Bhatt, Vijaya Raj

Background: Allogeneic HCT continues to be the optimal consolidation strategy for many patients with AML. Cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities are known to influence post-transplant outcomes. We tested the prognostic ability of a modified (mELN) classification system based on available CIBMTR genetic data, to predict post-transplant outcomes. Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of AML in first complete remission (CR1) with available pre-transplant cytogenetic and molecular mutational data, receiving a first allogeneic HCT from 2013-2017, were included. Patients were stratified according to mELN genetic classification in three distinct groups: favorable (Fav), intermediate (IM) and adverse (Adv). Clinical outcomes following HCT were compared among groups after adjusting for significant patient, disease, and transplant-related variables. The primary endpoint was disease free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), cumulative incidence of relapse, acute GVHD, and chronic GVHD. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare endpoints among mELN risk groups, age groups and genetic subsets within the adverse-risk group. Results: Demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1. 2289 patients (Fav, n=181; IM n=1185; and Adv n=923) met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for survivors was 35 months. Importantly, 41% of transplant recipients (n=936) were >60 years, 76% (n=1743) had de novo AML and 48% (n=1111) received a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Univariate analysis (UVA) demonstrated significant differences in 2-year OS (Fav: 67.7%, IM: 64.9% and Adv: 53.9%; p<0.001); DFS (Fav: 57.8%, IM: 55.5% and Adv: 45.3; p<0.001) and relapse (Fav: 28%, IM: 27.5% and Adv: 37.5%; p<0.001) There were no significant differences in NRM (p=0.467) or the incidence of acute (p=0.423) and chronic GVHD (p=0.442) among mELN groups. Initial multivariate analysis (MVA) of mELN risk groups indicated that there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the Fav and IM risk groups. Thus, these groups were combined for subsequent analyses. Adv risk (vs. Fav/IM) led to significantly worse OS (HR 1.39 [1.24-1.57] p=<0.001), DFS (HR 1.32 [1.18-1.48] p=<0.001), and relapse (HR 1.42 [1.23-1.63] p=<0.001) (Table 2). This mELN classification effectively stratified both younger (<60 y/o) and older (>60 y/o) patients for OS (Adv vs. Fav/IM HR for <60: 1.43 [1.21-1.69] p<0.001; >60: 1.44 [1.21-1.72] p<0.001), DFS (Adv HR for <60: 1.31 [1.12-1.53] p<0.001; >60: 1.41 [1.19-1.66] p<0.001) and relapse (Adv HR for <60: 1.44 [1.20-1.74] p<0.001, >60: 1.42 [1.15-1.76] p=0.001). NRM was higher for older patients (>60 y/o) in both the Fav/IM (HR 1.40 [1.10-1.78] p=0.007) and Adv-risk cohorts (HR 1.59 [1.18-2.13] p=0.002). Genetic subset comparisons within the adverse-risk group showed that patients carrying monosomy 5, del(5q) or monosomy 7 had inferior 2-year OS (42.6%, p<0.001) and DFS (35.2%, p<0.001), as well as higher rates of relapse (45%, p= 0.002) when compared to other patients within the Adv-risk cohort (OS 60%, DFS 50.8%, relapse 33.5%). Conclusion: Stratification using mELN criteria resulted in clear prognostic separation of OS, DFS and relapse in this large cohort of AML patients undergoing allogeneic HCT. While Fav and IM groups had similar OS, DFS and relapse rates; patients in the Adv risk group had the highest risk of relapse and inferior DFS/OS. However, the majority of patients in all cohorts had favorable outcomes for HCT in CR1. Our findings confirm the value of a combined genetic prognostic model in the AML HCT setting and justify the use of this stratification system in future HCT trials. Correlation of genetic subtypes with other important transplant variables, such as conditioning intensity and pre-transplant MRD status deserves further evaluation. There remains a subset of Adv-risk patients for which post-transplant outcomes continue to be poor, even when transplanted in CR1. Novel peri-transplant pre-emptive/therapeutic strategies are urgently needed for this high-risk cohort. Disclosures de Lima: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees, advisory board, Research Funding; BMS: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Kadmon: Other: Personal Fees, Advisory board. Komanduri:Kiadis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Jazz: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board. Bhatt:National Marrow Donor Program: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Other; Jazz: Research Funding; Agios: Other: Personal Fees; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees; Partner Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees; Pfizer: Other, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Other: Drug support for a trial; Partnership for health analytic research, LLC: Other: Personal Fees; Omeros: Other: Personal Fees; Abbvie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding. Saad:Orcabio: Other: research support; Kadmon: Other: research support; Amgen: Other: research support; Incyte Pharmaceuticals: Other: Personal Fees; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees. Copelan:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Nishihori:Karyopharm: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Other: Research support to institution. Weisdorf:Incyte: Research Funding; FATE Therapeutics: Consultancy.

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.

PURPOSE There is no consensus on the best choice of an alternative donor (umbilical cord blood [UCB], haploidentical, one-antigen mismatched [7/8]–bone marrow [BM], or 7/8-peripheral blood [PB]) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for patients lacking an HLA-matched related or unrelated donor. METHODS We report composite end points of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)–free relapse-free survival (GRFS) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD)–free relapse-free survival (CRFS) in 2,198 patients who underwent UCB (n = 838), haploidentical (n = 159), 7/8-BM (n = 241), or 7/8-PB (n = 960) HCT. All groups were divided by myeloablative conditioning (MAC) intensity or reduced intensity conditioning (RIC), except haploidentical group in which most received RIC. To account for multiple testing, P < .0071 in multivariable analysis and P < .00025 in direct pairwise comparisons were considered statistically significant. RESULTS In multivariable analysis, haploidentical group had the best GRFS, CRFS, and overall survival (OS). In the direct pairwise comparison of other groups, among those who received MAC, there was no difference in GRFS or CRFS among UCB, 7/8-BM, and 7/8-PB with serotherapy (alemtuzumab or antithymocyte globulin) groups. In contrast, the 7/8-PB without serotherapy group had significantly inferior GRFS, higher cGVHD, and a trend toward worse CRFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.69; P = .002) than the 7/8-BM group and higher cGVHD and trend toward inferior CRFS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.63; P = .0006) than the UCB group. Among patients with RIC, all groups had significantly inferior GRFS and CRFS compared with the haploidentical group. CONCLUSION Recognizing the limitations of a registry retrospective analysis and the possibility of center selection bias in choosing donors, our data support the use of UCB, 7/8-BM, or 7/8-PB (with serotherapy) grafts for patients undergoing MAC HCT and haploidentical grafts for patients undergoing RIC HCT. The haploidentical group had the best GRFS, CRFS, and OS of all groups.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with RR-AML, particularly older adults, have dismal outcomes and limited therapy options. Given low response rates and high toxicity with salvage intensive chemotherapy, and frequent ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), many patients are treated with HMAs. Robust data regarding use of HMAs in AML predominates in the frontline setting, while their use in RR-AML has limited supportive data. Here wesought to analyze theoutcomes and their predictors in patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs. Methods:We collected data, spanning a period from 2006 to 2016, from 7 centers in the United States and 4 centers in Europe regarding patients treated with HMAs for RR-AML. Responses were defined by International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) from initiation of HMAs to death or end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds for response, and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models estimated hazards ratios (HR) for OS. Covariates considered included HMA received, age at diagnosis (in years), AML classification at diagnosis (AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC], therapy-related [t]-AML), disease status (relapsed vs. refractory), number of therapy lines prior to HMA (1 vs. 2 vs. >=3), duration of first complete remission (CR1), white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast percentage, bone marrow (BM) cellularity (<=20% vs. > 20%), BM blast percentage (<=20% vs. >20%), cytogenetic risk group, and the presence of complex or chromosome 7 abnormalities. Results: Of 514 patients, 217 patients (42.2%) had refractory and 297 (58%) had relapsed AML. By end of study, 415 patients (88.5%) had died. Median follow-up for living patients was 11.6 months.Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range [R], 16-92). AML-MRC was diagnosed in 29.0% while 8.2% had t-AML. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (R, 1-7), with 48.3% receiving 1 prior line, 30.2% receiving 2 prior lines, and 21.5% receiving >=3 prior lines. Prior alloSCT was performed in 21.2%. Only 1.9% had good risk (core binding factor) karyotype, while 56.2% had intermediate risk karyotype, and 41.9% had poor risk karyotype. Azacitidine was used in 45.8% and decitabine in 54.2%; median number of azacitidine cycles was 4 (Interquartile range [IQR], 2-6) compared to 2 for decitabine (IQR, 1-4, p <0.001). Best response to HMAs was CR in 11.7% (95%CI, 9%-14%), CRi in 6.4% (95%CI, 4.3%-8.8%), hematologic improvement (HI) in 8% (95%CI, 5.7%-10.5%), stable disease (SD) in 9.8% (95%CI, 7.2%-12.5%), while 64.1% (95%CI, 57.7%-66.2%) had progressive disease (PD). Median OS from HMA initiation for all patients was 6.9 months (IQR, 3.0-13.3). There was a significant difference in OS based on best response achieved [Figure 1]. Unadjusted OS showed an insignificant trend for worsening with increasing number of prior lines of therapy [Figure 2A]. In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in OS based on HMA received in all patients [Figure 2B] or the subset who received only 1 prior line of therapy (median OS: Azacitidine vs. decitabine 8.4 vs 7.3 months, p=0.88). Following HMA therapy, the median number of subsequent therapies was 0 (R, 0-6), and only 12.8% underwent alloSCT. In multivariate CPH models, HMA used was not significantly associated with OS (HR=0.80, 95%CI, 0.42-1.51, p=0.49), while increasing age, and presence of complex cytogenetics and chromosome 7 abnormalities were significantly associated with risk of death [Table 1]. In multivariable logistic regression models, HMA used was not associated with achieving CR+CRi (Odds ratio=0.56, p=0.32). Conclusions: In this largest reported cohort of patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs, we found that HMAs are often used as alast line of therapy, with a minority of patients receiving subsequent treatment. Nonetheless, the minority of patients who achieve CR (11.7%) with HMA therapy had a median OS of 25.6 months. Therefore, use of HMAs for management of RR-AML is a reasonable intervention in the absence of clinical trial options. There appears to be no difference in OS or probability of achieving CR+CRi based on HMA used. Ongoing analyses in this dataset include further evaluations of predictors, including genetic mutations, and the development of prediction tools for clinical outcomes with HMA therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ritchie:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prebet:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gore:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common form of acute leukemia among adults and accounts for the largest number of annual deaths due to leukemias in the United States. Recent advances have resulted in an expansion of treatment options for AML, especially concerning targeted therapies and low-intensity regimens. This portion of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for AML focuses on the management of AML and provides recommendations on the workup, diagnostic evaluation and treatment options for younger (age <60 years) and older (age ≥60 years) adult patients.

Abstract HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (Haplo-HCT) using posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) has improved donor availability. However, a matched sibling donor (MSD) is still considered the optimal donor. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we compared outcomes after Haplo-HCT vs MSD in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1). Data from 1205 adult CR1 AML patients (2008-2015) were analyzed. A total of 336 patients underwent PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT and 869 underwent MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. The Haplo-HCT group included more reduced-intensity conditioning (65% vs 30%) and bone marrow grafts (62% vs 7%), consistent with current practice. In multivariable analysis, Haplo-HCT and MSD groups were not different with regard to overall survival (P = .15), leukemia-free survival (P = .50), nonrelapse mortality (P = .16), relapse (P = .90), or grade II-IV acute GVHD (P = .98). However, the Haplo-HCT group had a significantly lower rate of chronic GVHD (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.48; P &lt; .001). Results of subgroup analyses by conditioning intensity and graft source suggested that the reduced incidence of chronic GVHD in Haplo-HCT is not limited to a specific graft source or conditioning intensity. Center effect and minimal residual disease–donor type interaction were not predictors of outcome. Our results indicate a lower rate of chronic GVHD after PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT vs MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based GVHD prophylaxis, but similar other outcomes, in patients with AML in CR1. Haplo-HCT is a viable alternative to MSD in these patients.

Key Points In the largest study of HMAs in RR-AML to date, 16% of patients achieved CR/CRi and experienced a median OS of 21 months. Low proliferative disease (peripheral blood blasts <5%) was associated with improved response and OS.

Elderly patients (>60 years) with acute myeloid leukemia have a poor prognosis with a chemotherapy-alone approach. Allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation (HCT) can improve overall survival (OS). However, myeloablative regimens can have unacceptably high transplant-related mortality (TRM) in an unselected group of older patients. Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) or nonmyeloablative (NMA) conditioning regimens preserve the graft- versus-leukemia effects but reduce TRM. NMA regimens result in minimal cytopenia and may not require stem cell support for restoring hematopoiesis. RIC regimens, intermediate in intensity between NMA and myeloablative regimens, can cause prolonged myelosuppresion and usually require stem cell support. A few retrospective and prospective studies suggest a possibility of lower risk of relapse with myeloablative HCT in fit older patients with lower HCT comorbidity index; however, RIC and NMA HCTs have an important role in less-fit patients and those with significant comorbidities because of lower TRM. Whether early tapering of immunosuppression, monitoring of minimal residual disease, and post-transplant maintenance therapy can improve the outcomes of RIC and NMA HCT in elderly patients will require prospective trials.