB. In multivariate analyses, compared to MUD, survival was lower for UCB (hazard ratio [HR], 2.65; P< .001) but not statistically different for HAPLO and MMUD (HRs, 1.08 and 1.18, respectively). Relapse risk was not significantly different by donor, but treatment-related mortality (HR, 3.31; P< .001) and disease-free survival (HR, 1.99; P = .002) were inferior for UCB but not different for HAPLO and MMUD than MUD. In patients who received PTCy, HAPLO and MMUD were associated with increased grade 3 or 4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD; HR, 2.39 [P = .017] and 2.53 [P = .038], respectively) and chronic GVHD (HR, 1.71 for both; P = .028 and .080) than MUD, but other outcomes were not different. HAPLO or MMUD may be used to expedite transplantation when finding MUD is unlikely. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03904134.

PURPOSE The likelihood of finding a human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–matched unrelated donor (MUD) for hematopoietic cell transplantation can be predicted using a donor search prognosis score. Patients without a MUD may use alternative donors (haploidentical related, mismatched unrelated, or umbilical cord blood). METHODS This multicenter biological assignment trial was conducted by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 1702). Eligibility criteria were broad to mirror clinical practice. The primary end point was 2-year survival from evaluability and compared between those Very Likely (>90%) and Very Unlikely (<10%) to find a MUD. All other patients, Less Likely to find a MUD, were enrolled in an observational arm. Transplant outcomes were compared for all three groups. RESULTS A total of 1,751 evaluable patients at 47 centers were Very Likely (54.7%), Less Likely (29.5%), and Very Unlikely (15.8%) to identify a MUD. Survival did not differ in univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.21]; P = .98) or multivariate (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.33]; P = .56) analyses between the Very Unlikely and Very Likely groups, measured through 2 years from the beginning of a search for a MUD or alternative donor. Of the transplanted patients (n = 1,179), MUD was used for 94% of the Very Likely, 38% of Less Likely, and 9% of Very Unlikely patients. Multivariate analyses showed no differences in relapse, treatment-related mortality, disease-free survival, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host diseases for the three search prognosis groups after transplantation. CONCLUSION Using a donor search prognosis strategy to prioritize an alternative donor for patients Very Unlikely to find a MUD resulted in survival and transplant outcomes that were not statistically different compared with those Very Likely to find a MUD.

Background: A donor search prognosis score based on HLA type and race/ethnicity can classify patients into 3 groups based on the likelihood of finding an HLA-matched (8/8) unrelated donor (MUD): Very Likely (44% of the population), Likely (41%) and Very Unlikely (15%). Previous studies showed that &gt;90% of Very Likely, 26% of Likely and &lt;10% of Very Unlikely patients used a MUD for their hematopoietic cell transplants (HCT), with the rest using other donor sources (mismatched unrelated donor, cord blood, or haploidentical relative). For some patients, prolonged efforts to identify a MUD might be futile and delay HCT, leading to increased morbidity, greater chance for relapse and disease resistance, and worse HCT outcomes. BMT CTN 1702 (NCT03904134) was the first national study to track the entire donor search identification process. Designed as a biologic assignment study, the goal was to estimate and compare overall survival between two arms: patients who are Very Likely to find a MUD versus those who are Very Unlikely to find a MUD. It tested whether provision of a donor search prognosis score to centers could prevent prolonged futile searches for the Very Unlikely group and improve their transplant rates and outcomes, compared to the Very Likely group. Methods: Eligible diagnoses included acute leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, lymphoma, acquired aplastic anemia and sickle cell disease. Patients could be consented at any time after diagnosis until an unrelated donor search was started. Consented patients became evaluable only after it was determined that no appropriate HLA-identical siblings were available. The primary endpoint was survival time after the patient was declared evaluable, regardless of whether HCT occurred, and was compared between the Very Unlikely and Very Likely groups. The target enrollment was 1732 evaluable patients. Because this was a biologic assignment trial and not a randomized trial, formal comparisons of overall survival between the Very Likely and Very Unlikely groups were done using a covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. The following covariates were a priori specified for adjustment in the model, according to the statistical analysis plan: sex, age, Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), race/ethnicity, disease, disease status, and interval from consent to evaluability. Results: 1751 evaluable patients were enrolled at 47 centers: 44% female, median age 59.4 years (range 0.6-81.3 years), 73% were non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic White, 8% Black, 5% Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.5% American Indian/Alaska Native. Among the evaluable patients, 1181 received a HCT, 827 died, and 924 are still alive with or without HCT, with a median of 25 months of follow up (range=6-54 months [mos], inter-quartile range [IQR]=25-34 mos). The distribution was: 958 Very Likely, 517 Less Likely, and 276 Very Unlikely. Individuals in the Very Unlikely group were younger and were less likely to be non-Hispanic White. The unadjusted cumulative incidences of undergoing HCT by 6 mos and 2 years [yrs], in the Very Unlikely group were 51% and 61% vs. 60% and 69% in the Very Likely Group; after adjustment, there was not a significant difference in the likelihood of undergoing HCT (Dehn et al, submitted). There was no difference in median time from evaluability to HCT: 3.4 mos Very Unlikely and 3.3 mos Very Likely. Unadjusted survival rates from the time of evaluability for the Very Unlikely and the Very Likely groups were: 6 mos (85% vs 84%), 1 yr (69% vs. 69%) and 2 yrs (55% vs. 56%). In the multivariate Cox model, there was no significant difference in the risk of death (HR = 1.07 for Very Unlikely vs. Very Likely, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.33, p=0.56) adjusting for significant clinical covariates: age, KPS, disease status, and time from consent to evaluability were all significantly associated with overall survival. There was no significant center effect and no interaction between donor search prognosis group and clinical covariates. Conclusion: In this large multicenter BMT CTN study, using the donor selection strategy described, there was no difference in adjusted time to HCT or survival for patients Very Likely versus Very Unlikely to find an 8/8 MUD. These results suggest that patients Very Unlikely to identify a MUD should proceed to HCT using the best available alternative donor rather than delaying HCT to try to identify a MUD.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

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.

Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer have not attained the same improvements in overall survival as either younger children or older adults. One possible reason for this disparity may be that the AYA cancers exhibit unique biologic characteristics, resulting in differences in clinical and treatment resistance behaviors. This report from the biologic component of the jointly sponsored National Cancer Institute and LiveStrong Foundation workshop entitled “Next Steps in Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology” summarizes the current status of biologic and translational research progress for 5 AYA cancers; colorectal cancer breast cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, melanoma, and sarcoma. Conclusions from this meeting included the need for basic biologic, genomic, and model development for AYA cancers as well as translational research studies to elucidate any fundamental differences between pediatric, AYA, and adult cancers. The biologic questions for future research are whether there are mutational or signaling pathway differences (for example, between adult and AYA colorectal cancer) that can be clinically exploited to develop novel therapies for treating AYA cancers and to develop companion diagnostics. Cancer 2016;122:1017–1028. © 2016 American Cancer Society

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.