Yakoub‐Agha, Ibrahim

8503 Background: Outcomes are poor in triple-class exposed RRMM patients (pts) who progress on immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and CD38 antibodies (mAbs). Ide-cel, a BCMA targeted CAR T cell therapy, showed promising tolerability and efficacy in RRMM pts in the phase I CRB-401 study ( NEJM2019;380:1726). We present primary efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase II KarMMa trial of ide-cel in RRMM (NCT03361748). Methods: Enrolled pts had ≥3 prior regimens (including IMiD, PI, and CD38 mAb) and were refractory to their last regimen per IMWG criteria. After lymphodepletion (cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2+ fludarabine 30 mg/m2 x 3), pts received 150─450 × 106 CAR+ T cells (target dose range). Endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; primary), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), and PFS. Results: Of 140 pts enrolled, 128 received ide-cel. Median age was 61 y; median no. of prior regimens was 6; 84% were triple- and 26% were penta-refractory. Most pts (88%) had bridging therapy. At data cutoff (16 Oct 2019), median follow up was 11.3 mo. ORR was 73% and median PFS was 8.6 mo; both increased with higher dose (Table). All subgroups had an ORR ≥50%, including older and high-risk pts. Most common any-grade (Gr) toxicities were cytopenias (97%) and cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 84%). CRS was mainly Gr 1/2; 5 pts (5%) had Gr 3, 1 had Gr 4, and 1 had Gr 5 (at 300 × 106). Neurotoxicity developed in 23 pts (18%); 4 (3%) Gr 3 and 0 Gr ≥4. Median peak CAR+ T cell expansion occurred at 11 d. Expansion was higher in responders and parameters (AUC0−28d, Cmax) increased with higher dose, with exposure overlap across doses. Persistence was durable, with CAR+ T cells detected in 29/49 (59%) and 4/11 pts (36%) at 6 and 12 mo. Conclusions: Ide-cel demonstrated deep, durable responses in heavily pretreated RRMM pts. Efficacy and safety reflected prior reports and support a favorable ide-cel clinical benefit-risk profile across the target dose range. Clinical trial information: NCT03361748 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSETo compare the outcomes of patients with Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma undergoing nonmyeloablative haploidentical or unrelated cord blood (UCB) hematopoietic cell transplantation.PATIENTS AND METHODSWe retrospectively studied 740 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 283, 38%) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 457, 62%) age 18-75 years who received transplantations from 2009 to 2016. Data were reported to the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Eurocord, or Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Of the 526 patients who received haploidentical transplantation, 68% received bone marrow and 32% received peripheral blood. All patients received a uniform transplantation conditioning regimen (2 Gy of total-body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine) and graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis (calcineurin inhibitor and mycophenolate). In addition, patients who received a haploidentical transplantation received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide.RESULTSCompared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantations and adjusted for age, lymphoma subtype, and disease status, survival was lower after UCB transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; P = .001; and HR, 1.59; P = .005, respectively). Similarly, progression-free survival was lower after UCB transplantations compared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantations (HR, 1.44; P = .002; and HR, 1.86; P < .0001), respectively. The 4-year overall and progression-free survival rates after UCB transplantation were 49% and 36%, respectively, compared with 58% and 46% after haploidentical bone marrow transplantation and 59% and 52% after peripheral-blood transplantation, respectively. Lower survival was attributed to higher transplantation-related mortality after UCB transplantation compared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantation (HR, 1.91; P = .0001; and HR, 2.27; P = .0002, respectively).CONCLUSIONWhen considering HLA-mismatched transplantation for Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the data support haploidentical related donor transplantation over UCB transplantation.

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.

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.