Saad, Ayman

Abstract The overall survival (OS) has improved significantly in multiple myeloma (MM) over the last decade with the use of proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug-based combinations, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) and subsequent maintenance therapies in eligible newly diagnosed patients. However, clinical trials using auto-HSCT followed by lenalidomide maintenance have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM), including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We evaluated the impact of SPM and SHM on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients with MM after auto-HSCT using CIBMTR registry data. Adult patients with MM who underwent first auto-HSCT in the United States with melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011 to 2018 and received maintenance therapy were included (n = 3948). At a median follow-up of 37 months, 175 (4%) patients developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid, 36 (20%) myeloid, 24 (14%) SHM, not otherwise specified, and 3 (2%) lymphoid malignancies. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that SPM and SHM were associated with an inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.62, P < .001 and HR 5.01, P < .001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P < .001 and HR 8.13, P < .001, respectively). In patients who developed SPM and SHM, MM remained the most frequent primary cause of death (42% vs 30% and 53% vs 18%, respectively). We conclude the development of SPM and SHM leads to a poor survival in patients with MM and is an important survivorship challenge. Given the median survival for MM continues to improve, continued vigilance is needed to assess the risks of SPM and SHM with maintenance therapy post–auto-HSCT.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) provide an evidence- and consensus-based approach for the use of autologous and allogeneic HCT in the management of malignant diseases in adult patients. HCT is a potentially curative treatment option for patients with certain types of malignancies; however, recurrent malignancy and transplant-related complications often limit the long-term survival of HCT recipients. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance regarding aspects of HCT, including pretransplant recipient evaluation, hematopoietic cell mobilization, and treatment of graft-versus-host disease—a major complication of allogeneic HCT—to enable the patient and clinician to assess management options in the context of an individual patient’s condition. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of the important recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for HCT, including the incorporation of a newly developed section on the Principles of Conditioning for HCT.

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 Background: Conflicting data exists on whether T-cell dose of allogeneic stem cell product influences transplant outcome. Methods: Using CIBMTR database, we identified 2,736 adult patients who underwent first allogeneic HCT for AML/ALL/MDS (between 2008-2014) with PBSC from an HLA-identical sibling donor (MSD) or 8/8-matched unrelated donor (MUD). This cohort excluded ex-vivo and in-vivo T-cell depletion transplants. Correlative analysis was done between CD3 cell dose and risk of GVHD, relapse, NRM, DFS and OS. Results: T-cell dose cutoff values were identified (using maximum likelihood estimation method) to identify differential risk of aGVHD (grade II-IV) in both MSD and MUD groups. A CD3 cell dose cutoff of 14 x107 cells/kg identified MSD/low CD3 (n=223) and MSD/high CD3 (n=1214) and a dose of 15 x107 cells/kg identified MUD/low CD3 (n=197) and MUD/high CD3 (n=1102). CD3 and CD34 cell doses did not correlate. Median CD3 cell dose were 11 and 29 in the MSD/Low and MSD/High groups, respectively, and 10 and 28 in the MUD/Low and MUD/High groups, respectively. In MSD/high CD3, cumulative incidence (CI) of D100-aGVHD (GII-IV) was higher (33% vs 25%) (P value =0.009) without influence on engraftment, severe aGVHD (GIII-IV), cGVHD, NRM, relapse, DFS, or OS. In MUD/high CD3, CI of D100-aGVHD (GII-IV) was higher (50% vs 40%) (p value=0.009) and so was the CI of 6-month-cGVHD (31% vs23%) (p value = 0.02) with no influence on engraftment, severe aGVHD, 2-year-GVHD, NRM, relapse, DFS, or OS. On multivariate analysis, both MSD (table 1) and MUD (table 2) groups failed to show a correlation between CD3 cell dose and aGVHD (GII-IV) (p value =0.1 and 0.07), cGVHD (p value=0.8 and 0.3) for both groups respectviely. Sub-analysis of CD4, CD8 and CD4/CD8 ratio failed to identify cutoff values predictive of transplant outcome. Using log-rank test, the sample size was, however, suboptimal to identify difference (with 80% power at 0.05% significant level) at these cutoff cell dose. Conclusion: In this relatively small registry study, the CD3 cell dose in the PBSCT product did not influence the risk of acute or chronic GVHD or other transplant outcome when using matched sibling or 8/8 unrelated donors. Disclosures Saad: Actinium: Consultancy. Lamb:Incysus Therapeutics Inc.: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 504 Background: There is limited data on the outcomes of AHCT for MM as a salvage approach following relapse after an initial (upfront) AHCT. We analyzed the outcomes of second salvage AHCT for relapsed MM. Methods: From the CIBMTR database we identified 187 patients (63% male) who had second AHCT (AHCT2) as salvage for MM relapsing after a prior AHCT (AHCT1). Planned tandem AHCT and AHCT2 within 6 months after AHCT1 were excluded. Cumulative incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM) and the probabilities of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed and multivariate analysis performed using proportional hazards models. Results: Median age at transplant was 57 (range 28–72) and 59 years (range 28–74) respectively at AHCT1 and AHCT2 respectively. Median follow up after AHCT2 was 47 months (range: 3–97). The proportion of IgG, IgA and free light chain subtypes was 48, 20 and 18% respectively. Durie Salmon stage at diagnosis was stage I (6%), II (21%), III (59%) respectively. Seven and 13% had serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl at AHCT1 and AHCT2 respectively. Conditioning regimen was single agent melphalan was in 78% and 84% for AHCT1 and AHCT2 respectively. At the time of AHCT2, majority (60%) were chemotherapy resistant compared with 80% patients with sensitive disease prior to AHCT1. Median time from AHCT1 to relapse was 18 months, with 32% relapsing within the first year, 29% in the second year, 19% in the third year and 19% beyond the third year after AHCT1. There was heterogeneity in the time to AHCT2 after relapse although 67% had AHCT2 within a year after relapse (median 7 months). Median between AHCT1 and AHCT2 was 32 months with the majority (69%) beyond 24 months. After AHCT2, day 28 engraftment rates of neutrophils and platelets were 96% (95% CI: 93–98) and 88% (95% CI: 83–92). Complete remission (CR) rates after AHCT1 were 43% whereas it was only 25% following AHCT2. After AHCT2, cumulative incidence of relapse at 1, 3 and 5 years was 51, 82, and 91% respectively. After AHCT2, one year NRM was 2%. PFS was 47%, 13% and 5% and OS was 83%, 46% and 29% at 1, 3 and 5 years respectively. In multivariate analysis, those relapsing within 36 months of AHCT1 had a higher risk of relapse (HR 1.58, p = 0.036) and higher risk of treatment failure and inferior PFS (HR1.52, p= 0.04). Mortality was higher for those relapsing early after AHCT1 (<36 months, HR 1.91, p = 0.02). OS was superior and mortality lower for AHCT2 performed after 2004-08 (HR 0.61, p=0.02). Conclusion: AHCT2 can be safely performed in relapsed MM with the best outcomes observed in later relapses (>36 months from AHCT1). OS has improved since 2004, but NRM, relapse and PFS after AHCT2 were not impacted by year of AHCT2. Thus the improved OS likely reflects greater availability of novel agents for post AHCT progression. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 4217 Background: AHCT improves survival (OS) in newly diagnosed MM patients (pts) in large randomized trials. These trials have limited eligibility to younger, healthier pts. Selection of older pts and those with co-morbid illness for AHCT is problematic. HCT-CI, originally developed as predictor of post-allogeneic transplant outcomes, maybe valuable in stratifying risk of transplant related mortality (TRM) risk and OS in the AHCT setting. We investigated the relative impact of HCT CI along with other patient and MM related variables on outcomes after AHCT in a large cohort of transplant recipients. Methods: Outcomes of 1156 MM pts receiving AHCT after high dose Melphalan (MEL) between 2007 and 2010 reported to the CIBMTR (Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research) were analyzed. HCTCI scores and individual comorbidities were prospectively reported at time of AHCT. Median follow up of survivors was 26 month. The impact of HCTCI and other potential prognostic factors including Karnofsky performance status (KPS) on OS were studied in multivariate Cox regression models. Results: HCTCI score was 0, 1, 2, 3, >3 in 42%, 18%, 13%, 13% and 14% respectively. Most common co-morbidities included pulmonary, diabetes, obesity, psychiatric, cardiac, renal and prior solid tumor. Using consolidated HCTCI scores, patients were stratified initially into 3 risk groups – HCTCI 0 (42%) vs. HCTCI 1–2 (32%) vs. HCTCI >2 (26%). Males and Caucasians were more likely to have greater HCTCI score. Higher HCTCI was associated with lower KPS <90 (33% in HCTCI 0 cohort vs. 50% in HCTCI >2). HCTCI score >2 was associated with MEL dose reduction to 140 mg/m2 (22% vs. 10% in score 0 cohort). Cytogenetic risk and MM related factors were not correlated with HCTCI. TRM at 12 month was 2%, 2%, and 3% for 3 risk groups. With extremely few TRM events, multivariate analysis did not suggest an impact of HCTCI. OS was 95%, 92%, 92% at 1 year and 87%, 81%, 80% at 2 year, respectively. OS was inferior for HCTCI >2 cohort (RR of death 1.48, p=0.02) and HCTCI cohort 1–2 (RR 1.37, p=0.04) compared with HCTCI 0 cohort. There was no significant difference in OS between HCTCI >2 vs. HCTCI 1–2 (p=0.64). Therefore the latter 2 groups were combined as the HCTCI >0 cohort [N=667] and compared with HCTCI=0 [N=489] in multivariate models. HCTCI >0 predicted inferior OS (RR of death= 1.41, p=0.01). Other significant predictors of inferior survival were KPS <90 (RR of death 1.61, p<0.01), IgA subtype (RR 1.64, p<0.01), >1 pretransplant regimen (RR 1.47, p<0.01), resistant MM at AHCT (RR 1.78, p<0.01). Major cause of death in both groups was progressive MM. Conclusion: In clinical practice, higher HCTCI score was associated with MEL dose reduction. Mortality after AHCT is predominantly related to MM progression/relapse with low incidence of TRM. Higher HCTCI scores were independently associated with inferior OS. KPS remains an important tool for risk stratification. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Presumably, reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) results in reduced infections compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens; however, published evidence is limited. In this Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research study, 1755 patients (aged ≥40 years) with acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission were evaluated for infections occurring within 100 days after T-cell replete alloHCT. Patients receiving RIC/NMA (n = 777) compared with those receiving MAC (n = 978) were older and underwent transplantation more recently; however, the groups were similar regarding Karnofsky performance score, HCT–comorbidity index, and cytogenetic risk. One or more infections occurred in 1045 (59.5%) patients (MAC, 595 [61%]; RIC/NMA, 450 [58%]; P = .21) by day 100. The median time to initial infection after MAC conditioning occurred earlier (MAC, 15 days [range, &lt;1-99 days]; RIC/NMA, 21 days [range, &lt;1-100 days]; P &lt; .001). Patients receiving MAC were more likely to experience at least 1 bacterial infection by day 100 (MAC, 46% [95% confidence interval (CI), 43-49]; RIC/NMA, 37% [95% CI, 34-41]; P = .0004), whereas at least a single viral infection was more prevalent in the RIC/NMA cohort (MAC, 34% [95% CI, 31-37]; RIC/NMA, 39% [95% CI, 36-42]; P = .046). MAC remained a risk factor for bacterial infections in multivariable analysis (relative risk, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.23-1.67; P &lt; .0001). Moreover, the rate of any infection per patient-days at risk in the first 100 days (infection density) after alloHCT was greater for the MAC cohort (1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32; P &lt; .0001). RIC/NMA was associated with reduced infections, especially bacterial infections, in the first 100 days after alloHCT.