Pullarkat, Vinod

Introduction In October 2021, brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) received U.S. FDA approval as the first CAR T-cell therapy for adults with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) based on the 55-patient ZUMA-3 Phase II study. We subsequently established ROCCA and now report on the largest cohort of patients treated with commercial brexu-cel for r/r B-ALL to date. Methods Adults (18+) with r/r B-ALL infused with commercial brexu-cel across 25 U.S. institutions were included. ASTCT consensus criteria were used to score CRS and ICANS. Methodologies for assessing MRD (minimal threshold of 10 -4) included flow cytometry, NGS, or qPCR depending on institution practice. Duration of remission (DOR) was calculated from time of complete response (CR); progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from day of brexu-cel infusion and were not censored for hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) or maintenance. All living patients were censored at the time of last follow-up prior to data lock, which occurred on June 30, 2023. Results Among 152 infused, the median age was 46 (range, 18-81), 57% were male, and 34% were Hispanic. Most (67%) had Ph- ALL, were heavily pre-treated (median 4 prior lines), and entered apheresis with high disease burden (57%). At time of apheresis, 23% of patients only had MRD+ disease and 15% were in complete molecular remission. While 82% developed CRS, the majority was grade 1-2, with 9% of the overall cohort experiencing grade 3-4 CRS. In contrast, 55% developed ICANS, with 32% of the entire cohort experiencing grade 3-4 ICANS. Eight patients (5%) died of toxicity/infection prior to D+28 response assessment. Among 133 patients with response assessment, 120 (90%) achieved morphologic CR, of whom 82% were MRD-, 15% were MRD+, and 3% MRD unknown. The median follow-up for survivors was 8.4 months; 45 patients have relapsed and 42 patients died. Median DOR was not reached. Median PFS and OS were 8.6 months and 15.6 months, respectively. Estimated PFS and OS of the entire cohort at 6-months were 61% (95% CI, 52-68) and 81% (95% CI, 73-87) and at 12-months were 47% (95% CI, 37-56) and 63% (95% CI, 53-72), respectively. We found no association between pre-CAR disease burden and post-CAR PFS/OS. However, patients with MRD- response to CAR had superior PFS relative to patients with MRD+ CR (median 14 months vs. 5 months, P=0.002). Forty-four patients received post-CAR consolidation/maintenance therapy while in CR: 25 allogeneic HCT, 15 TKI, 2 POMP, and 3 other/unknown. To examine the effect of consolidation/maintenance following brexu-cel, we performed a landmark analysis of PFS limited to patients alive and in CR at 2-months post-CAR infusion (N=113) and suggests superior PFS in patients receiving either HCT or other forms maintenance, relative to those receiving no further therapy following brexu-cel ( P=0.055). We then investigated post-CAR MRD-response in combination with receipt of post-CAR consolidation/maintenance and found that even among patients achieving MRD-negative response, post-CAR consolidation/maintenance led to superior PFS (Figure 1). Conclusions Among 152 adults treated with commercial brexu-cel for r/r B-ALL across 25 U.S. institutions, we found very high response rates (CR/CRi: 90%; 82% MRD-) consistent with the Zuma-3 data. While rates of severe CRS are low, grade 3-4 ICANS was observed in 32% of patients and warrants further investigation We demonstrate the prognostic impact of achieving an MRD-negative CR and an emerging role for consolidation/maintenance therapies to enhance the durability of response following brexu-cel in adults r/r B-ALL.

Background: Ph-like ALL is a high-risk subset of B-lineage ALL that responds poorly to standard chemotherapy regimens. While allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is routinely recommended for patients with Ph-like ALL, large multicenter data addressing its role is limited. Here, we conducted a multicenter study to evaluate the role of HCT in adolescent and young adult (AYA) and adult patients (pts) with Ph-like ALL and compare their outcomes to pts with Ph-pos and Ph-neg (non-Ph-like) ALL. Methods: The study included pts (age ≥18) with B-lineage ALL who received HCT in first complete remission (CR1) at 3 academic centers (MD Anderson Cancer Center, City of Hope and Mayo Clinic) between 2006 and 2021. Pts were divided into 3 main subgroups: Ph-like, Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL. Ph-like ALL cases were identified using cumulative data obtained by targeted RNA sequencing, conventional cytogenetics, FISH studies, whole genome chromosomal microarray and flow cytometry. Measurable residual disease (MRD) prior to HCT was measured using flow cytometry with a sensitivity of 0.01% for Ph-neg and Ph-like ALL, and with a PCR assay for BCR::ABL1 for Ph-pos ALL. MRD-negativity was defined as <0.01%. Predictors of relapse were evaluated in univariate and multivariate analysis using Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard models considering non-relapse mortality (NRM) as a competing risk. Results: 673 patients were identified, 83 (12.3%) had Ph-like ALL, of which 73% had CRLF2-alterations. The remaining patients were classified either as Ph-pos (N=271, 40.3%) or Ph-neg ALL (N=319, 47.4%). Patients with Ph-like ALL were younger (median age 40 years vs 48 and 46 years for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively, p=0.01), more likely to be of Hispanic ethnicity (69% vs 32% and 48% for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL respectively, p<0.001). Patients with Ph-like ALL were also more likely to have induction failure (24% vs 2% and 11% for Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively, p=0.001). A summary of pts characteristics for each subgroup can be found in Table 1. The median follow-up was 30, 52 and 48 months for patients with Ph-like, Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL, respectively. In univariate analysis, 3-yr OS and PFS did not differ significantly (66% and 59% vs 59% and 54%, p=0.1) between patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL, respectively. Similarly, the cumulative incidence of relapse was comparable between patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL (22% vs 20%, respectively, p=0.7). In contrast, the 3-yr OS (75%, p<0.001) and PFS (70%, p=0.001) were significantly higher and relapse rate significantly lower (12%, p=0.003) in pts with Ph-pos ALL compared with Ph-like or Ph-neg ALL (Figure 1). The inferior survival in patients with Ph-like and Ph-neg ALL was likely attributable to higher relapse rates (22% and 20% vs 12%, respectively, p=0.003) compared to Ph-pos ALL. Finally, the 3-yr NRM rate in patients with Ph-like ALL was comparable (20% vs 18% and 23%, respectively, p>0.1) to Ph-pos and Ph-neg ALL. We confirmed that the relapse rate in patients with Ph-like ALL was comparable to the rate in pts with Ph-neg ALL (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.6-1.8, p=0.9) on multivariate analysis (MVA). Ph-pos ALL was associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with Ph-neg ALL (HR=0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, p<0.001). MRD positivity prior to allo-HCT was the only additional significant predictor for relapse on MVA (HR=2.9, 95% CI 1.8-4.7, p<0.001). Conclusions: HCT appears to overcome the poor prognosis of patients with Ph-like ALL. Despite higher induction failure rates, patients with Ph-like ALL undergoing HCT in CR1 had similar outcomes to other Ph-neg ALL subsets. The impact of effective salvage therapy leading to MRD-negativity in CR1 in this group is under investigation and will be reported. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of different Ph-like alterations on HCT outcomes. Outcomes for patients with Ph-pos ALL are significantly better than other groups, likely due to the use of TKIs pre- and post-HCT.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). Blinatumomab is a CD19-directed bispecific T-cell engager that is also approved for r/r B-ALL, and often used as early salvage therapy. Data in the pediatric/AYA population suggest that patients who did not respond to blinatumomab may have inferior outcomes to CD19-directed CAR-T products compared to those who have achieved a response to blinatumomab or were blinatumomab-naïve (Myers et al. J Clin Oncol 2022). In this study, we evaluate the response to blinatumomab and subsequent response to brexu-cel in adults with r/r B-ALL. Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 25 centers across the U.S. as part of the real-world outcomes collaborative study of CAR-T in B-ALL (ROCCA). Consecutive patients treated with brexu-cel from 2021 to 2023 were categorized by blinatumomab exposure status. Those exposed were separated into “blinatumomab responders” (B-R), defined as patients achieving a CR/CRi in response to any number of cycles of blinatumomab, and “non-responders” (B-NR). Each cohort was compared for outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was CR/CRi rate at day 28 following brexu-cel administration. Secondary outcomes were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Survival outcomes were calculated from day of brexu-cel infusion and were not censored for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation or maintenance therapy. All living patients were censored at data cutoff on June 30, 2023. Survival comparisons were made by log rank test. Results: Among 152 patients who received brexu-cel, the median follow-up time was 8.4 months. Eighty-eight (57%) of 152 r/r B-ALL brexu-cel recipients had received blinatumomab prior to apheresis. The median number of pre-apheresis blinatumomab cycles was 2 (range 1-12). The baseline characteristics of B-R, B-NR, and blinatumomab-naïve (B-NV) patients were similar, including pre-apheresis disease burden and receipt of maintenance therapy following brexu-cel infusion (Table 1). Seventy percent (N= 62) of the blinatumomab-exposed patients were B-R, while 30% (N=26) were B-NR. Rates of CR/CRi at day 28 following brexu-cel infusion were similar between B-R, B-NR, and B-NV patients (79% vs 84% vs 78%, respectively). Most of these remissions were negative for measurable residual disease (MRD), with similar MRD negativity rates in the three groups (table 2). 1-year DOR and PFS were significantly higher in the B-NV group compared to B-R or B-NR (77% vs 49% vs 50%, p<.0001; 60% vs 37% vs 30%, p<.0001). B-NV and B-R had better 1-year survival compared to B-NR (71% vs 65% vs 32%, p<.0001). There were more CD19-negative relapses following brexu-cel in B-NR (29%) and B-R (18%) compared to B-NV patients (8%), although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Brexu-cel induced deep responses in a majority of adults with r/r B-ALL, irrespective of prior exposure or response to blinatumomab. Similar to data published by the pediatric CAR-T cell groups, our data draw speculation that adult patients who did not respond to blinatumomab experience shorter overall survival following brexu-cel compared to those who responded to or did not receive blinatumomab. This should be confirmed in a larger, prospective clinical trial. Because this analysis could not account for patients who achieved durable remission after blinatumomab, these differences may not reflect superiority of sequencing brexu-cel before blinatumomab. The higher number of CD19-negative relapses in the blinatumomab-exposed cohort add to the interest in pursuing strategies to address antigen escape following CAR-T cell therapy directed against a previously targeted antigen.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). Bridging therapy, defined as anti-leukemia therapy given between apheresis and lymphodepleting chemotherapy, was permitted on the pivotal ZUMA-3 trial. The optimal bridging therapy is unknown in this setting. Here we report patient and disease characteristics in those receiving bridging therapies prior to brexu-cel and the impact of bridging on clinical outcomes in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results: ROCCA includes 25 US institutions contributing retrospective data from 152 B-ALL patients treated with standard of care brexu-cel between 2021-2023. Ninety-nine patients (65%) received bridging therapy, while 53 patients (35%) received no bridging therapy. Bridging therapy consisted of cytotoxic chemotherapy ( n=65, 66%), immunotherapy ( n=26, 26%; 23 inotuzumab, 3 blinatumomab), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) ( n=20, 20%; 16 ponatinib), steroids only ( n=10, 10%), and intrathecal chemotherapy ( n=22, 22%). The median age of the cohort was 46 (IQR 32-61). Patients were heavily pre-treated with a median of 4 prior lines of therapy. The median days from apheresis to infusion was 33 (IQR 26-42). 119 patients had known pre-apheresis blast counts; the bridging group had higher pre-apheresis blast burden, with 21 of 76 patients (28%) having ≥ 50% blasts compared to only 5 of 43 patients (12%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.02). In addition, more patients who received bridging had pre-apheresis extramedullary disease (32% vs. 15%, p=0.02). All other baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups (Table 1). Fifty-four (54%) patients had response assessment after bridging therapy and prior to brexu-cel infusion. In patients who received inotuzumab for pre-apheresis active disease, defined as ≥ 5% blasts, 6 of 13 (46%) who had post-bridging assessment achieved a complete response (CR; 5 measurable residual disease (MRD)+, 1 MRD-), with a mean proportional reduction in blast burden of 46% from baseline. In contrast, after chemotherapy bridging, only 2 of 16 patients (13%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Patients receiving chemotherapy bridging had a mean proportional increase in blast burden of 4.4%. In recipients of TKI bridging, 2 of 4 patients (50%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Compared to no bridging, patients in the bridging group had similar rates of grade 3 or 4 CRS (9% bridging vs. 8% no bridging, p=0.73) and grade 3 or 4 ICANS (34% vs. 26%, p=0.32). In univariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in day 28 response with 63 patients (72%) achieving MRD- complete response in the bridging group as compared to 36 patients (78%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.60). Non-relapse mortality was similar between the two groups (17% bridging vs. 9% no bridging, p=0.20). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were superior in the no bridging group: 1-year OS 74.7% vs 56.8% (log-rank p=0.04), and 1-year PFS 57.3% vs 41.7% (log-rank p=0.04). In a multivariate analysis stratified by bridging and pre-apheresis disease burden, patients with pre-apheresis blasts ≥ 5% and bridging had worse survival than ≥ 5% blasts and no bridging: 1-year OS 45.3% vs. 87.5% and 1-year PFS 27.7% vs. 64.3% (Figure 1). However, patients with < 5% blasts had similar survival regardless of bridging. Conclusions: In our real-world analysis, adults with R/R B-ALL receiving bridging therapy had a higher disease burden at baseline. Despite greater baseline disease, there were no significant differences in toxicity and day 28 response in those receiving bridging therapy vs. not. While survival was inferior in patients with pre-apheresis active disease who received bridging, this may be confounded by the degree of tumor burden. In patients with < 5% blasts pre-apheresis, bridging did not impact survival. Furthermore, inotuzumab bridging demonstrated the most significant disease debulking. However, the comparisons in this study are limited by the variability in practice for post-bridging disease reassessment and the small proportion of patients with active disease who did not receive bridging. A more uniform approach to peri-CAR disease assessment would enable more robust study of optimal bridging strategies.

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).

Abstract Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a rare hematologic neoplasm characterized by abnormal growth and accumulation of tissue mast cells (MC) in various organ systems, including bone marrow (BM). Indolent and advanced forms of SM have been described. Whereas patients with ISM have a normal or near normal life-expectancy, patients with advanced SM, including those suffering from mast cell leukemia (MCL) have a poor prognosis. In these patients, neoplastic MC are usually resistant against conventional drugs and various targeted drugs. In rapidly progressive aggressive SM (ASM) and MCL, polychemotherapy followed by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) has been proposed. However, outcome of alloHCT in advanced SM is unknown, and it also remains uncertain whether clinically relevant graft-versus-SM (GVSM) effects may occur in these patients, as only sporadic case reports have been published. We performed a retrospective multi-center analysis to evaluate the outcome of alloHCT in patients with advanced SM. Fifty-four advanced SM patients receiving SCT in 32 transplantation centers in Europe and America were identified between 1990 and 2013. The median patient age was 45 years. Donors were: HLA identical siblings (31), unrelated donors (URD) (15), umbilical cord blood donors (UCB) (2), and haploidentical donors (1). In 5 patients, stem cell source was not defined (5). Thirty-four patients received myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and 18 received reduced intensity conditioning regimens (RIC). In 2 patients, conditioning regimen was not specified. Indications for alloHCT were SM with an associated clonal hematologic non-mast cell lineage disease (SM-AHNMD) (n=32), MCL (n=13, including one with MCL-AHNMD), 8 with ASM and 1 with myelomastocytic leukemia (MML). The most prevalent AHNMD was acute myeloid leukemia (AML, n=16). With follow-up of 35-6180 (median 365) days, SM responses (defined as ≥50% decrease in BM mast cells ± decrease in serum tryptase ± regression of other organ manifestations) were observed in 39 patients (72%), including complete responses (CR) documented in 12 patients (22%). Eleven patients had stable disease, whereas 4 patients (7%) progressed immediately after alloHCT (primary resistance). In addition, 10 patients progressed (5 of them within 100 days) after an initial response. Progression was most frequently seen in MCL patients (n=6, 50%). In the AHNMD group, only 8 patients relapsed/progressed (25%). The overall survival (OS) and SM progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 year were 63% and 50% for all patients, 77% and 68% for SM-AHNMD, 63% and 50% for ASM, and 25% and 17% for MCL, respectively. The strongest predictive variable associated with inferior survival was a diagnosis of MCL. Other factors associated with poor outcome were: Karnofsky performance status ≤70%, ≥2 SM regimens given before alloHCT (e.g., steroids, cladribine, chemotherapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitor), donor source (alternative donors-UCB and haploidentical compared to sibling or URD), SM progression within the first 100 days, normal cytogenetics (compared to t(8;21) (q22;q22), and RIC (compared to MAC). The following variables were not associated with poor outcome: patient and donor age, recipient-donor sex match status, graft source (BM vs. peripheral stem cells), BM mast cell percentage at time of alloHCT, and CR status of AML or SM response at time of alloHCT. This largest multi-center analysis of results in advanced SM provides evidence for clinical efficacy of alloHCT, presumably because of a GVSM effect of alloHCT (achieving CR, and response to donor-lymphocyte infusions and RIC alloHCT). However, responses varied among different SM categories: while patients with SM-AHNMD enjoyed excellent outcomes, the OS for MCL patients in general, was poor. Nevertheless it is remarkable that 3 of 13 patients with MCL – an otherwise fatal disease with a median survival of <12 months – became long-term survivors after alloHCT. In summary, our results support development of a prospective alloHCT study, with the aim to optimize therapy and to improve overall outcome in advanced SM. Based on our pilot study, alloHCT should also be considered in practice for eligible and fit patients with SM-AHNMD (if treatment of AHNMD component needs alloHCT or SM component is aggressive), rapidly progressing ASM, MCL and MML when a suitable HLA-matched sibling donor or URD is available. Disclosures: Vercellotti: Sangart Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Akin:Novartis: Consultancy. Valent:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Total body irradiation (TBI)-based conditioning regimens are considered the standard of care for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, due to concerns regarding acute and long-term toxicities, non-TBI regimens, commonly including busulfan (BU), have been increasingly explored. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with the hypothesis that there would be equivalence of these two myeloablative approaches by reviewing outcomes for adult patients (pts), aged 18-60 years, undergoing a first, well-matched sibling, related or unrelated donor HCT in CR1 or CR2 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) from 2005-2014. Eight hundred nineteen pts received TBI (63% 9-12 Gy, 37% ≥13 Gy) combined with etoposide (25%) or cyclophosphamide (Cy) (75%) and 299 pts received intravenous BU combined with a second alkylator Cy (15%) or melphalan (Mel) (13%), or a nucleoside analogue fludarabine (Flu) (41%) or clofarabine (Clo)(30%). The majority of the BU-based pts were treated at the Moffitt or MD Anderson Cancer Center. The BU-based regimens were grouped together for analyses since no significant differences in basic outcomes among the different chemotherapy-only regimens were noted. Patients in the BU-containing group were older but had better performance status, took longer to achieve CR1 and longer to receive HCT; more received peripheral blood than marrow grafts, peri-HCT ATG, pre- and post HCT tyrosine kinase inhibitors ( TKI), and were treated more recently than pts in the TBI-based group (Table 1). With median follow-up of 3.6 years for the BU-based group and 5.3 years for the TBI-based group, adjusted 3 year outcomes showed treatment-related mortality (TRM) BU 19% vs. TBI 25% (p=.04); relapse BU 37% vs. TBI 28% (p=.007); disease-free survival (DFS) Bu 45% vs. TBI 48% (p=.35); and overall survival (OS) BU 57% vs. TBI 53% (p=.35) (Figures A-B). Patients in the BU group had significantly more grade II-IV acute GVHD (47% vs. 40%, p=.025), but marginally less chronic GVHD (49% vs. 55% at 3 years, p=.073). In multivariate analysis, the BU group had a significantly higher rate of acute GVHD after day 50 (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.19-2.58, p=.004), but marginally less chronic GVHD (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.01 p=.059) and higher risk of relapse (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85 p=.002) compared with TBI-based regimens. Despite the observed higher risks of acute GVHD and relapse, BU-based conditioning led to similar TRM, OS, and DFS following HCT for ALL. Table 1 Table 1. Figure Figure. Disclosures Ciurea: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Cyto-Sen Therapeutics: Equity Ownership. Seftel:Otsuka: Research Funding. Pulsipher:Medac: Other: Housing support for conference; Chimerix: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Study Steering Committee. Champlin:Ziopharm Oncology: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Intrexon: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the prognosis of core‐binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is better than other subtypes of AML, 30% of patients still relapse and may require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, there is no validated widely accepted scoring system to predict patient subsets with higher risk of relapse.MethodsEleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21)(q22;q22).ResultsComplete remission (CR) rate was high (92.7%), yet relapse occurred in 27.1% of patients. A total of 24.7% of patients received alloHCT. The median disease‐free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were 20.8 and 31.2 months, respectively. Age, KIT D816V mutated (11.3%) or nontested (36.4%) compared with KIT D816V wild type (52.5%), high white blood cell counts (WBC), and pseudodiploidy compared with hyper‐ or hypodiploidy were included in a scoring system (named I‐CBFit). DFS rate at 2 years was 76% for patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score compared with 36% for those with a high‐risk I‐CBFit score (P < 0.0001). Low‐ vs high‐risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsI‐CBFit composed of readily available risk factors can be useful to tailor the therapy of patients, especially for whom alloHCT is not need in CR1 (ie, patients with a low‐risk I‐CBFit score).

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.