Damlaj, Moussab

Background Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a major determinant of morbidity and mortality following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Existing GVHD prediction models demonstrate modest discrimination and limited generalizability, and calibration drift across external populations is rarely characterized despite its essential role in the clinical interpretability of predicted probabilities. Objectives To develop and externally validate an explainable machine learning framework for predicting acute and chronic GVHD and associated overall survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) undergoing allo-HSCT, and to systematically characterize calibration across heterogeneous external validation cohorts to inform deployment requirements. Study Design The model was developed on three publicly available registry-derived datasets (N = 2,509) and externally validated across six independent cohorts (N = 14,788) comprising adult and pediatric allo-HSCT recipients, including a regional Middle Eastern cohort (UAE and Jordan). A standardized preprocessing pipeline harmonized heterogeneous datasets. Gradient boosting models (CatBoost) were used for binary GVHD prediction; exploratory overall survival analysis used a Cox proportional hazards model with predicted acute GVHD risk as a covariate. Discrimination (AUROC with bootstrap 95% CI), calibration (logistic recalibration intercept and slope with analytical 95% CI), and feature importance (SHapley Additive exPlanations, SHAP) were assessed in training out-of-fold and all external cohorts. Results In internal validation, AUROC was 0.63 (95% CI 0.61–0.65) for acute GVHD and 0.72 (95% CI 0.70–0.74) for chronic GVHD. External validation demonstrated AUROC ranges of 0.51–0.57 (acute) and 0.54–0.64 (chronic), with consistent performance across disease subgroups despite substantial heterogeneity in transplant practices and feature availability. In exploratory survival analysis, the acute-GVHD-informed Cox model achieved a training-cohort C-index of 0.679 (95% CI 0.658–0.697); external C-indices ranged from 0.47–0.53. Calibration analysis identified systematic external risk overestimation (negative calibration intercept in 10 of 11 evaluable external cohort-target combinations) with heterogeneous slope drift requiring cohort-specific recalibration. Key predictors included recipient age, graft source, conditioning intensity, GVHD prophylaxis, and HLA match ratio. Conclusions An explainable, externally validated GVHD prediction framework was developed using heterogeneous registry-derived datasets, with systematic characterization of calibration drift across multiple external cohorts, an analysis rarely reported in prior GVHD prediction literature. Predictive performance was modest for acute GVHD and moderate for chronic GVHD, constrained by missing immunobiological variables and incomplete HLA characterization. Per-cohort recalibration is required before clinical deployment, with prospective validation and benchmarking against established GVHD risk scores identified as priority next steps.

Abstract Background: Until 2022, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) lacked in-country allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) services, forcing patients abroad for curative treatment while local hematologists managed pre- and post-transplant care. This fragmented model created unique challenges in graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) monitoring and survival tracking. We present the first analysis of outcomes in this underserved population. Aims: To evaluate overall survival (OS) and GVHD rates in adults receiving allo-HSCT abroad with UAE-based follow-up, establishing benchmarks for emerging local transplant programs. Methods: Retrospective multicenter study of adults undergoing allo-HSCT outside the UAE (2009–2023) with follow-up at three tertiary centers (SSMC, SKMC, Tawam). Of 454 screened patients, we excluded pediatric cases (n=245), autologous HSCT (n=76; excluded due to distinct indications/outcomes), and rare allo-HSCT indications (n=33), focusing on the most common diagnoses: acute myeloid leukemia (AML, n=54), B/T-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B/T-ALL, n=38), and sickle cell disease (SCD, n=8). Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis estimated 1/3/5-year OS. Observed median survival was calculated for deceased patients. GVHD grading followed NIH consensus criteria. Log-rank tests compared subgroups (donor type). Results: Survival: AML 1/3/5-year OS: 96%/79.3%/55.5% (95% CI 48–63). KM-estimated median not reached; observed median in deceased patients: 20 months. Matched unrelated donor (MUD) recipients had inferior survival vs. matched related donor (MRD)/mismatched related donor (MMRD) (p=0.03). B-ALL: 1/3/5-year OS: 92%/76.4%/69.2% (95% CI 61–77). T-ALL (n=7): 1/3-year OS: 80%/50% (limited by small sample) SCD (n=8): 100% survival at all timepoints; no GVHD observed. GVHD: Any-grade GVHD: 68.5% (AML), 73.3% (B-ALL), 71.4% (T-ALL)—exceeding CIBMTR benchmarks (50–60%). Acute GVHD 35.2% (AML), 43.3% (B-ALL), 28.6% (T-ALL). Chronic GVHD 46.3% (AML), 40% (B-ALL), 57.1% (T-ALL). Conclusion: Despite high GVHD rates, survival outcomes support selective overseas referral for AML/B-ALL patients, particularly younger recipients. SCD results highlight the safety of HSCT in non-malignant disease. These findings underscore the need for local HSCT capacity to mitigate care fragmentation and establish a critical benchmark for UAE programs. Prospective studies should evaluate socioeconomic drivers of referral patterns and GVHD disparities.

Abstract Background: Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains the leading cause of non-relapse morbidity and mortality in allogeneic hematopoietic-stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) recipients. Clinical scoring systems (e.g., EBMT, HCT-CI, DRI, etc.) can stratify risk but show modest predictive performance (C-statistics 0.49–0.67) when it comes to GVHD. To address this gap, we developed GVHD-Intel 1.0, a real-time, scalable, and interpretable machine learning (ML) framework from an international study to predict both acute (aGVHD) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD), providing individual and bulk predictions using common input variables and HLA alleles. Methods: This retrospective global study, approved by respective institutional review boards, included electronic health records from three tertiary care centers in Abu Dhabi, UAE, and King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), Jordan, from 2009 to 2023. The model was developed in phases. The UAE399 cohort (399 HSCT recipients) served as the baseline dataset. To enhance model generalizability, 55 adult allo-HSCT recipients from KHCC were added to the training set. Two distinct test cohorts were used: UAE46 (46 allogeneic HSCT recipients from UAE) and KHCC150 (150 adult allogeneic HSCT recipients from KHCC), collected later and independently of training data. Variables included donor type, sex mismatch, disease status, time from diagnosis to transplant, and agents used in conditioning and GVHD prophylaxis (e.g., TBI, ATG, alemtuzumab use etc.). HLA alleles (A, B, C, DQ, DR) were symbolically encoded and transformed via one-hot encoding. GVHD events were classified as aGVHD (<100 days) or cGVHD (≥100 days). Missing values were excluded, and class imbalance was handled via class weighting. GVHD-Intel 1.0, co-developed with MBZ University of Artificial Intelligence, features modular ensemble architecture, drug-level feature engineering, novel HLA encoding for low-resolution compatibility scoring, and built-in interpretability using SHAP and LIME. The framework is cloud-deployable for both real-time and batch predictions. Results: The GVHD-Intel 1.0 was externally tested on two independent, temporally and institutionally distinct cohorts (UAE46 and KHCC150), demonstrating strong and consistent predictive performance for both acute and chronic GVHD. For cGVHD prediction, the model achieved an AUC (area under the curve or C-statistic for binary outcomes) of 0.832, F1 score of 0.896, accuracy of 82.7%, PPV of 0.930, sensitivity of 0.864, Brier score of 0.178, and log loss of 0.543. For aGVHD, performance metrics included an AUC of 0.802, F1 score of 0.860, accuracy of 77.6%, PPV of 0.930, sensitivity of 0.799, Brier score of 0.196, and log loss of 0.581. Model calibration remained strong across both tasks, with Brier scores <0.20. Conclusions: GVHD-Intel 1.0 is a robust, interpretable machine learning framework developed from real-world, multicenter data. By integrating widely available clinical variables and HLA allele data, it outperforms conventional clinical risk scores in predicting both acute and chronic GVHD in allo-HSCT recipients. Slightly reduced performance in aGVHD prediction is likely due to the lack of relevant variables. Next steps include prospective validation across multiple transplant centers globally and continued refinement through expanded data integration. GVHD-Intel 1.0 holds strong potential as a clinically valuable, scalable decision-support tool that can be enacted widely and easily by practicing transplant physicians worldwide in all types of settings.

Abstract There is a lack of large comparative study on the outcomes of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transplantation using fludarabine/busulfan (FB) and fludarabine/melphalan (FM) regimens. Adult AML patients from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research who received first RIC allo-transplant between 2001 and 2015 were studied. Patients were excluded if they received cord blood or identical twin transplant, total body irradiation in conditioning, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with in vitro T-cell depletion. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and GVHD. Multivariate survival model was used with adjustment for patient, leukemia, and transplant-related factors. A total of 622 patients received FM and 791 received FB RIC. Compared with FB, the FM group had fewer transplant in complete remission (CR), fewer matched sibling donors, and less usage of anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. More patients in the FM group received marrow grafts and had transplantation before 2005. OS was significantly lower within the first 3 months posttransplant in the FM group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, P < .001), but was marginally superior beyond 3 months (HR = 0.87, P = .05). LFS was better with FM compared with FB (HR = 0.89, P = .05). NRM was significantly increased in the FM group during the first 3 months of posttransplant (HR = 3.85, P < .001). Long-term relapse was lower with FM (HR = 0.65, P < .001). Analysis restricted to patients with CR showed comparable results. In conclusion, compared with FB, the FM RIC showed a marginally superior long-term OS and LFS and a lower relapse rate. A lower OS early posttransplant within 3 months was largely the result of a higher early NRM.

Abstract Background: Adult relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (rALL) carries a very poor prognosis with limited options for effective salvage therapy. To date, there has been only a single retrospective report on the use of clofarabine in adult rALL demonstrating CR rate of 31% in this setting (Barba P et al. 2012). Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of clofarabine based therapy in a relatively large cohort of adult rALL patients. Method: After IRB approval, a retrospective single institution study of all patients (pts) diagnosed with rALL treated with a clofarabine based regimen at Mayo Clinic between 2000 - 2014 was performed. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test while continuous variables were analyzed using the Wilcoxon / Kruskal-Wallis test with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Survival estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and means were compared using log ranks. Results: Presenting features: We identified a total of 22 pts with a diagnosis of rALL who received clofarabine based therapy. 20 patients were evaluable and 2 were excluded (one received clofarabine as salvage for positive MRD and the other as systemic maintenance with CNS directed therapy for an isolated CNS relapse). Among evaluable pts, median age at time of Clofarabine based chemotherapy was 39 years (range 19-65) and 50% were males. Thirteen had B-ALL while 7 had T-ALL. Median leukocyte count was 6 x109 (0.2-28.7), hemoglobin 9.8 g/dL (7-12.9), platelet 65 x109 (12-493), peripheral blood blast 4% (0-88) and bone marrow blasts 80% (0-95) while five pts had extramedullary disease. Median number of prior regimens was 2 (1-7).. 8 (40%) pts were post allogeneic transplant Treatment and Response: 10 pts (50%) received clofarabine monotherapy, 7(35%) clofarabine and cytarabine, and 3 (15%) had clofarabine, etoposide and cyclophosphamide. Overall response rate (CR/CRi + PR) was 35%. Five (25%) achieved CR/CRi, and 2 achieved PR. Among those who achieved CR, 4 out 5 proceeded to further therapy; 2 to allogeneic stem cell transplant and two additional patients received donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI). One pt with PR also proceeded to allogeneic stem cell transplant. In comparative analysis, there were more males 6 (86%) vs 1(14%) in the responding arm (P = 0.014), otherwise the number of regimens prior to clofarabine, type of clofarabine regimen, transplant status, T vs B cell ALL, did not impact response. Median overall survival was 2.4 months (1.3-2.9) in non-responders vs. 12.8 months (3-27.4) in responders (P =0.0007) (Figure 1). All pts who proceeded to transplant or DLI relapsed with a median time to relapse of 6.4 (4.8-13.7) months. Toxicity: Rash/Hand Foot syndrome was observed in 3 pts (19%), Grade III-IV liver toxicity occurred in 4 (26%) with no permanent sequela. Opportunistic infection occurred in 3 pt (17%). Conclusion: Clofarabine based chemotherapy was a well-tolerated salvage regimen in heavily pretreated patients and was an effective bridge to definitive therapy in a significant proportion of cases. Prospective evaluation of these findings is warranted. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: There is limited data comparing the outcomes of the two most common (FM or FB) RIC regimens in AML. Previous smaller retrospective studies suggest increased non-relapse mortality (NRM) but decreased relapse with FM based RIC with a variable effect on overall survival as compared to FB. Methods: AML patients aged ≥18 years who had their 1st allo HCT using FM or FB (iv Bu only) RIC between 2001-2015 who had data reported to CIBMTR were studied. Patients with cord blood or identical twin donors, TBI as a part of conditioning, GVHD prophylaxis with T cell depletion/CD34 selection or post HCT Cyclophosphamide were excluded. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, leukemia free survival (LFS) and acute and chronic GVHD. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression was used to compare the two RIC regimens while adjusting for significant patient, disease and transplant related factors. Major subgroup analysis included patients in CR pre-HCT. Results: 622 patients received FB and 791 had FM RIC. Median age of the FM group was 59 years, range (18 to 76) and median age of FB group was 61 years, range (18- 77). Compared to FB RIC regimen, FM group had more patients with active disease (36% vs 18%), with mismatched donors (24% vs 15%), with bone marrow grafts (19% vs 9%), HCT before 2005 (29% vs 12%) and without ATG/alemtuzumab (58 % vs 48%); but fewer patients in CR1 (46% vs 62%) and matched sibling donor grafts (21% vs 30%). There was significantly increased NRM in the FM vs FB within 3 mo post HCT (hazard ratio (HR)=3.85 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 2.46-6.03), but not beyond 3 mo FM vs FB , HR= 1.14 (95% CI 0.88-1.47). There was significantly decreased relapse for FM vs FB, (HR=0.65 (0.55-0.76), p<0.001) and a marginally superior LFS for FM vs FB, (HR=0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.00), p=0.05). There was a lower OS FM vs FB within 3 mo post HCT (HR=1.82 (95% CI 1.36-2.45), p<0.001) but similar OS for FM vs FB beyond 3 mo post HCT (HR=0.87 (95% CI 0.76-1.00), p=0.05). Analysis restricted to only patients in CR pre-HCT showed similar results: equivalent survival, higher early NRM and lower relapse with FM. Conclusion: The current study of this large CIBMTR AML transplant cohort has showed that in these two most common RIC regimens for allogeneic HCT, long-term survival with FM was similar to FB. While the FM regimen showed higher early NRM, it was associated with lower risks of relapse. Further analysis to evaluate FB and FM regimens in relationship to comorbidities, comprehensive geriatric assessments, and presence of minimal residual disease is warranted to better define the relative efficacy of these two RIC regimens in AML. Disclosures Weisdorf: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a potentially curative treatment for primary myelofibrosis (PMF). Reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allows otherwise ineligible patients to proceed with HSCT. Host factors in PMF such as bone marrow (BM) fibrosis, massive splenomegaly, and transfusion related allo-immunization increase the risk of engraftment failure, especially with RIC. Spleen directed therapy (SDT) is often used in PMF patients with splenomegaly to help with engraftment, however little data exists supporting this practice. This study was carried out to investigate the role for SDT and the predictors of outcomes with RIC HSCT for PMF. Methods :After IRB approval, the Mayo Clinic HSCT registry was queried for patients with PMF that underwent RIC allo-HSCT from 2005-2014. Disease and transplant related data were retrospectively abstracted and analyzed for HSCT related outcomes. SDT was defined as a therapeutic strategy with specific intent to overcome an enlarged spleen prior to HSCT and included splenectomy, splenic artery embolization, splenic irradiation, or JAK inhibitor therapy that was stopped <30 days before HSCT. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and means were compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox regression modeling. Results :51 patients (67% males) with WHO defined PMF with palpable splenomegaly that underwent RIC allo-HSCT were included in the study; median age 57 years (range, 35-68). The median follow-up was 12.2 months, and at last follow up, 19 deaths (37%) and 4 relapses (8%) were documented. The median OS for the group was not reached (mean 34.2 months); 88% at 100 days and 60% at 2 years. 17 deaths were attributed to non-relapse mortality (NRM). There were 3 engraftment failures (6%). 32 patients (63%) developed acute GVHD (grades II-IV) and 24 patients (47%) developed chronic GVHD (all grades). Twenty-one patients (41%) received SDT; 10 (48%) splenectomy, 2 (9%) splenic irradiation, and 9 (43%) JAK inhibitor therapy (ruxolitinib). The SDT group had a median spleen size of 14.5 cm (range, 1-29 cm) below the left costal margin (LCM) and 13 patients (62%) with spleen size >10 cm below LCM, while the no SDT group had a median spleen size of 7 cm (range, 1-19 cm) and 12 patients (40%) with spleen size >10 cm below LCM; p = 0.01. Seven (64%) of 11 patients receiving splenic irradiation (n = 1) or JAK inhibitor therapy (n = 6) were eligible for IWG-MRT spleen response, and 2 (29%) responded (both in JAK inhibitor group). Of the remaining 5 patients, 2 had a response not meeting IWG-MRT criteria. There were no differences in age (p = 0.09), gender (p = 1.0), DIPSS + score (p = 0.35), or HCT-CI (p = 0.61) between the two groups. There was a statistically significant difference in engraftment failure, with all 3 engraftment failures occurring in the SDT group (2 splenectomy patients, 1 splenic irradiation patient; p = 0.02). Engraftment failures were not attributable to insufficient cell dose, donor specific antibodies, or identifiable host factors. The patient with engraftment failure who underwent splenic irradiation had persistent massive splenomegaly. There were similar outcomes with regards to relapse rates, NRM, and acute and chronic GVHD. In the SDT group, the median OS was 13.3 months; 81% at 100 days and 33% at 2 years. In the no SDT group, the median OS was not reached; 94% at 100 days and 68% at 2 years; p=0.13. In a univariate survival analysis that included age, gender, SDT, DIPSS+ score, HCT-CI, CMV status, ABO status, HLA matching, donor source, graft source, engraftment status, and acute and chronic GVHD, predictors of survival were engraftment failure (p = 0.02) and major/bidirectional ABO incompatibility (p = 0.02). Similar results were obtained when JAK inhibitor therapy was considered separately from other forms of SDT. In a multivariate analysis, engraftment failure (HR 8.2, 1.8-27.2; p = 0.01) and major/bidirectional ABO incompatibility (HR 4.1, 1.4-10.9; p = 0.009) retained independent prognostic significance. Discussion:In patients with PMF and splenomegaly, there was no demonstrable benefit from SDT. Predictors of post-HSCT survival included engraftment failure and major/bidirectional ABO incompatibility. These findings need validation in a larger cohort of patients. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding. Mesa:Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; NS Pharma: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Fludarabine plus busulfan (FB) and fludarabine plus melphalan (FM) are two commonly used reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT). A recent analysis showed that both regimens had similar overall survival (OS) but relapse incidence (RI) was significantly higher with FB with a trend towards higher non-relapse mortality (NRM) in FM (Baron et al., Cancer 2015). However, that cohort included patients treated with oral and intravenous busulfan without pharmakokinetic targeting of intravenous which may impact anti-leukemic activity. Aim: Compare transplant related outcomes of FB vs. FM using intravenous (IV) busulfan targeted to the area under the curve (AUC). Methods: After due IRB approval, patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) receiving RIC-SCT from 2008-2014 were identified. All baseline and laboratory features were retrospectively extracted. Busulfan dose in FB was 0.8 mg/kg IV for 10 doses with therapeutic AUC target of 900-1500 mcmol/L (min). All patients received T-cell replete grafts. Categorical and continuous variables were compared using Pearson's chi-squared and Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis, respectively. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and curves were compared using the log-rank test. Cumulative incidence was computed as competing events using Grey's model. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox regression modeling. Results: A. Baseline characteristics and AUC monitoring: 134 pts were identified (47 FB and 87 FM). Median follow up of the entire cohort was 40 months (0-63.3) and at last follow up, 60% and 29% have died or relapsed, respectively. Baseline characteristics stratified according to conditioning regimen are shown in table 1. Younger age (60 yrs FB vs. 61 yrs FM, p = 0.015) and a trend towards a higher CMV R-/D- status (28% FB vs. 14% FM p = 0.064) were the only significant differences identified. All patients in the FB group received intravenous busulfan and 46/47 patients had evaluable AUC data with a range of 732-1354 mcmol/L (min). A total of 19 patients were outside of range, all <900 mcmol/L (min) and required a median dose increase of 28.1% (3.3-50.2%) B. Engraftment and toxicity data: The median time for platelet engraftment was 19 days (0-48) for FB vs. 16 days (14-183) for FM (p = 0.0023) whereas the median time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) engraftment was 18 days (7-30) for FB and 15 days (11-40) for FM (p = 0.077). Cumulative incidence of grade II-IV, III-IV acute GVHD and chronic GVHD at 2-yr was 57.3%, 11% and 52.8% for FB and 48.6%, 17% and 63.4% for FM (p = 0.73, 0.4 and 0.21, respectively). Two patients in the FM group died of cardiac causes (heart failure and sudden cardiac arrest). No cases of sinusoidal obstructive syndrome were observed in either arm C. Transplant outcomes: A significantly higher 2-yr relapse incidence (RI) was associated with FB vs. FM at 35.6% vs 17.3%, respectively (p = 0.0058). 2-yr progression free survival (PFS) was also significantly lower in the FB vs. FM at 51.2% vs. 65.1%, respectively (p 0.031). However, 2-yr OS and NRM was similar for FB vs. FM (53.1% and 22.9% vs 63.9% and 21.9%, respectively p = 0.26 and 0.89). Necessitating a dose adjustment based on AUC did not increase the risk for relapse or affect NRM. In multivariate analysis, FB was associated with increased RI with hazard ratio (HR) 2.29 (1.07-4.88; p = 0.033). Other factors significantly associated with RI on multivariate analysis were secondary/therapy related disease with HR 2.84 (1.34-6.02; p = 0.0067) and CR1 vs. other with HR 0.39 (0.17-5.32; p = 0.019). The significance of the results remained unchanged after exclusion of MDS patients (data not shown) Conclusion: Despite AUC dose adjustment, FB compared to FM was associated with increased RI with a similar OS and NRM. AUC dose adjustment did not impact transplant outcomes and its routine use in RIC should be further evaluated. Given the wide use of FB as a conditioning regimen, these important observations should be prospectively studied in a randomized fashion. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding. Wolf:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Adult T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia / lymphoma (T-ALL) is an rare and aggressive hematological malignancy with overall survival (OS) according to the UKALL XII/E2993 of 48% at 5 years (Marks et al, Blood 2009). Over the last decade, the incorporation of L-asparaginase, dose intensification (similar to pediatric protocols), availability of newer agents such as clofarabine (Dec 2004) and nelarabine (Oct 2005) have been shown to improve outcomes. We carried out this study to see if the above mentioned changes in treatment have translated to an OS benefit. Methods: After due IRB approval, adults diagnosed with T-ALL from 1990-2014 at Mayo Clinic were identified. All clinical and pathologic data was retrospectively reviewed Comparative analysis was performed based on year of diagnosis before and after 2005 (Group 1, diagnosis prior to 2005, and Group 2, diagnosis post 2005). Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier Method and log-rank test. Chi-square test was used to compare variables. Results: A. Patient Characteristics: Between 1990 and 2014, a total of 92 consecutive patients (pts) with T-ALL were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 33 years (range; 18-88 years) with 72% males. Distribution of pts by year of diagnosis was as follows: Group 1(n= 47) (51%), and Group 2 (n=45) (49%). Median overall survival was 97.2 months. Median follow up for Group 1 was 50 months, during which time 23 (39%) deaths were documented, and 22.8 months (0.9 - 115.4) for Group 2 at which time19 deaths (42%) were documented (p= 0.04). Pts in Group 2 were older than Group1 (median age 41 vs 27 years (p= 0.004). Apart from age, the two groups were similar in other characteristics (Table 1). B. Therapy received by patient groups: We observed a high use of L-asparaginase containing regimens in Group 1 vs Group 2 [35(74%) pts vs 19 (42%), p=0.0013]. In contrast there was an increase in use of Hyper-CVAD in Group 2; 23(51%) vs. 3 (6%) (p<0.0001). There was no difference in the use of intensive pediatric protocols (p=0.11). There was a trend of increased use of nelarabine in Group 2, however clofarabine usage was not different (p=0.09, and p=0.6 respectively) (Table1). Allogenic stem cell transplant was offered more in Group 2 compared to Group 1, 16 (36%) patients vs. 10 (21%) patients (p=0.0009). In contrast, 7 (19%) patients underwent autologous transplantation in group 1 vs. none in group 2 (p=0.0009). C. Overall outcome by patient groups: We did not observe any difference in CR, or relapse rates among the two groups. The median OS and time to relapse were also not statistically different among Group 1 and 2 [102.6 vs 61.8 months Figure A, and 7.1 vs 14.1 months respectively]. Furthermore, age adjusted survival analysis was also not statistically significant. Conclusion: In this large cohort of adult T-ALL patients, in spite of significant advances in treatment strategies over the last two decades, we observed no difference in overall and relapse free survival prior to and after 2005. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding. Thompson:Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Witzig:Spectrum: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Valeant Pharma: Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are clonal hematological diseases which present with cytopenias. Hematopoietic cell transplantation is usually limited to fit patients with higher risk MDS and donor availability. Hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) have been the mainstay option for the management of MDS with different clinical efficacy in low versus high risk MDS trials. No trials have compared the two agents. Aim: To conduct a systematic review and network analysis comparing the efficacy of azacitidine to decitabine. Methods: The protocol of the systematic review was developed a priori. A comprehensive search of several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus) was conducted from each database's earliest inception through November 20th, 2014 without language restrictions. Trials enrolling adults diagnosed with MDS who received hypomethylating agents (azacitidine or decitabine) therapy were included. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers and differences were resolved by consensus. The Cochrane Risk of bias tool was used to appraise the trials. Random effects model was used to pool relative risks (RR) of outcomes (overall survival, overall response rate, hematologic improvement and grade 3 or 4 toxicity). Adjusted indirect comparisons were used to estimate RR for indirect comparisons (Glenny AM, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2005). All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA, version 13 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX). Results: Only four trials met the eligibility criteria (Figure 1). Two trials compared Azacitidine (75mg/m²/day SC x 7 days) to the best suppurative care (BSC) and included 549 patients (278 azacitidine and 271 BSC, age average: 69; range: 31-92), and the other 2 compared decitabine (15 mg/m² IV q 8 hours x9) to BSC and included 403 patients (208 Decitabine and 195 BSC, age average: 69.7; range: 60-90) (Table 1). The proportion of patients with intermediate-2 and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (based on International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS)) in trials comparing decitabine to BSC was 82.21% and 83.08%; respectively, and in trials comparing azacitidine to BSC was 62.59% and 61.26%; respectively. The risk of bias was moderate overall. Compared to BSC, azacitidine was significantly associated with lower risk of death (RR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.74-0.94, p=0.002) whereas the effect of decitabine did not reach statistical significance (RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.77-1.001, p=0.053). Both drugs were superior to BSC in terms of partial and complete response. Head to head comparisons were not statistically significant (except for the outcome of complete response where low certainty evidence suggested that azacitidine treated patients were less likely to have complete response compared to decitabine (RR=0.11, 95% CI= 0.01, 0.86, p=0.04). (Table 2). Conclusion: Azacitidine and decitabine are both superior to BSC. The available indirect evidence comparing the two agents warrants low certainty and cannot reliably confirm superiority of either agent. Head-to-head trials are needed. In the meantime, the choice of agent should be driven by patients' preferences, drug availability and cost. Table 2. Results of meta-analysis Outcome Azacitidine VS. Decitabine Azacitidine VS. BSC Decitabine VS. BSC RR LCI HCI P value RR LCI HCI P value RR LCI HCI P value Death 0.95 0.79 1.13 0.54 0.83 0.74 0.94 0.002 0.88 0.77 1.001 0.05 Complete response 0.11 0.01 0.86 0.04* 2.56 1.44 4.58 0.001 23.46 3.22 170.84 0.002 Partial response 0.35 0.04 3.03 0.34 4.91 2.27 10.63 <0.0001 14.02 1.87 105.08 0.01 Major erythroid improvement 0.47 0.03 8.37 0.60 6.37 3.93 10.33 <0.0001 13.67 0.79 235.57 0.07 Major platelet improvement 1.51 0.30 7.56 0.62 4.80 2.98 7.70 <0.0001 3.19 0.68 14.89 0.14 Major neutrophil improvement 2.89 0.56 14.82 0.20 2.63 1.68 4.12 <0.0001 0.91 0.19 4.38 0.907 Hematologic improvement 0.25 0.06 1.09 0.07 2.18 1.67 2.85 <0.0001 8.62 2.05 36.32 0.003 Anemia 1.18 0.53 2.63 0.69 0.89 0.75 1.06 0.198 0.76 0.35 1.66 0.49 Neutropenia 0.99 0.75 1.30 0.92 1.87 1.63 2.14 <0.0001 1.90 1.49 2.42 <0.0001 Thrombocytopenia 0.87 0.64 1.18 0.37 1.63 1.43 1.86 <0.0001 1.87 1.43 2.45 <0.0001 Infection 1.13 0.52 2.43 0.76 1.25 0.60 2.60 0.55 1.11 0.87 1.42 0.41 *These results warrant low certainty due to imprecision (very small number of events) and are driven by 14 patients achieving complete response in BSC arm in one trial. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding.