Shaw, Bronwen E.

ACCESS is a prospective, multicenter phase II trial evaluating peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation using 4-7/8 HLA-mismatched unrelated donors (MMUD) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy), tacrolimus, and mycophenolate. Adults undergoing first HCT with myeloablative (MAC) or reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative (RIC/NMA) conditioning were enrolled, with donors aged 18-35 years and matched at 4/8-7/8 HLA loci by high-resolution typing. This expanded analysis includes all enrolled adult PBSC recipients, including the protocol-specified RIC/NMA cohort expansion, to improve precision of outcome estimates and provide descriptive analyses by HLA match level. Among 268 adults, 183 received 7/8 and 85 received <7/8 MMUD grafts; 82.4% of the <7/8 cohort received 6/8 grafts. Median follow-up among survivors was 11.9 months. At 1-year, overall survival was 78.6% (95% CI, 71.9-83.9) in the 7/8 cohort and 85.6% (95% CI, 76.0-91.5) in the <7/8 cohort. One-year relapse, non-relapse mortality, and GVHD-free relapse-free survival were 17.1%, 13.7%, and 51.1% versus 22.8%, 8.4%, and 54.6%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV and grade III-IV acute GVHD by day 100 was 36.6% and 7.7% in the 7/8 cohort versus 28.3% and 5.9% in the <7/8 cohort. Moderate-to-severe chronic GVHD at 1 year was 11.3% versus 7.7%, respectively. Among adult ACCESS recipients treated on a uniform young-donor PBSC/PTCy platform, short-term outcomes with predominantly 6/8 MMUD transplantation were encouraging. Because donor match level was not prospectively assigned and between-group comparisons were exploratory, these findings are descriptive and should not be interpreted as establishing equivalence with 7/8 MMUD transplantation. (Registered as NCT04904588 at CT.gov)

Abstract Newer approaches to control alloreactivity may produce similar transplant outcomes using HLA-mismatched donors vs HLA-matched unrelated donors (MUD). However, prospective comparisons are lacking. BMT CTN 1702 used a donor search prognosis score to assign patients to an 8/8 HLA MUD or the center’s preference of haploidentical related donors (HAPLO), mismatched unrelated donors (MMUD), or umbilical cord blood (UCB). Outcomes of MUD were compared to HAPLO, MMUD, and UCB transplantation after adjusting for covariates. Patients (n = 1179 [93% adults]) underwent transplantation with MUD (n = 772), HAPLO (n = 254), MMUD (n = 112), and UCB (n = 41) at a median of 3.7, 3.4, 3.9, and 3.8 months from enrollment. Posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) was used in 23.9%, 83.9%, 65.2%, and 0% of MUD, HAPLO, MMUD, and UCB. In multivariate analyses, compared to MUD, survival was lower for UCB (hazard ratio [HR], 2.65; P< .001) but not statistically different for HAPLO and MMUD (HRs, 1.08 and 1.18, respectively). Relapse risk was not significantly different by donor, but treatment-related mortality (HR, 3.31; P< .001) and disease-free survival (HR, 1.99; P = .002) were inferior for UCB but not different for HAPLO and MMUD than MUD. In patients who received PTCy, HAPLO and MMUD were associated with increased grade 3 or 4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD; HR, 2.39 [P = .017] and 2.53 [P = .038], respectively) and chronic GVHD (HR, 1.71 for both; P = .028 and .080) than MUD, but other outcomes were not different. HAPLO or MMUD may be used to expedite transplantation when finding MUD is unlikely. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03904134.

Importance Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) is curative for hematologic cancers, yet access remains inequitable for racially and ethnically underrepresented and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, making the goal of having a suitable donor for every patient who needs a transplant challenging. The ACCESS trial broadened access by enrolling patients without matched donors, who instead received an HCT from a mismatched unrelated donor. Objective To compare baseline characteristics of ACCESS trial participants with participants enrolled in a similar clinical trial and a patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study included adult participants (aged ≥18 years) from 3 cohorts—the ACCESS trial (2021-2024), BMT CTN 1703 trial (2019-2021), and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) PRO Protocol observational study (2020-2025)—who completed a baseline PRO survey. The ACCESS and PRO Protocol cohorts were stratified by conditioning intensity (myeloablative [MAC] vs reduced-intensity and nonmyeloablative [RIC/NMA]); all BMT CTN 1703 participants received RIC/NMA. Exposure Hematopoietic cell transplant. Main Outcomes and Measures Racial and ethnic diversity, insurance type, education, and income were compared among cohorts using counts and percentages, and socioeconomic and structural disadvantage were measured using the Social Vulnerability Index and Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity–Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy. Results Baseline surveys were completed by 208 participants in the ACCESS trial (median [range] age at transplant, 62.3 [20.4-78.9] years; 108 male [51.9%]), 122 participants in the PRO Protocol study (median [range] age at transplant, 63.9 [21.1-78.0] years; 67 male [54.9%]), and 342 participants in the BMT CTN 1703 trial (median [range] age at transplant, 66.9 [20.7-78.6] years; 218 male [63.7%]). Participants in ACCESS were more racially and ethnically diverse, with 15 (7.2%), 25 (12.1%), 46 (22.2%), 110 (53.1%), and 11 (5.3%) of Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, White, and other race and ethnicity, respectively, compared with 4 (3.3%), 2 (1.6%), 8 (6.6%) 104 (85.2%), and 4 (3.3%), respectively, in the PRO Protocol and 10 (3.0%), 0, 16 (4.8%), 302 (91.0%), and 4 (1.2%), respectively, in the BMT CTN 1703 trial. Participants in ACCESS were more likely to have Medicaid (36 [18.1%]) vs PRO Protocol (8 [6.7%]) and BMT CTN 1703 (16 [5.1%]) participants and reported lower education (some college or an associate’s degree: 103 [49.5%] vs 73 [59.8%] in the PRO Protocol; postcollege education: 34 [17.3%] vs 35 [29.2%] in the PRO Protocol) and household income (<$40 000 annually: 25 [24.0%] vs 8 [11.6%] in the PRO Protocol and 7 [38.9%] in the BMT CTN 1703 trial). Median Social Vulnerability Index scores were highest among participants in the ACCESS MAC group (median [range], 0.72 [0.01-0.97] vs 0.61 [0.16-0.78] in the PRO Protocol MAC group), and 16 participants [27.6%] in the ACCESS MAC group reported moderate to severe financial toxicity. The ACCESS participants lived closer to transplant centers, especially in the RIC/NMA group (median [IQR], 28 [14-75] miles vs 47 [16-96] miles for BMT CTN 1703 participants and 49 [21-104] miles for PRO Protocol participants). Conclusions and Relevance This cross-sectional study of clinical trial participants and a clinical cohort found that the ACCESS trial enrolled a more racially and ethnically diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged population. Trial designs that broaden eligibility could expand access to HCT, highlighting the need for systemic interventions to ensure equity.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) using an HLA mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) with calcineurin inhibitor-based graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis results in increased incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) and lower survival compared to matched donor HCT. The NMDP sponsored 15-MMUD study demonstrated that post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based prophylaxis following bone marrow derived MMUD HCT resulted in reduced incidence of GVHD and favorable survival. Because marrow grafts can be difficult to procure and vary in quality, we conducted a phase II, prospective, multicenter study to evaluate PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis in adult recipients of MMUD using peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) allografts. The primary study aim was to estimate the probability of one-year overall survival (OS) post HCT. Secondary aims were to assess other key clinical endpoints and determine the rate of severe infections. Initial results of the first 70 recipients who received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) were previously reported by Al Malki et al (JCO 2025) demonstrating a 1-year OS of 78.6% (95% CI, 67% to 86.5%). Here, we report results from a planned expansion of the study that included 123 additional RIC recipients, with updated results from the initial cohort of 70 patients (total N = 193 subjects) treated at 33 centers. Study participants received cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg (ideal body weight) administered on days 3 and 4 post HCT with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil as previously described (Al Malki, JCO, 2025). The median study participant age was 65.0 (range: 22.9-78.9); 92 (47.7%) of participants were male, and 84 (43.5%) identified as having other than non-Hispanic white ancestry. The HCT comorbidity index was high-risk (>3) in 65 (33.7%). Underlying histologic diagnosis was AML in 96 (49.7%) participants, MDS in 43 (22.3%), ALL in 20 (10.4%), lymphoma or CLL in 24 (12.4%), and CML/other leukemias in 10 (5.2%). Conditioning regimens used were fludarabine and melphalan (100 or 140 mg/m2) (N=120; 62.2%), 2-day busulfan and fludarabine (N=38; 19.7%), and fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation (200 cGy) (N=32; 16.6%). Donor HLA matching (considering HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1) was 7/8 in 131 (67.9%) of participants, 6/8-matched in 51 (26.4%), and 4-5/8-matched in 11 (5.7%) participants. Median donor age was 25.5 years (range: 18.7-35.7). The one-year overall OS estimate was 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73.2-84.7). Survival was similar among HLA 7/8-matched donor recipients (77.8%, 69.7-84%) and <7/8 matched donor recipients (83.7%, 71.8-90.9%). The one-year GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) was 49.9% (42.6-56.9%) and the one-year progression-free survival was 70.2% (63.2-76.2%). The one-year cumulative incidence (CI) rates of NRM and relapse were 12.5% (8.3-17.6%) and 17.3%(12.3-23%), respectively. The 6-month CI of grade II-IV and grade III-IV acute GVHD were 40.0% (33.0-46.8%) and 7.8% (4.6-12.1%), respectively. The one-year incidence of all chronic GVHD and severe chronic GVHD were 15.6% (10.7-21.2%) and 3.7% (1.6-7%), respectively, by NIH consensus criteria. The CI of grade 1-4 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) by day 7 post HCT was 28.0% (21.8-34.9%), and grade 3-4 CRS was 0.5% (0-2.9%). Primary engraftment failure occurred in 9 (4.7%) participants. Among 145 evaluated participants, 85.5% were >95% donor in blood chimerism at day 100 post HCT. Within the first 100 days after HCT, CTCAE grade 2-5 infections occurred in 113 (58.5%) of participants and grade 3-5 infections occurred in 59 (30.6%) of participants. The most common etiologies of grade 2-5 infections were bacterial (N=78), followed by viral (N=48). The most common grade 3-5 non-infectious toxicities were cardiac disorders, which occurred in 4 (2.1%) of participants. In conclusion, the results including this expansion cohort demonstrate encouraging 1-year OS, NRM and relapse rates in RIC recipients of PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis and PBSC allografts from MMUDs. This larger cohort of 193 recipients re-affirm the results from the initial cohort with greater robustness.Measures to mitigate infection risk are likely to further improve outcomes. Reducing the dose of PTCy is a candidate approach currently being tested in the ongoing OPTIMIZE trial (NCT 06001385).These results support the extension of PBSC MMUD using PTCy to individuals who lack an HLA-matched donor and require RIC HCT.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains inaccessible to many patients, particularly those of non-European ancestry, due to the limited availability of matched unrelated donors (URD). While single-HLA mismatched donors (7/8) often yield acceptable outcomes, URD HCT mismatched at ≥ 2 HLA alleles (<7/8) has historically been associated with poor survival and prohibitive toxicity. Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has improved outcomes following mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) HCT, potentially enabling less stringent donor matching. Whether the degree of donor-recipient HLA disparity remains prognostic after MMUD HCT when PTCy is used is unknown. The ACCESS trial (NCT04904588) was conducted by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Clinical Research Organization and prospectively evaluated PTCy-based graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in adult recipients of 4–7/8 (HLA-A, -B, -C and -DRB1) MMUD peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) from donors age ≤35 years old following either myeloablative (MAC) or reduced intensity/non-myeloablative (RIC/NMA) conditioning. This analysis focused on all adult recipients of <7/8 grafts enrolled on the study across both conditioning strata, with descriptive comparison to patients who received 7/8 MMUD PBSC grafts. The primary endpoint was 1-year overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included primary graft failure (PGF), non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, acute and chronic GVHD, and GVHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS). A total of 268 adults received MMUD PBSC grafts: 85 with <7/8 matches (MAC: n=23; RIC/NMA: n=62) and 183 with 7/8 matches (MAC: n=52; RIC/NMA: n=131). Among <7/8 recipients, median age was 57 years old (range, 24–78), 49% were male, with diagnoses of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (55%), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) (15%), and lymphoma (14%). HLA mismatch distribution in the <7/8 group was 6/8 in 82%, 5/8 in 14%, and 4/8 in 4%. Most received fludarabine/melphalan (44%) or myeloablative busulfan/fludarabine (21%). Median CD34+ cell dose was 5.5 ×10^6/recipient kg (range: 3.2-8.0) and 75% of grafts were cryopreserved prior to infusion. Median donor age was 25.8 (range: 18.7-35.7) in the 7/8 group and 25.0 (range: 18.3-34.8) in the <7/8 group. The <7/8 cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 61% identifying as other than non-Hispanic white. The 7/8 cohort had a median age of 63 years old (range, 20–79), with 52% male. Disease distribution, conditioning intensity, and infused cell doses were similar to the <7/8 group. A smaller proportion of grafts were cryopreserved (61%), and 47% of patients identified as other than non-Hispanic White. One-year OS for <7/8 recipients was 86% (95% CI: 76–92%), compared to 79% (95% CI: 72–84%) in 7/8 recipients. One-year incidence of relapse was 23% (95% CI: 14–33%) in the <7/8 group and 17% (95% CI: 12–23%) in 7/8 recipients; NRM was 8% (95% CI: 4–16%) and 14% (95% CI: 9–19%), respectively. GRFS was 55% (95% CI: 43–65%) for <7/8 and 51% (95% CI: 44–58%) for 7/8 recipients. PGF occurred in 8% (95% CI: 3–18%) of <7/8 RIC recipients and 3% (95% CI: 1–8%) of 7/8 RIC recipients; no MAC recipients had PGF. At 6 months post-HCT, grade II–IV acute GVHD occurred in 34% (95% CI: 24–44%) of <7/8 patients and 39% (95% CI: 32–46%) of 7/8; grade III–IV acute GVHD was observed in 7% (95% CI: 3–14%) and 8% (95% CI: 5–13%), respectively. Moderate to severe chronic GVHD (NIH consensus criteria) at one year occurred in 8% (95% CI: 3–15%) of <7/8 recipients and 11% (95% CI: 7–16%) of 7/8 recipients. When grouped by conditioning intensity, 1-year outcomes within the <7/8 cohort were: OS 91% after MAC and 84% after RIC/NMA; relapse in 32% after MAC and 20% after RIC/NMA, respectively; GRFS was 53% for MAC and 55% for RIC/NMA; and NRM remained low at 9% after MAC and 8% after RIC/NMA. In this cohort of adult recipients of <7/8 MMUD PBSC grafts with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis enrolled on the ACCESS study, 1-year OS exceeded 80% and was comparable to 7/8 recipients. Relapse, NRM, and GVHD rates were similarly favorable and consistent with outcomes reported in 7/8 donor recipients. These findings support extending suitable MMUD match considerations to include 4-6/8 in the context of PTCy, potentially enabling near-universal donor access, while allowing for optimization of other non-HLA donor factors.

PURPOSE The likelihood of finding a human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–matched unrelated donor (MUD) for hematopoietic cell transplantation can be predicted using a donor search prognosis score. Patients without a MUD may use alternative donors (haploidentical related, mismatched unrelated, or umbilical cord blood). METHODS This multicenter biological assignment trial was conducted by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 1702). Eligibility criteria were broad to mirror clinical practice. The primary end point was 2-year survival from evaluability and compared between those Very Likely (>90%) and Very Unlikely (<10%) to find a MUD. All other patients, Less Likely to find a MUD, were enrolled in an observational arm. Transplant outcomes were compared for all three groups. RESULTS A total of 1,751 evaluable patients at 47 centers were Very Likely (54.7%), Less Likely (29.5%), and Very Unlikely (15.8%) to identify a MUD. Survival did not differ in univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.21]; P = .98) or multivariate (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.33]; P = .56) analyses between the Very Unlikely and Very Likely groups, measured through 2 years from the beginning of a search for a MUD or alternative donor. Of the transplanted patients (n = 1,179), MUD was used for 94% of the Very Likely, 38% of Less Likely, and 9% of Very Unlikely patients. Multivariate analyses showed no differences in relapse, treatment-related mortality, disease-free survival, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host diseases for the three search prognosis groups after transplantation. CONCLUSION Using a donor search prognosis strategy to prioritize an alternative donor for patients Very Unlikely to find a MUD resulted in survival and transplant outcomes that were not statistically different compared with those Very Likely to find a MUD.

Background: A donor search prognosis score based on HLA type and race/ethnicity can classify patients into 3 groups based on the likelihood of finding an HLA-matched (8/8) unrelated donor (MUD): Very Likely (44% of the population), Likely (41%) and Very Unlikely (15%). Previous studies showed that &gt;90% of Very Likely, 26% of Likely and &lt;10% of Very Unlikely patients used a MUD for their hematopoietic cell transplants (HCT), with the rest using other donor sources (mismatched unrelated donor, cord blood, or haploidentical relative). For some patients, prolonged efforts to identify a MUD might be futile and delay HCT, leading to increased morbidity, greater chance for relapse and disease resistance, and worse HCT outcomes. BMT CTN 1702 (NCT03904134) was the first national study to track the entire donor search identification process. Designed as a biologic assignment study, the goal was to estimate and compare overall survival between two arms: patients who are Very Likely to find a MUD versus those who are Very Unlikely to find a MUD. It tested whether provision of a donor search prognosis score to centers could prevent prolonged futile searches for the Very Unlikely group and improve their transplant rates and outcomes, compared to the Very Likely group. Methods: Eligible diagnoses included acute leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, lymphoma, acquired aplastic anemia and sickle cell disease. Patients could be consented at any time after diagnosis until an unrelated donor search was started. Consented patients became evaluable only after it was determined that no appropriate HLA-identical siblings were available. The primary endpoint was survival time after the patient was declared evaluable, regardless of whether HCT occurred, and was compared between the Very Unlikely and Very Likely groups. The target enrollment was 1732 evaluable patients. Because this was a biologic assignment trial and not a randomized trial, formal comparisons of overall survival between the Very Likely and Very Unlikely groups were done using a covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. The following covariates were a priori specified for adjustment in the model, according to the statistical analysis plan: sex, age, Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), race/ethnicity, disease, disease status, and interval from consent to evaluability. Results: 1751 evaluable patients were enrolled at 47 centers: 44% female, median age 59.4 years (range 0.6-81.3 years), 73% were non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic White, 8% Black, 5% Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.5% American Indian/Alaska Native. Among the evaluable patients, 1181 received a HCT, 827 died, and 924 are still alive with or without HCT, with a median of 25 months of follow up (range=6-54 months [mos], inter-quartile range [IQR]=25-34 mos). The distribution was: 958 Very Likely, 517 Less Likely, and 276 Very Unlikely. Individuals in the Very Unlikely group were younger and were less likely to be non-Hispanic White. The unadjusted cumulative incidences of undergoing HCT by 6 mos and 2 years [yrs], in the Very Unlikely group were 51% and 61% vs. 60% and 69% in the Very Likely Group; after adjustment, there was not a significant difference in the likelihood of undergoing HCT (Dehn et al, submitted). There was no difference in median time from evaluability to HCT: 3.4 mos Very Unlikely and 3.3 mos Very Likely. Unadjusted survival rates from the time of evaluability for the Very Unlikely and the Very Likely groups were: 6 mos (85% vs 84%), 1 yr (69% vs. 69%) and 2 yrs (55% vs. 56%). In the multivariate Cox model, there was no significant difference in the risk of death (HR = 1.07 for Very Unlikely vs. Very Likely, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.33, p=0.56) adjusting for significant clinical covariates: age, KPS, disease status, and time from consent to evaluability were all significantly associated with overall survival. There was no significant center effect and no interaction between donor search prognosis group and clinical covariates. Conclusion: In this large multicenter BMT CTN study, using the donor selection strategy described, there was no difference in adjusted time to HCT or survival for patients Very Likely versus Very Unlikely to find an 8/8 MUD. These results suggest that patients Very Unlikely to identify a MUD should proceed to HCT using the best available alternative donor rather than delaying HCT to try to identify a MUD.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) is a potentially curative treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). While many factors influence the outcomes of allo‐HCT, the independent impact of donor–recipient ABO mismatching remains unclear. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we identified patients aged ≥18 years with AML or ALL who underwent allo‐HCT between 2008 and 2018. Our objectives were to analyze the outcomes of allo‐HCT based on the donor–recipient ABO status (match, minor mismatch, major mismatch, bidirectional mismatch). Among 4946 eligible patients, 2741 patients (55.4%) were ABO matched, 1030 patients (20.8%) had a minor ABO mismatch, 899 patients (18.1%) had a major ABO mismatch, and 276 patients (5.6%) had a bidirectional ABO mismatch. In multivariable analyses, compared to ABO matched allo‐HCT, the presence of a major ABO mismatch was associated with worse overall survival (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05–1.29; p = 0.005), inferior platelet engraftment (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77–0.90; p < 0.001), and higher primary graft failure (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.12–2.30, p = 0.01). Relapse, acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) grades III‐IV and chronic GVHD were not significantly associated with ABO status. While donor age was not significantly associated with outcomes, older recipient age was associated with worse survival and non‐relapse mortality. Our study demonstrates that donor–recipient ABO status is independently associated with survival and other post‐transplantation outcomes in acute leukemia. This underscores the importance of considering the ABO status in donor selection algorithms and its impact in acute leukemia.

Abstract Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a potentially curative treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). While many factors influence the outcomes of allo-HCT in these leukemias, the independent impact of ABO mismatching between the patient and donor remains unclear. Methods: Using the CIBMTR database, we identified adults aged ≥18 years with AML or ALL who underwent allo-HCT from HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD) or 8/8 matched unrelated donor (MUD) between 2008-2018. We excluded patients who underwent transplant from a mismatched donor source or who received an ex-vivo T-cell depleted graft. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on ABO status (match, minor mismatch, major mismatch, bidirectional mismatch). Outcomes such as overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, incidence of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD), chronic GVHD, neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment and graft failure were evaluated. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier method and significant predictors were evaluated using Cox-proportional hazard regression method. Multivariate regression model included main effect (ABO status) and covariates (patient age, gender match, disease type, disease status, HCT-CI, Karnofsky performance status, donor type, conditioning intensity/use of TBI, stem cell source, GVHD prophylaxis, ATG/alemtuzumab use, transplant year). Results: Of 4946 patients who met the study criteria, 2741 patients (55.4%) were ABO matched, 1030 patients (20.8%) had minor ABO mismatch, 899 patients (18.1%) had major ABO mismatch and 276 patients (5.6%) had bidirectional ABO mismatch. Graft manipulation for ABO incompatibility was performed in 900 patients (minor ABO mismatch=532; major ABO mismatch=226; bidirectional mismatch=142), however, the information on individual graft manipulation techniques was limited. In multivariable analysis (table 1), major ABO mismatch significantly affected the OS, platelet engraftment and primary graft failure. Compared to ABO matched allo-HCT, major ABO mismatched allo-HCT was associated with worse OS (major mismatch - HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.29; p=0.005), inferior platelet engraftment (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.90; p=&lt;0.001), and higher risk of primary graft failure [4.5% (major mismatch) vs. 3.2% (ABO matched) - HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.12-2.30, p=0.01]. There was a significant interaction between the ABO status and graft type (peripheral blood vs. bone marrow) for the acute GVHD grades 2-4 model, and they are presented separately (table 1). Bidirectional ABO mismatch also significantly impacted the outcomes such as acute GVHD grades 2-4 (in bone marrow stem cell subgroup, HR 0.50, 95%CI 0.27-0.93, p=0.02) in addition to a trend towards inferior survival and NRM (p-value not significant). Other outcomes such as relapse (p=0.41), acute GVHD grades 3-4 (p=0.13), and chronic GVHD (p=0.30) were not significantly influenced by the ABO status. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that pre-transplant ABO status is an independent predictor of survival and other post-transplant outcomes in a large cohort of patients with AML and ALL undergoing allo-HCT in the recent era. This demonstrates the importance of considering ABO status in the donor selection algorithms and potential strategies to mitigate its adverse impact. Due to the limited information available on graft manipulation strategies, the impact of graft manipulation techniques on the outcomes could not be evaluated and needs to be investigated in future studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Techspert: Consultancy; Guidepoint: Consultancy; Cancerexpertnow: Honoraria; Qessential: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Other: Advisory board; Cardinal Health Inc.: Honoraria. Devine: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment, Research Funding; Tmunity: Current Employment, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnsonand Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Orca Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Be the Match: Current Employment; Vor Bio: Research Funding; Kiadis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Farhadfar: Incyte: Consultancy. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria. Stefanski: Novartis: Honoraria. Pulsipher: Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria. Shaw: mallinkrodt: Other: payments; Orca bio: Consultancy.

Introduction: Cryopreservation of peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) or bone marrow (BM) grafts is rarely performed, thus information about the effect of cryopreservation on graft characteristics and HCT outcomes is limited. Given the global pandemic leading to changing practices for donor graft collection and increasing utilization of cryopreservation, we evaluated the outcomes of HCT recipients who received either fresh or cryopreserved allogeneic BM or PBSC grafts. The primary endpoint was engraftment. Secondary endpoints were incidence of acute graft-vs.-host disease (aGVHD), relapse, transplant related mortality (TRM), disease free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Methods: We included 7397 patients transplanted between 2013 and 2018. 1883 cryopreserved graft recipients were divided into three cohorts based on graft source and donor type: matched related (MRD) PBSC (n=1,051), matched unrelated (MUD) PBSC (n=678), and matched related or unrelated bone marrow donors (n=154). All patients received conventional calcineurin-based GVHD prophylaxis strategies. Patients who received cryopreserved grafts were matched with 5514 patients who received fresh adjusting for graft type (BM vs. PB), donor source (MRD vs. 8/8 MUD), Disease Risk Index (DRI, low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. high risk), recipient age (within 5-years) and propensity score (within 1 standard deviation from pooled sample). The propensity score was based on age, Karnofsky score, diagnosis, disease risk index, HCT-comorbidity index, and conditioning intensity. The level of statistical significance for the main analyses was p&lt;0.01 due to multiple comparisons. The reason for cryopreservation was available on a subset of URD product recipients. Results: Baseline characteristics for all cohorts are shown in Table 1. CD34+ doses reflect enumeration at infusion. In univariate analyses, rates of graft failure and neutrophil recovery at day 28 were similar for cryopreserved and fresh grafts for BM or related PBSC recipients but differed in cryopreserved vs. fresh MUD PBSC (5% vs 2%, p&lt;0.001 and 87 vs 94%, p&lt;0.001, respectively). Rates of platelet recovery within 28 days were similar in marrow cohorts, but lower with cryopreserved related (92% vs 96%, p&lt;0.001) and MUD PBSC (87 vs 94%, p&lt;0.001) grafts. In matched pair multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in any outcomes with cryopreserved vs fresh BM grafts, irrespective of donor type. With related donor PBSC, cryopreservation was associated with decreased platelet recovery (HR=0.73, CI=0.68-0.78, p&lt;0.001) and an increased risk of both grade II-IV (HR=1.27, CI=1.09-1.48, p=0.002) and grade III-IV (HR=1.48, CI=1.19-1.84, p&lt;0.001) aGVHD, but had no impact on other outcomes. In contrast, with MUD PBSC grafts, cryopreservation was associated with delayed engraftment of neutrophils (HR=0.77, CI=0.71-0.84, p&lt;0.001) and platelets (HR=0.61, CI=0.56-0.66, p&lt;0.001), an increased risk of TRM (HR=1.4, CI=1.18-1.66, p&lt;0.001) and relapse (HR=1.32, CI=1.11-1.58, p=0.002), and decreased DFS (HR=1.36, CI=1.20-1.55, p&lt;0.001) and OS (HR=1.38, CI=1.22-1.58, p&lt;0.001) but did not affect the incidence of aGVHD. In a subset analysis of 299 URD recipients, the most common reason for cryopreservation was delays due to patient-related events, eg., additional chemotherapy, infection. These recipients had decreased OS compared to products cryopreserved for non-patient reasons (HR=0.65, CI=0.44-0.96, p=0.029). Conclusions: The retrospective nature of this analysis, and the fact that cryopreservation is likely to have been performed in recipients with a different (higher) risk profile compared to those receiving fresh products limits our ability to draw firm confusions. Despite these limitations, we conclude that cryopreservation in some patient populations may have a negative impact on engraftment and transplant outcomes. The decision to cryopreserve donor grafts, particularly PBSC grafts, should be carefully considered and highlights the need for further investigation of the effect of cryopreservation of allogeneic grafts where patient factors can be controlled for. Disclosures Farhadfar: CSL Behring: Research Funding; Incyte pharmaceutical: Other: Member of GVHD advisory forum. Frey:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Syntax: Consultancy, Honoraria. Devine:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy. Shaw:Orca Bio: Consultancy. Wingard:Shire: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Ansun: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Merck: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Cidara: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; ReViral: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial.