Devine, Steven M.

Abstract Abstract 680 Cytogenetics play an essential role in determining the prognosis of patients with AML. However, there is still no validated cytogenetics grouping scheme that specifically applies to patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which hampers accurate prognostication and risk stratification. We studied 821 adult patients (median age 41, range 18–74) who underwent SCT between 1999 and 2004 for AML (excluding APL) in CR1 or CR2 and who were reported to the CIBMTR from centers with >20 patients meeting study criteria. 75% of patients received a myeloablative conditioning. 496 patients had a normal karyotype. The primary cytogenetics reports were manually reviewed for 92% of the patients with an abnormal karyotype. We compared the ability of the 6 existing grouping schemes (MRC, CALGB, EORTC/GIMEMA, SWOG/ECOG, DFCI, and Monosomal Karyotype (MK) classifications) to stratify patients, using both the Akaike Information Criterion in multivariable models and the C-statistic. Among all existing schemes, the DFCI system provided a marginally superior stratification for overall and leukemia-free survival. We also built a new classification using individual cytogenetic abnormalities in a Cox model that included other significant covariates (performance status, therapy-related disease, conditioning intensity, graft source, donor match, duration of CR1, and gender match). This CIBMTR scheme (see Table), which is similar to the DFCI scheme except for the inclusion of patients with t(8;21) in the intermediate group, could stratify patients into 3 groups with similar treatment-related mortality but significantly different overall survival, leukemia-free survival, and incidence of relapse. This scheme appeared to apply to both patients in CR1 and in CR2 (see FiguresF2). This transplant-specific scheme could be adopted for prognostication purposes and to stratify patients with karyotypic abnormalities entering transplantation clinical trials. Future studies may clarify the relative outcome of patients with t(8;21) and refine this scheme with the inclusion of molecular abnormalities. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Potent inhibitors of BCR-ABL1have improved remission results and altered post-remission therapy for Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Dasatinib plus dexamethasone followed by hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) promises high response rates, reduced toxicity, and durable remissions. Methods: We conducted a Phase II trial at 17 U.S. centers with the primary objective being to estimate the 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival of patients with Ph+ ALL treated with dasatinib and dexamethasone for remission induction and intensification, central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis, consolidation with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, or etoposide and cytarabine, and dasatinib-based maintenance. Eligible patients had untreated Ph+ ALL, were ≥18 years old, and had normal cardiac function. Induction (Course I) used dasatinib 140 mg oral daily and dexamethasone 10 mg/m2/day oral or intravenous (IV) days 1-7. For patients with ≤20% blasts in the Course I, Day 15 bone marrow biopsy, intensification (course II) continued daily dasatinib with another 7 days of dexamethasone. Those with >20% lymphoblasts also received vincristine (VCR) and daunorubicin (DNR). Patients (n=3) not in CR/CRi after Course II received a second induction (Course III) with dasatinib, cyclophosphamide, VCR, DNR, and dexamethasone. After Course II or III, CNS prophylaxis (Course IV) consisted of IV VCR and IV, oral, and intrathecal methotrexate (MTX). Dasatinib was restarted at serum [MTX] <0.05 microM. Course V consisted of HCT or chemotherapy. Patients aged 18-70 years with an HLA-matched donor underwent RIC allogeneic HCT; otherwise they underwent autologous HCT. Allogeneic HCT conditioning used fludarabine 30 mg/m2/day IV day -7 through -3, alemtuzumab 20 mg/day IV day -7 through -3, and melphalan 140 mg/m2 once on day -2. GVHD prophylaxis with tacrolimus began day -2. Patients undergoing autologous HCT received etoposide 10 mg/kg/day (age >65 years, 5 mg/kg/day) continuous IV for 4 days and cytarabine 2 g/m2 (age >65 years, 1 g/m2) IV every 12 hours for 8 doses (EA) then G-CSF for mobilization. Autologous HCT conditioning used melphalan 100 mg/m2/day on days -2 and -1. Patients >70 years or unable to undergo HCT received EA alone. Dasatinib maintenance (Course VI) began on day 30 of Course V and continued for 12 months and until 2 consecutively negative bone marrow BCR-ABL1RT-PCR assays 3 months apart or until relapse. Dasatinib levels were measured on day 15 of induction. Results: Sixty-six patients enrolled from 12/15/2010 to 11/14/2014; 65 received dasatinib and are evaluable. Median age was 60 years (22-87); 49% were male. Median presenting WBC count was 23.1 x 103/ul (0.3-453.6). No deaths occurred during induction or intensification. CR or CRi occurred 31 patients (48%) by Day 15 of induction and in 62 patients overall (95%; CR 86%). Median dasatinib levels in serum and CSF on Day 15 of induction were 30.3 ng/mL (<3-308) and 0.29 ng/mL (<0.2-1.37), respectively suggesting approximately 1% of plasma dasatinib penetrates into the CSF, less than the unbound fraction (6%). Fifty-four patients started Course IV, 38 Course V, and 37 Course VI. Fourteen patients continue on protocol therapy. Of 38 patients receiving Course V, 22 had allogeneic HCT, 6 had autologous HCT, and 10 had EA chemotherapy. Median age of allogeneic HCT recipients was 61 years (31-69). Robust autologous stem cell mobilization was observed [median CD34+ cell count, 90 x 106/kg (31-166, n=6)]. Dasatinib maintenance was feasible after allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, and chemotherapy alone with no missed doses in 59%, 83%, and 63% of cycles, respectively. Ten patients have relapsed with one isolated CNS relapse. No relapses have occurred after allogeneic HCT with 3 relapses after autologous HCT and one after Course V EA alone. Median follow up for survivors is 22.8 months (longest, 51 months). There have been 23 deaths: 5 treatment-related (4 after allogeneic HCT, 1 after course V EA), 16 disease-related and 2 unrelated. Conclusions: Dasatinib with dexamethasone yields CR rates comparable to those reported with tyrosine kinase inhibitors combined with conventional chemotherapy. Post-remission therapy with reduced-intensity allogeneic HCT, autologous HCT, or chemotherapy followed by dasatinib maintenance is feasible. Survival follow up is maturing. Disclosures Stock: Sigma-Tau: Honoraria, Research Funding; Royalties for a chapter in Up to Date: Patents & Royalties; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria. Beumer:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Stone:Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy. Larson:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 230 The prognosis for patients (pts) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are aged 60 years or older at the time of initial diagnosis is poor. Even for pts achieving a first complete remission (CR1), prospects for long-term survival are poor due to the very high risk of relapse. Conventional myeloablative conditioning followed by allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation is associated with significantly less relapse compared with conventional chemotherapy when performed in younger pts with AML in CR1. However, the toxicity of this approach in older pts is prohibitive. A reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen may mitigate the risk of early toxicity and while early results in older AML pts have been encouraging and suggest disease free survival (DFS) rates above 30% at 3 yrs (Farag et al, Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2011), most data are retrospective and pts have not been treated uniformly. We therefore sought to determine the effectiveness of a uniform RIC regimen given to older pts with AML in CR1 on a prospective multi-center phase II trial conducted by the Alliance (formerly Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB)) and the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN). The study, activated in 2004, was initially limited to recipients of a matched related donor (MRD) graft but was amended in 2006 to include matched unrelated donor grafts (URD). The primary endpoint of the study was 2-year DFS. We hypothesized that DFS at 2-years would exceed 20% and powered the study to detect a 2-year DFS probability of 35% for URD recipients. We focused the primary analysis on URD recipients since the majority of older pts require an URD graft. Eligible pts were from 60–74 years old inclusive, had AML in CR1 following induction chemotherapy, availability of a 6/6 MRD or 8/8 URD, and absence of significant end-organ damage prior to transplantation. Adverse events (AE) were initially recorded according to NCI-CTCAE v3.0, amended to v4.0 in 10/2010. Accrual was completed in 12/2011. 132 pts were registered at 21 centers and 123 transplanted (MRD (47%); URD (53%). All donor grafts were mobilized and collected following G-CSF (PBSC). The median age of pts was 65 (range 60–74) and 76 pts (62%) were male. At diagnosis, 67% had an intermediate risk karyotype, 20% adverse risk, <1% favorable, and in 11% data were missing. More than 90% achieved CR following standard “7+3” based induction. CR1 was achieved after 1 (59%) or 2 (41%) induction cycles. Consolidation therapy was administered for one (50%) or two (24%) cycles and 17% received no consolidation with data missing in 9%. All but the initial 8 MRD recipients (who received fludarabine and busulfan alone) were conditioned with the same regimen containing fludarabine (30mg/m2/day × 5), busulfan (6.4mg/kg IV total dose), and antithymocyte globulin (ATG; thymoglobulin) (7.5mg/kg total dose). Only one case of primary graft failure was reported. With a median follow-up of 3.3 yrs, the results in the 123 transplanted pts are depicted below: Event Cumulative incidence at 100 days* or 2yrs† 95% CI Acute GVHD 2-4 9.4%* 4.1–15% Acute GVHD 3-4 3.4%* 1.2–6.7% Chronic GVHD 26%† 17–34% Relapse 47%† 37–57% Treatment related mortality (TRM) 14%† 7.2–21% Event Probability at 2 yrs 95% CI DFS 39% 30–50% DFS URD only 38% 26–55% Overall survival (all pts) 46% 36–57% The rates of both acute and chronic GVHD as well as TRM were relatively low. There were 81 grade 3–5 non-hematologic AE recorded, including 7 grade 5 (4 infections, 1 each cardiac, pulmonary, and second malignancy). Relapse was the most common cause of death. In conclusion, the results of this first prospective US cooperative group trial conducted in a homogeneously treated group of older AML patients in CR1 demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of RIC allografting using MRD or URD PBSC grafts. DFS appears better following a RIC allograft compared to results achieved historically after conventional therapies, warranting prospective comparison in pts with contemporary cytogenetic and molecular disease characterization. Future research should also focus on preventing disease relapse after RIC allografting in this population. Disclosures: Devine: Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Antithymocyte globulin for GVHD prophylaxis is included in the abstract. Vij:Millennium: Speakers Bureau. Shea:Otsuka: Research Funding.

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the primary cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, does not always respond to treatment with high dose systemic corticosteroids. We have recently shown that a combination of three biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) measured at onset of GVHD can predict day 28 response to treatment and 6-month NRM (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to determine if the same biomarker-based Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm can alsopredict treatment response andmortality whenapplied after one week of systemic corticosteroid treatment. The study population consisted of 378 patients (pts) with acute GVHD from 11 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. All pts were treated with systemic steroids and provided a plasma or serum sample obtained after one week of treatment (±3 days). The median starting dose of systemic steroids for Grade II-IV GVHD was 2.0 mg/kg/day and for Grade I was 1.0 mg/kg/day, after which treatment varied. Patients were divided into test (n=236) and validation (n=142) cohorts. We applied the Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm to concentrations of TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α measured after one week of treatment to generate a predicted probability of 6-month NRM, which we term the treatment score (TS). We employed unsupervised k-medoidclustering to partition TS values from the test cohort into two groups (high and low). This unbiased approach identified a high score group made up of 25% of pts (n=58) in the test cohort. We observed that the day 28 response rate (complete, CR + partial, PR) was significantly lower in pts with high scores compared to low scores in the test cohort (24% vs 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1A). Analysis of the validation cohort using the same TS definitions showed similar differences in response rates (22% vs 61%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1B). Further, nearly four times as many pts with high scores in both cohorts died within 6 months from non-relapse causes compared to pts with low scores (test: 57% vs 17%, p<0.0001; validation: 57% vs 14%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1C/D). As expected, the majority of non-relapse deaths in pts treated for GVHD were directly attributable to GVHD (test: 95%; validation: 89%). Relapse rates for high and low score pts were similar (data not shown), and thus pts with a high TS experienced significantly worse overall survival in both cohorts (test: 37% vs 72%, p<0.0001; validation: 38% vs 79%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1E/F). Approximately half of the pts in each cohort (test: 48%; validation: 44%) responded (CR+PR) to the first week of steroids and these ptshad significantly lower 6-month NRM than non-responders (NR) (test: 17% vs 36%, p=0.0002; validation: 13% vs 36%, p=0.0014). Yet the TS continued to stratify mortality risk independently of clinical response. In the test cohort, pts with a high score comprised 16% of all early responders and experienced more than twice the NRM of early responders with a low score (33% vs 13%, p=0.022) (Fig 2A). Conversely, test cohort pts who did not respond by day 7, but had a low score, fared much better than non-responders with a high score (NRM 21% vs 68%, p<0.0001) (Fig 2B). Two thirds of early non-responders comprised this more favorable group. These highly significant results reproduced in the independent validation cohort in similar proportions (CR+PR: 45% vs 6%, p=0.0003; NR: 61% vs 22%, p=0.0001) (Fig 2C/D). Finally, a subset analysis revealed that pts classified as NR after one week of steroids due to isolated, yet persistent, grade I skin GVHD (24/378, 6%) overwhelmingly had low treatment scores (22/24, 92%) and experienced rates of NRM (9%) comparable to responders with low scores, thus forming a distinct, albeit small, subset of pts with non-responsive GVHD that fares particularly well (Fig 3). In conclusion, a treatment score based on three GVHD biomarkers measured after one week of steroids stratifies pts into two groups with distinct risks for treatment failure and 6-month NRM. It is particularly noteworthy that the TS identifies two subsets of pts with steroid refractory (SR) GVHD who have highly different outcomes (Fig 2B/D). The much larger group, approximately two thirds of all SR pts, may not need the same degree of treatment escalation as is traditional for clinical non-response, and thus overtreatment might be avoided. Because the TSis measured at a common decision making time point, it may prove useful to guide risk-adapted therapy. Disclosures Mielke: Novartis: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel grants; JAZZ Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent.

Abstract No laboratory test can predict non-relapse mortality (NRM) after hematopoietic cellular transplantation (HCT) prior to the onset graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Recently, we have shown that a signature of three GVHD plasma biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) can predict response to GVHD therapy and NRM at the onset of clinical GVHD (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to identify a blood biomarker signature that could predict lethal GVHD and six-month NRM well in advance of the onset of GVHD symptoms. Patient samples on day +7 after HCT were obtained from 1,287 patients from 11 HCT centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Samples from two large centers (n = 929) were combined and randomly assigned to a training set (n = 620) and test set (n = 309). 358 patients from nine others centers constituted an independent validation set. The overall cumulative incidences of 6-month NRM were 11%, 12%, and 13% for the training, test, and validation sets respectively. The incidence of lethal GVHD, defined as death without preceding relapse while under steroid treatment for acute GVHD, were 18%, 24%, and 14% in the same groups, respectively. The median day of GVHD onset was 28 days in the training set and 29 days in the test and validation sets. We measured four GVHD related biomarkers [ST2, REG3α, TNFR1, and IL2Rα] in all samples and used the training set alone to develop competing risks regression models that used all 13 possible combinations of one to four biomarkers to predict 6-month NRM. The best algorithm, which we rigorously confirmed through Monte Carlo cross-validation of 75 different combinations of training sets, included ST2 and REG3α. No combination of one, three, or four biomarkers was superior to the combination of these two biomarkers. The day 7 algorithm identified high risk (HR) and low risk (LR) groups with 6-month NRMs of 28% and 7%, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig 1A). The relapse rates did not differ between risk groups so that overall survival (OS) was 60% for HR and 84% for LR (p<0.001) (Fig 1B). When applied to the test set (Fig 1C/D), the algorithm identified 54/309 (17%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 33% vs 7% for LR patients (p<0.001) and 6-month OS of 57% and 81% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). In the independent validation set (Fig 1 E/F), the algorithm identified 72/358 (20%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 26% vs 10% for LR patients (p<0.001) and OS of 68% and 85% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). High risk patients were three times more likely to die from GVHD than LR patients in each cohort (p<0.001) (Fig 2). The GI tract is the GVHD target organ that is most resistant to treatment and represents a major cause of NRM, and we observed twice as much severe GI GVHD (stage 3 or 4) in HR patients as in LR patients (p<0.001, data not shown). The algorithm successfully separated HR and LR strata for 6 month NRM in several groups with differing risks for GVHD and NRM, including donor type, degree. of HLA-match, age group, and conditioning regimen intensity (Fig 3). In conclusion, we have developed a blood biomarker algorithm that predicts the development of lethal GVHD seven days after HCT, which performed successfully in large multicenter validation sets. The GVH reaction is already in progress by day +7, even though clinical symptoms may not occur until days or weeks later. We speculate that the blood biomarker concentrations at this early time point reflect subclinical GI pathology, a notion that is reinforced by the fact that ST2 and REG3α, the two biomarkers in the algorithm, are closely associated with GI GVHD. The algorithm identified HR and LR strata in several patient groups with different overall risk for lethal GVHD (donor, HLA match, conditioning regimen intensity, age). This day +7 algorithm should prove useful in clinical BMT research by identifying patients at high risk for lethal GVHD who might benefit from aggressive preemptive treatment strategies. Disclosures Chen: Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent.

Abstract The optimal source of donor hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) is controversial. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized peripheral blood (G-PB) has replaced bone marrow (BM) as the most common allograft source in adults but is associated with donor morbidity and higher rates of chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) compared to BM. The CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor (Px) mobilizes HSC into the PB (Px-PB) faster than G-CSF and preliminary data suggest both quantitative and qualitative differences in allograft content that may impact clinical outcomes. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of transplanted allografts collected following mobilization with Px alone in HLA-identical sibling transplantation. This was a Phase II, two-strata, multi-center prospective trial (NCT01696461) to evaluate Px-PB allografts prior to reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) and myeloablative conditioning (MAC) based hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Patients aged 18-65 years with an HLA-ID sibling donor and a hematological malignancy suitable for HCT were eligible. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of donors whose cells could be successfully mobilized and collected with a sufficient CD34+ cell dose using Px as the sole mobilizing agent. Px mobilization was considered successful if ≥ 2.0x10^6 CD34+ cells/kg recipient weight were collected in no more than two leukapheresis (LP) collections. All donors receiving Px were included in the analysis of the primary objective based on the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary objectives included the incidence of acute and chronic adverse events in donors, rates of hematopoietic engraftment, donor chimerism, rates of acute and chronic GVHD, non-relapse mortality (NRM), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the recipients. From July 2013 to December 2014, 64 donor/recipient pairs were enrolled at 12 centers. Donors received Px at 240μg/kg subcutaneously 4 hours prior to LP. LP was performed processing at least 4X blood volume for up to two consecutive days (a third day was allowed for low CD34+ cell yields after 2 LP procedures) to achieve a target CD34+ cell dose of ≥ 4.0 x 10^6/kg recipient weight with a minimum goal of ≥ 2.0 x 10^6/kg. All allografts were cryopreserved. GVHD prophylaxis included cyclosporine or tacrolimus in combination with methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, or sirolimus. G-CSF was given routinely post HCT only to MAC recipients. Patient demographics are provided in Table 1. The median donor age was 56 years (18-65). 64% of the donors were male. Donors underwent one (23%), two (72%), or three (5%) LP procedures. 63 of 64 (98%) donors achieved the primary objective. The median total CD34+ cell dose/kg recipient weight collected within 2 days was 4.6 (0.9-9.6). Maximal donor toxicity following Px injection and LP was grades 0 (30%), 1 (52%), 2 (17%), and 3 (2%). Bloating, flatulence, abdominal pain, headache, paresthesisas, injection site reaction, and dizziness were the most commonly observed toxicities. Bone pain was not observed. The one grade 3 toxicity was a vasovagal episode felt related to LP and unlikely to Px. Toxicities typically resolved within a week of LP. The median follow up is 6.3 months. Median days to ANC (>0.5 x10^9/L) and Platelet count (>20 x 10^9/L) recovery were 13.5 (10-148) and 19 (1-76) after MAC and 14.5 (0-25) and 18 (0-141) after RIC, respectively. The cumulative incidence of acute GVHD grades 2-4 and 3-4 at day 100 were 47% (95% CI: 30-64) and 9% (95% CI: 2-22) after MAC and 19% (95% CI: 6-38) and 5% (95% CI: 0-18) after RIC. Probability of NRM at day 100 was 4% (95% CI: 0-13) and 0% after MAC and RIC, respectively. The probability of OS at day 100 was 97% (95% CI: 88-100) and 90% (95% CI: 78-98) after MAC and RIC, respectively. In conclusion, this is the first multi-center trial to demonstrate that as an alternative to G-CSF, Plerixafor rapidly, safely, and effectively mobilizes sufficient numbers of CD34+ cells from HLA-ID sibling donors for HCT following both RIC and MAC regimens. Engraftment was generally prompt and early results of secondary endpoints in recipients are encouraging. Longer follow-up and more extensive analysis of donor allografts and recipient outcomes will be presented at the time of the meeting. Research support was provided in part by Genzyme, a Sanofi Company. Table 1. Characteristics of recipients Table 1. Characteristics of recipients Disclosures Chen: Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Devine:Genzyme: Research Funding.

Abstract Clinical GVHD staging varies between centers and is not agreed upon by independent reviewers (Weisdorf, BBMT 2003). These inconsistencies help explain why promising GVHD treatments from single center studies have not reproduced in multicenter trials. To address this issue, our international GVHD research consortium has developed guidance that has been refined through consensus following case discussions, resulting in uniform and reproducible GVHD clinical symptom reporting. We record all raw target organ symptom data and apply staging based upon this data (Table 1). Only areas of erythema, bullae and desquamation are quantified because other skin changes are not typical of active GVHD rash. Upper GI symptoms must meet thresholds to diagnose GVHD: anorexia with associated weight loss, nausea and/or 2+ vomiting episodes/day lasting 3+ days. For lower GI GVHD we collect stool volumes excluding formed/mostly-formed stools. Unquantified episodes are counted at 200 ml per episode (3 ml/kg for children <50kg) based upon a chart review of 300 patients with post-BMT diarrhea from any cause. Non-GVHD rectal bleeding that results in flecks or streaks of blood in the stool are ignored for staging. We use the highest daily stool output in the 3 days prior to the diagnosis of lower GI GVHD to determine onset stage and, when available, a 3-day average stool volume for subsequent staging to smooth daily variability. We classify biopsy report interpretation into four standardized categories: Positive (unequivocal presence of GVHD), Equivocal (findings suggestive of GVHD, but the pathologist cannot confirm the diagnosis), Non-diagnostic (no abnormalities or subtle findings insufficient to determine etiology), and Non-GVHD etiology (definitive evidence of another diagnosis without concomitant features suggestive of GVHD). We then combine the biopsy interpretation with clinical decision making to assign an overall confidence level to the diagnosis of GVHD in each target organ (Table 2): Confirmed (positive biopsy, regardless of clinician treatment decision), Probable (GVHD diagnosis is sufficiently favored that treatment is given without a positive biopsy), Possible (symptoms present without a positive biopsy; not treated as GVHD), Negative (no symptoms or symptoms are present but a GVHD diagnosis is not entertained and a non-GVHD etiology is identified). Uniform clinical data collection is essential for future GVHD trials and requires application of clear guidance. While still subject to refinement, these guidelines, in use for 2 years by an international research consortium, are designed to be clear, easy to apply, and for clinical trial use. Table 1. GVHD Target Organ Staging Stage Skin (active erythema only) Liver (bilirubin) Upper GI Lower GI (stool output/day) 0 No active (erythematous) GVHD rash < 2 mg/dl No or intermittent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: < 500 ml/day or <3 episodes/day Child: < 10 ml/kg/day or <4 episodes/day 1 Rash < 25% BSA 2-3 mg/dl Persistent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: 500-999 ml/day or 3-4 episodes/day Child: 10 -19.9 ml/kg/day or 4-6 episodes/day 2 Rash 25 - 50% BSA 3.1-6 mg/dl - Adult: 1000-1500 ml/day or 5-7 episodes/day Child: 20 - 30 ml/kg/day or 7-10 episodes/day 3 Rash > 50% BSA 6.1-15 mg/dl - Adult: >1500 ml/day or >7 episodes/day Child: > 30 ml/kg/day or >10 episodes/day 4 Generalized rash (>50% BSA) and bullous formation or desquamation > 5% BSA >15 mg/dl - Severe abdominal pain with or without ileus, or grossly bloody stool (volume independent) Table 2. Confidence Levels Pathologic evidence Clinician assessment Treatment for acute GVHD Comments Confirmed Unequivocal evidence of GVHD GVHD is the etiology for symptoms Not required GVHD is clearly present even if other etiologies co-exist simultaneously Probable Not required (includes equivocal and non-diagnostic biopsies) GVHD most likely etiology for symptoms Yes GVHD is most likely present but other etiologies may also explain the symptoms and there insufficient evidence to make a confirmed diagnosis Possible GVHD in differential diagnosis (but no treatment is being provided) No GVHD may be present, but other etiologies are favored Negative Unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD (e.g., drug rash) GVHD is not considered as an explanation for the symptoms No and the symptoms resolve without GVHD treatment A "negative" biopsy (e.g., normal skin) is not unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD Disclosures Devine: Genzyme: Research Funding. Chen:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Purpose: To develop a prognostic model and cytogenetic risk classification for previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) undergoing reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Experimental Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes of 606 patients with CLL who underwent RIC allogeneic HCT between 2008 and 2014 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Results: On the basis of multivariable models, disease status, comorbidity index, lymphocyte count, and white blood cell count at HCT were selected for the development of prognostic model. Using the prognostic score, we stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk [4-year progression-free survival (PFS) 58%, 42%, 33%, and 25%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001; 4-year overall survival (OS) 70%, 57%, 54%, and 38%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001]. We also evaluated karyotypic abnormalities together with del(17p) and found that del(17p) or ≥5 abnormalities showed inferior PFS. Using a multivariable model, we classified cytogenetic risk into low, intermediate, and high (P &lt; 0.0001). When the prognostic score and cytogenetic risk were combined, patients with low prognostic score and low cytogenetic risk had prolonged PFS (61% at 4 years) and OS (75% at 4 years). Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with previously treated CLL who underwent RIC HCT, we developed a robust prognostic scoring system of HCT outcomes and a novel cytogenetic-based risk stratification system. These prognostic models can be used for counseling patients, comparing data across studies, and providing a benchmark for future interventions. For future study, we will further validate these models for patients receiving targeted therapies prior to HCT.

Abstract Plerixafor, a direct antagonist of CXCR4/stromal-derived factor 1, can safely and rapidly mobilize allografts without the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). We conducted a phase 2, multicenter, prospective study of plerixafor-mobilized HLA-identical sibling allografts for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in recipients with hematological malignancies. Donors (n = 64) were treated with subcutaneous plerixafor (240 µg/kg) and started leukapheresis (LP) 4 hours later. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of donors who were successfully mobilized: defined as collection of ≥2.0 × 106 CD34+ cells per kilogram recipient weight in ≤2 LP sessions. Recipients subsequently received reduced intensity (RIC; n = 33) or myeloablative (MAC; n = 30) conditioning. Sixty-three of 64 (98%) donors achieved the primary objective. The median CD34+ cell dose per kilogram recipient weight collected within 2 days was 4.7 (0.9-9.6). Plerixafor was well tolerated with only grade 1 or 2 drug-related adverse events noted. Bone pain was not observed. Plerixafor-mobilized grafts engrafted promptly. One-year progression-free and overall survivals were 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36% to 71%) and 63% (95% CI, 46% to 79%) for MAC and 64% (95% CI, 47% to 79%) and 70% (95% CI, 53% to 84%) for RIC recipients, respectively. Donor toxicity was reduced relative to G-CSF mobilized related donors. This is the first multicenter trial to demonstrate that, as an alternative to G-CSF, plerixafor rapidly and safely mobilizes sufficient numbers of CD34+ cells from matched sibling donors for HCT. Engraftment was prompt, and outcomes in recipients were encouraging. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01696461.

BACKGROUND. No laboratory test can predict the risk of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) or severe graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after hematopoietic cellular transplantation (HCT) prior to the onset of GVHD symptoms. METHODS. Patient blood samples on day 7 after HCT were obtained from a multicenter set of 1,287 patients, and 620 samples were assigned to a training set. We measured the concentrations of 4 GVHD biomarkers (ST2, REG3α, TNFR1, and IL-2Rα) and used them to model 6-month NRM using rigorous cross-validation strategies to identify the best algorithm that defined 2 distinct risk groups. We then applied the final algorithm in an independent test set ( n = 309) and validation set ( n = 358). RESULTS. A 2-biomarker model using ST2 and REG3α concentrations identified patients with a cumulative incidence of 6-month NRM of 28% in the high-risk group and 7% in the low-risk group ( P < 0.001). The algorithm performed equally well in the test set (33% vs. 7%, P < 0.001) and the multicenter validation set (26% vs. 10%, P < 0.001). Sixteen percent, 17%, and 20% of patients were at high risk in the training, test, and validation sets, respectively. GVHD-related mortality was greater in high-risk patients (18% vs. 4%, P < 0.001), as was severe gastrointestinal GVHD (17% vs. 8%, P < 0.001). The same algorithm can be successfully adapted to define 3 distinct risk groups at GVHD onset. CONCLUSION. A biomarker algorithm based on a blood sample taken 7 days after HCT can consistently identify a group of patients at high risk for lethal GVHD and NRM. FUNDING. The National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.