Nakamura, Ryotaro

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only potentially curative therapy for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), although it is infrequently offered to older patients. The relative benefits of HCT over non-HCT therapy in older patients with higher-risk MDS have not been defined. METHODS We conducted a multicenter biologic assignment trial comparing reduced-intensity HCT to hypomethylating therapy or best supportive care in subjects 50-75 years of age with intermediate-2 or high-risk de novo MDS. The primary outcome was overall survival probability at 3 years. Between January 2014 and November 2018, we enrolled 384 subjects at 34 centers. Subjects were assigned to the Donor or No-Donor arms according to the availability of a matched donor within 90 days of study registration. RESULTS The median follow-up time for surviving subjects was 34.2 months (range: 2.3-38 months) in the Donor arm and 26.9 months (range: 2.4-37.2 months) in the No-Donor arm. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the adjusted overall survival rate at 3 years in the Donor arm was 47.9% (95% CI, 41.3 to 54.1) compared with 26.6% (95% CI, 18.4 to 35.6) in the No-Donor arm ( P = .0001) with an absolute difference of 21.3% (95% CI, 10.2 to 31.8). Leukemia-free survival at 3 years was greater in the Donor arm (35.8%; 95% CI, 29.8 to 41.8) compared with the No-Donor arm (20.6%; 95% CI, 13.3 to 29.1; P = .003). The survival benefit was seen across all subgroups examined. CONCLUSION We observed a significant survival advantage in older subjects with higher-risk MDS who have a matched donor identified and underwent reduced-intensity HCT, when compared with those without a donor. HCT should be included as an integral part of MDS management plans in fit older adults with higher-risk MDS.

Abstract Patients with core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), caused by either t(8;21)(q22;q22) or inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), have higher complete remission rates and longer survival than patients with other subtypes of AML. However, ∼40% of patients relapse, and the literature suggests that patients with inv(16) fare differently from those with t(8;21). We retrospectively analyzed 537 patients with CBF-AML, focusing on additional cytogenetic aberrations to examine their impact on clinical outcomes. Trisomies of chromosomes 8, 21, or 22 were significantly more common in patients with inv(16)/t(16;16): 16% vs 7%, 6% vs 0%, and 17% vs 0%, respectively. In contrast, del(9q) and loss of a sex chromosome were more frequent in patients with t(8;21): 15% vs 0.4% for del(9q), 37% vs 0% for loss of X in females, and 44% vs 5% for loss of Y in males. Hyperdiploidy was more frequent in patients with inv(16) (25% vs 9%, whereas hypodiploidy was more frequent in patients with t(8;21) (37% vs 3%. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for age, white blood counts at diagnosis, and KIT mutation status), trisomy 8 was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in inv(16), whereas the presence of other chromosomal abnormalities (not trisomy 8) was associated with decreased OS. In patients with t(8;21), hypodiploidy was associated with improved disease-free survival; hyperdiploidy and del(9q) were associated with improved OS. KIT mutation (either positive or not tested, compared with negative) conferred poor prognoses in univariate analysis only in patients with t(8;21).

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: Recent advances in the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) have improved patient survival and quality of life (QOL), while reducing transfusion burden. However, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), widely used in younger MDS patients, remains the only curative therapy for MDS. While transplantation outcomes among selected older patients with MDS are similar to younger patients with MDS, early transplantation for older patients is infrequently offered since the relative benefits of HCT over non-HCT therapy in have not been well defined in this patient group. We conducted a multi-center, biologic assignment trial in older individuals with high risk MDS to define the benefit of HCT over non-HCT therapy. Methods: The study was a multicenter, biologic assignment trial in subjects aged 50-75 with higher risk de novo MDS (IPSS Intermediate-2 (Int-2) or High) who were candidates for reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT, comparing outcomes of those with a suitable 8/8 HLA-matched donor to those without a donor. The trial was conducted by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 1102, NCT02016781). Eligible subjects were enrolled prior to a formal donor search, and before or after MDS treatment was initiated. Biological assignment to the Donor or No Donor arm was based on high-resolution HLA typing of eligible family members and a search of the unrelated donor registries. Subjects were initially assigned to the No Donor arm and re-assigned to the Donor arm when a suitable donor was identified. Subjects who died or whose 90-day donor search ended without identifying a suitable donor remained in the No Donor arm. Subjects in the Donor arm were expected to undergo RIC HCT within 6 months of enrollment. Subjects underwent RIC HCT or non-HCT therapy according to institutional standards. The primary analysis compared three-year overall survival (OS) between arms using adjusted survival estimates to account for the potential bias resulting from biological assignment. The sample size was selected to provide at least 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in 3-year OS. Between January 2014 and November 2018, 384 subjects (Donor n=260, No Donor n=124) were enrolled at 34 centers. The study arms were well balanced for age, gender, KPS, IPSS risk, MDS disease duration and responsiveness to hypomethylating therapy (Table). The median follow-up time for surviving patients was 34.2 months (range: 2.3-38 months) in the Donor arm and 26.9 months (range: 2.4-37.2 months) in the No Donor arm. Results: In an intent-to-treat analysis, adjusted OS at 3 years from study enrollment in the Donor arm was 47.9% (95% CI: 41.3%-54.1%) compared with 26.6% (95% CI: 18.4%-35.6%) in the No Donor arm (p=0.0001, absolute difference 21.3%, 95% CI: 10.2%-31.8%)(Figure). A sensitivity analysis excluding subjects assigned to the No Donor arm who died or withdrew prior to the end of the 90-day search window showed no effect on outcome (Adjusted OS: 48.0% vs. 28.1%, p=0.0004). Leukemia-free survival (LFS) at 3 years was greater in the Donor arm (35.8%, 95% CI: 29.8%-41.8%) compared with the No Donor arm (20.6%, 95% CI: 13.3%-29.1%, p=0.003), with no changes in the sensitivity analysis. An OS and LFS benefit was seen across all subgroups tested (Figure). There were no clinically significant differences in QOL between Donor and No Donor arms as measured by the FACT-G, the MOS-SF36 Physical and Mental Component Scores and the EQ-5D utility score at all time points. The overall non-compliance rate for the trial was 26.3%. Reasons for non-compliance included the use of myeloablative conditioning or failure to proceed to RIC transplant in the Donor arm, and the use of alternative donors in the No Donor arm. In an as-treated analysis, comparison of the HCT and No HCT arms demonstrated a significant advantage in 3-year OS (47.4% vs. 16.0%, p<0.0001) and LFS (39.3% vs. 10.9%, p<0.0001) for subjects who underwent HCT. Conclusions: We observed a significant OS advantage in older patients with Int-2 and High IPSS risk de novo MDS who are RIC HCT candidates and have an HLA-matched donor, when compared with those without a donor. The benefit of having a matched donor was seen across subgroups, including those who were of Medicare age (>65) and below. HCT should be offered to all individuals between the ages of 50-75 with Int-2 and High IPSS risk MDS in whom a suitable donor can be identified. Table Disclosures Nakamura: Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Kyowa-Kirin: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Alexion: Other: Support on a meeting presentation; Merck: Other: advisory board meeting; NapaJen Pharma: Consultancy; Kadmon Corporation: Other: Advisory board meeting; Celgene: Other: Support on seminar; Viracor: Consultancy. Scott:Alexion, Incyte, Novartis, Regeneron: Consultancy; Agios, BMS: Honoraria; BMS, Novartis: Research Funding. Oran:ASTEX: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Maziarz:Novartis, Incyte, CRISPR Therapeutics, Artiva Biotherapeutics, and AlloVir: Consultancy; Novartis and Athersys: Other: DSMB participant; Athersys: Patents & Royalties; Incyte, Kite, BMS/Celgene, PACT Pharma, Orca BioSystems, and Omeros: Honoraria; Novartis and Juno: Research Funding. McGuirk:Allo Vir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cutler:Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kadmon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medsenic: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Generon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Steroid-refractory (SR) acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a major cause of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), but its occurrence is not accurately predicted by pre-HCT clinical risk factors. The Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) algorithm probability (MAP) identifies patients who are at high risk for developing SR GVHD as early as 7 days after HCT based on the extent of intestinal crypt damage as measured by the concentrations of 2 serum biomarkers, suppressor of tumorigenesis 2 and regenerating islet-derived 3α. We conducted a multicenter proof-of-concept “preemptive” treatment trial of α-1-antitrypsin (AAT), a serine protease inhibitor with demonstrated activity against GVHD, in patients at high risk for developing SR GVHD. Patients were eligible if they possessed a high-risk MAP on day 7 after HCT or, if initially low risk, became high risk on repeat testing at day 14. Thirty high-risk patients were treated with twice-weekly infusions of AAT for a total of 16 doses, and their outcomes were compared with 90 high-risk near-contemporaneous MAGIC control patients. AAT treatment was well tolerated with few toxicities, but it did not lower the incidence of SR GVHD compared with controls (20% vs 14%, P = .56). We conclude that real-time biomarker-based risk assignment is feasible early after allogeneic HCT but that this dose and schedule of AAT did not change the incidence of SR acute GVHD. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03459040.

Abstract Comparative outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for BCR-ABL1− myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) in blast phase (MPN-BP) vs de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and AML with prior myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs; post-MDS AML), are unknown. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we compared HCT outcomes in 177 MPN-BP patients with 4749 patients with de novo AML, and 1104 patients with post-MDS AML, using multivariate regression analysis in 2 separate comparisons. In a multivariate Cox model, no difference in overall survival (OS) or relapse was observed in patients with MPN-BP vs de novo AML with active leukemia at HCT. Patients with MPN-BP in remission had inferior OS in comparison with de novo AML in remission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.76]) due to higher relapse rate (HR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.69-2.80]). MPN-BP patients had inferior OS (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.00-1.43]) and increased relapse (HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.31-1.96]) compared with post-MDS AML. Poor-risk cytogenetics were associated with increased relapse in both comparisons. Peripheral blood grafts were associated with decreased relapse in MPN-BP and post-MDS AML (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57-0.86]). Nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was similar between MPN-BP vs de novo AML, and MPN-BP vs post-MDS AML. Total-body irradiation–based myeloablative conditioning was associated with higher NRM in both comparisons. Survival of MPN-BP after HCT is inferior to de novo AML in remission and post-MDS AML due to increased relapse. Relapse-prevention strategies are required to optimize HCT outcomes in MPN-BP.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). In this large multicenter retrospective study, overall survival (OS) in MF patients treated with allogeneic HCT (551 patients) and without HCT (non-HCT) (1377 patients) was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards model. Survival analysis stratified by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) revealed that the first year of treatment arm assignment, due to upfront risk of transplant-related mortality (TRM), HCT was associated with inferior OS compared with non-HCT (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS intermediate 1 [Int-1]: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.26, P < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 0.39, P < .0001). Similarly, in the DIPSS low-risk MF group, due to upfront TRM risk, OS was superior with non-HCT therapies compared with HCT in the first-year post treatment arm assignment (HR, 0.16, P = .006). However, after 1 year, OS was not significantly different (HR, 1.38, P = .451). Beyond 1 year of treatment arm assignment, an OS advantage with HCT therapy in Int-1 and higher DIPSS score patients was observed (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS-Int-1: HR, 2.64, P < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 2.55, P < .0001). In conclusion, long-term OS advantage with HCT was observed for patients with Int-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of early TRM. The magnitude of OS benefit with HCT increased as DIPSS risk score increased and became apparent with longer follow-up.

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) involves the infusion of hematopoietic progenitor cells into patients with hematologic disorders with the goal of re-establishing normal hematopoietic and immune function. HCT is classified as autologous or allogeneic based on the origin of hematopoietic cells. Autologous HCT uses the patient’s own cells while allogeneic HCT uses hematopoietic cells from a human leukocyte antigen-compatible donor. Allogeneic HCT is a potentially curative treatment option for patients with certain types of hematologic malignancies, and autologous HCT is primarily used to support patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy. Advances in HCT methods and supportive care in recent decades have led to improved survival after HCT; however, disease relapse and posttransplant complications still commonly occur in both autologous and allogeneic HCT recipients. Allogeneic HCT recipients may also develop acute and/or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which results in immune-mediated cellular injury of several organs. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation focus on recommendations for pretransplant recipient evaluation and the management of GVHD in adult patients with malignant disease.

Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is currently the only potentially curative therapy in eligible patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens that have been developed to extend HSCT to older patients resulted in encouraging outcomes. However, several retrospective studies have raised concerns about disease control when RIC is used in MDS and the ideal conditioning regimen has not yet been found. In this study, we aimed to compare two most commonly used RIC regimens; intravenous use of fludarabine with busulfan (FluBu) and fludarabine with melphalan (FluMel). Study population: Through the CIBMTR, after excluding patients with ex-vivo T cell depletion, we identified 1045 MDS patients aged ≥ 60 years and underwent first HSCT with matched related or matched (8/8) unrelated donor (MRD and MUD) using RIC between 2007-2016. RIC was defined via CIBMTR criteria as a regimen that incorporated an IV busulfan (BU) total dose ≤ 7.2 mg/kg or low-dose melphalan (MEL) total dose ≤ 150 mg/m2. By that, we identified 697 MDS patients who received FluBu (BU 6.4 mg/kg: 87%, BU 3.2 mg/kg: 13%) and 448 receiving FluMel (MEL 140 mg/m2: 80%, MEL 100 mg/m2: 20%). Results: The two groups, FluBu and FluMel, were comparable for disease and transplant related characteristics except the more frequent use of ATG or Campath in FluBu group (39% vs. 31%). The median age was 67 in both groups, and 26% and 19% of FluBu and FluMel groups were aged ³70, respectively. Hematopoietic comorbidity index (HCT-CI) was ³3 in 61% and 59% of FluBu and FluMel groups and MDS risk score by CIBMTR at HCT was high/very high in 34% in both groups. FluMel was associated with a reduced relapse incidence (RI) after HSCT compared with FluBu as presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Adjusted RI at 1-year was 43% with FluBu and 25% with FluMel (p=<0.0001). On the other hand, transplant related mortality (TRM) was higher with FluMel compared with FluBu (27% vs. 15%, p=<0.0001). The difference persisted at 2- and 3-years after HSCT as presented in the figure. Since the magnitude of improvement in RI was greater with FluMel than the improvement in TRM with FluBu, disease-free survival (DFS) was improved at 1-year and beyond with FluMel compared with FluBu (48% vs. 41% at 1-year, p=0.030, and 38% vs 28% at 3-years, p=0.0030). These outcome differences remained significant when sensitivity analyses were performed excluding patients who received RIC with either BU 3.2 mg/kg or Mel 100 mg/m2. FluMel, did not lead to higher incidence of severe grade 3-4 aGvHD (HR=1.2, 95%CI, 0.9-1.6, p=0.3) or chronic GvHD (HR=0.9, 95%CI=0.7-1.06, p=0.2). However, grade 2-4 aGVHD was observed more often with FluMel than FluBu (HR=1.3, 95%CI, 1.1-1.6, p=0.006). This led to inferior outcomes of GRFS within the first 2 months with FluMel (HR=1.9, HR=1.4-2.6, p<0.001) but superior outcomes of GRFS beyond 2 months with FluMel compared with FluBu (HR=0.7, 95%CI=0.6-0.8, p<0.001). Conclusion: Our results suggest that between the two most commonly used RIC regimens in older MDS patients, FluMel was associated with superior DFS and overall survival compared with FluBu due to reduced RI despite higher TRM. Disclosures Oran: AROG pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astex pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nakamura:Kirin Kyowa: Other: support for an academic seminar in a university in Japan; Alexion: Other: support to a lecture at a Japan Society of Transfusion/Cellular Therapy meeting ; Celgene: Other: support for an academic seminar in a university in Japan; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scott:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Speakers Bureau. Popat:Jazz: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding.

Abstract Relapse of malignancy and lethal graft versus host disease (GVHD) are the principal causes of failure of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Recently we have shown that at seven days after HCT an algorithm using two serum biomarkers (ST2 and REG3α) can predict severe GVHD (Hartwell et al. JCI Insight 2017). We determined whether serial testing (in the first month following HCT) of patients with low probability biomarkers would improve the predictive accuracy of the algorithm and identify patients with different risks of relapse and lethal GVHD. Patients who received an HCT at 18 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) for hematologic malignancy and who supplied three blood samples were divided into a training set and validation set with equal numbers of lethal GVHD events, which was defined as death from GVHD or infection during treatment for GVHD. Patients in the training set (n=702) underwent HCT from January 1, 2006 until June 30, 2015, whereas patients in the validation set (n=906) underwent HCT from July 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017. Serum samples were analyzed using the previously published algorithm of two biomarkers up to three times (day 7, day 14, day 28 or GVHD onset, if onset occurred within the first 28 days). The algorithm generates a predicted probability of lethal GVHD between 0 and 1 for each patient. Patients were categorized as either low probability (LP) or high probability (HP) for lethal GVHD. HP thresholds of 0.20 and 0.16 were used to classify patients with and without GVHD symptoms, respectively (once categorized as HP, patients remained in that category and were not retested). All results were similar between training and validation sets, and we present here the validation set results. Serial testing identified 28% of patients as HP with a three-fold greater cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD at one year (13% vs 4%, p<0.001, Figure 1). Relapse rates were the same in both probability groups, and thus LP patients experienced significantly better relapse free survival (RFS) (69% vs 53%, p<0.001). As expected, significantly fewer LP patients experienced severe GVHD at onset (as measured by Minnesota risk), maximum grade III/IV GVHD, or steroid resistant GVHD by day 180 after HCT (Figure 2, p<0.001 for all three parameters). To measure the accuracy of prediction, at each timepoint we calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves; the AUC increased significantly with each subsequent evaluation, from 0.59 at one timepoint (dotted line) to 0.74 at the third timepoint (solid line) (p<0.001), with a final sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 74% (Figure 3A). Early development of GVHD (by day 28) is a risk factor for lethal GVHD. Therefore, we next plotted RFS (dashed line), relapse (solid line), and lethal GVHD (dotted line) rates in patients who developed GVHD by day 28. 25% of patients with GVHD were categorized as HP and had a cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD more than four times higher (28%) than that of relapse (6%); however the risks were reversed for the 75% of patients who were LP, where relapse (15%) occurred twice as often as lethal GVHD (7%) (Figure 3B). In patients who did not develop GVHD in the first month, this reversal of risks was even more dramatic. Approximately half (53%) of the entire validation cohort did not develop GVHD by day 28 and was LP at all three evaluations. These patients had an exceptionally low risk of lethal GVHD and thus they relapsed (25%) much more often than they died from GVHD (3%). When malignancies were classified according to risk for relapse by the disease risk index (DRI) (Figure 3C), the probability of relapse was three fold higher than lethal GVHD in malignancies with a low DRI (12%), six fold higher for intermediate DRI (20%), and eleven fold higher for high/very high DRI (33%). We conclude that a serial monitoring strategy using GVHD biomarkers for one month after HCT is able to identify two groups of patients with very different risks of lethal GVHD and relapse. For these patients, the intensity of immunosuppression after day 28 could be tailored according to the probabilities of developing lethal GVHD and relapse in the context of clinical trials. Disclosures Aziz: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Ayuk:Therakos (Mallinckrodt): Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Chen:REGiMMUNE: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Merli:Neovii Biotech: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria. Roesler:Sanofi: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Immunomedics: Equity Ownership; Biogen: Equity Ownership; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kitko:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mallinckrodt: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Qayed:Novartis: Consultancy. Wölfl:Bristol-myers Squibb: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Equity Ownership; Taheda: Equity Ownership; Juno: Equity Ownership; Neovii: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Mielke:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Speakers Bureau; EHA: Speakers Bureau; Kiadis Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Speakers Bureau. Wudhikarn:Takeda Oncology: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Nakamura:Celgene: Honoraria; Molmed: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Pulsipher:CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Levine:Therakos: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Research Funding; Viracor: Patents & Royalties. Ferrara:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Xenikos: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Kamada: Consultancy, Research Funding; Viracor: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties.