Weisdorf, Daniel J.

Introduction: AML patients with intermediate or high-risk features often undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) during first complete remission (CR). The 2017 European LeukemiaNet guidelines for AML specify categories of CR: both with and without count recovery (CR vs. CRi) and with and without measurable residual disease (MRD). Previous smaller retrospective studies have suggested poorer survival outcomes after alloHCT for patients with responses less than CR. Methods: Eligible cases were determined using the CIBMTR registry. Each had AML in CR1, was ≥ 18 years, and underwent alloHCT between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2015. MRD was defined based on the answers to qualitative questions on standard clinical reporting forms that ask if the patient is in either molecular or cytogenetic remission and if disease is detected in marrow by flow cytometry at time of HCT. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes were non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse and disease-free survival (DFS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival and cumulative incidence function was used to estimate relapse and NRM. Multivariable analysis (MVA) was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model to adjust for patient-, disease-, and transplant-related factors. Adjusted probabilities of DFS and OS, adjusted cumulative incidence curves of NRM and relapse were generated from final Cox regression models stratified on CR vs. CRi and weighted averages of covariate values using pooled sample proportion as weight function. Results: We identified 2492 cases (CR, n=1799; CRi, n=693). The main effect variable (CR vs. CRi) was missing in 262 additional patients; these patients were excluded when univariate analysis confirmed no significant associations, suggesting a random distribution of missing data. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Compared with patients with CR, patients with CRi were more likely to have a Karnofsky score <90 (38% vs. 31%) and an HCT-CI score 3+ (47% vs. 40%). Other variables were well matched between the groups. MVA demonstrated significantly increased likelihood of mortality in patients with CRi compared to those with CR with hazard ratio (HR) 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.13-1.43) (Figure 1A). Other covariates significantly associated with shorter OS included older age, poor-risk cytogenetics, lower Karnofsky score, higher HCT-CI score, and higher white blood cell count at diagnosis. The adjusted OS probabilities at 5 year post-HCT accounted for factors from MVA model are 50% (95%CI 47-52) for patients with CR and 43% (95%CI 39-47) for patients with CRi. CRi was also associated with significantly increased NRM [HR 1.33, 95%CI(1.11-1.59)] with only a trend in increased relapse [HR 1.15, 95% CI(0.99-1.34), p=0.07] resulting in inferior DFS [HR 1.20, 95%CI(1.07-1.35)]. MRD status was available in a subset of 2297 patients, and pairwise comparison demonstrated that presence of MRD was associated with shorter OS, shorter DFS, higher NRM, and increased relapse compared to absence of MRD (Figure 1B). Pairwise interaction between the main effects (CR vs. CRi) and MRD status were tested with no significant findings at a level of 0.01, demonstrating that the effects of incomplete count recovery and MRD are independent of each other. Conclusions: Analysis of this large CIBMTR cohort demonstrates that survival outcomes differ among AML patients nominally in CR at the time of alloHCT. Patients with CRi and/or MRD have significantly shorter OS after alloHCT compared to those in CR, as well as shorter DFS and higher NRM. Further studies should focus on limiting NRM and reducing relapse to optimize post-alloHCT outcomes for patients with responses less than CR. Disclosures Percival: Pfizer Inc.: Research Funding; Nohla Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria. Weisdorf:Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

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 Introduction: The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients (pts) with AML remains uncertain. We compared outcomes for older AML pts in CR1 receiving HCT reported to the CIBMTR to older AML pts achieving CR1 on National Clinical Trials Network induction and non-HCT consolidation therapy (CT) trials. Methods: This study focused on pts 60-75 years of age treated between 2004 to 2013. CT pts (n=211) underwent induction and consolidation on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN or SWOG clinical trials for initial therapy for newly diagnosed AML; the CIBMTR provided data for HCT pts (n=431). CT patients received at least one cycle of CT on study and were excluded if HCT occurred at any time. Time to event started at CR1 and pts entered at CT or HCT, respectively, using left-truncation to account for differential entry times. Results: For the CT cohort, first consolidation included standard therapy (e.g., cytarabine or a hypomethylating agent) and additional study drug (e.g., bortezomib, dasatinib, sorafenib, and Zosuquidar, gemtuzumab) or tipifarnib alone. Among HCT pts, the donor was a HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor (URD) in 66% and the others were partially HLA-matched/mismatched URD (10%) or cord blood (24%). HCT pts were younger and more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML and unfavorable cytogenetics) (Table). The median time from CR1 to HCT and CT was 3.2 and 0.5 months, respectively. Allogeneic HCT showed worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.52, p=0.02) prior to 9 months and better OS thereafter (HR= 0.53, p <0.0001) relative to CT (figure 1A). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was worse after HCT in the first 9 months (HR=2.8, CI: 1.5 -5.2, p=.0009), while relapse was less frequent beyond 9 months after treatment (HR = 0.42, CI: 0.29 to 0.61, p<.0001). Despite higher early TRM, HCT recipients went on to manifest superior OS [5 year OS: HCT 29% (24-34%), CT 13.8% (9 -22%)] (Figure 1A). The benefit of HCT for survival after 9 months was more prominent in those with unfavorable cytogenetics (Figure 1B). Multivariate analysis for OS showed no statistically significant effect of age or performance status, while unfavorable cytogenetics were detrimental (HR=1.74, p<.0001). Conclusions. Allogeneic HCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, but resulted in superior long-term survival in older AML pts receiving HCT relative to CT by reducing relapse. Efforts to attenuate early TRM after allogeneic HCT may further improve HCT outcomes for older pts. Disclosures Ustun: novartis: Speakers Bureau. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Stone:Fujifilm: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Weisdorf:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Abstract Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a rare hematologic neoplasm characterized by abnormal growth and accumulation of tissue mast cells (MC) in various organ systems, including bone marrow (BM). Indolent and advanced forms of SM have been described. Whereas patients with ISM have a normal or near normal life-expectancy, patients with advanced SM, including those suffering from mast cell leukemia (MCL) have a poor prognosis. In these patients, neoplastic MC are usually resistant against conventional drugs and various targeted drugs. In rapidly progressive aggressive SM (ASM) and MCL, polychemotherapy followed by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) has been proposed. However, outcome of alloHCT in advanced SM is unknown, and it also remains uncertain whether clinically relevant graft-versus-SM (GVSM) effects may occur in these patients, as only sporadic case reports have been published. We performed a retrospective multi-center analysis to evaluate the outcome of alloHCT in patients with advanced SM. Fifty-four advanced SM patients receiving SCT in 32 transplantation centers in Europe and America were identified between 1990 and 2013. The median patient age was 45 years. Donors were: HLA identical siblings (31), unrelated donors (URD) (15), umbilical cord blood donors (UCB) (2), and haploidentical donors (1). In 5 patients, stem cell source was not defined (5). Thirty-four patients received myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and 18 received reduced intensity conditioning regimens (RIC). In 2 patients, conditioning regimen was not specified. Indications for alloHCT were SM with an associated clonal hematologic non-mast cell lineage disease (SM-AHNMD) (n=32), MCL (n=13, including one with MCL-AHNMD), 8 with ASM and 1 with myelomastocytic leukemia (MML). The most prevalent AHNMD was acute myeloid leukemia (AML, n=16). With follow-up of 35-6180 (median 365) days, SM responses (defined as ≥50% decrease in BM mast cells ± decrease in serum tryptase ± regression of other organ manifestations) were observed in 39 patients (72%), including complete responses (CR) documented in 12 patients (22%). Eleven patients had stable disease, whereas 4 patients (7%) progressed immediately after alloHCT (primary resistance). In addition, 10 patients progressed (5 of them within 100 days) after an initial response. Progression was most frequently seen in MCL patients (n=6, 50%). In the AHNMD group, only 8 patients relapsed/progressed (25%). The overall survival (OS) and SM progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 year were 63% and 50% for all patients, 77% and 68% for SM-AHNMD, 63% and 50% for ASM, and 25% and 17% for MCL, respectively. The strongest predictive variable associated with inferior survival was a diagnosis of MCL. Other factors associated with poor outcome were: Karnofsky performance status ≤70%, ≥2 SM regimens given before alloHCT (e.g., steroids, cladribine, chemotherapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitor), donor source (alternative donors-UCB and haploidentical compared to sibling or URD), SM progression within the first 100 days, normal cytogenetics (compared to t(8;21) (q22;q22), and RIC (compared to MAC). The following variables were not associated with poor outcome: patient and donor age, recipient-donor sex match status, graft source (BM vs. peripheral stem cells), BM mast cell percentage at time of alloHCT, and CR status of AML or SM response at time of alloHCT. This largest multi-center analysis of results in advanced SM provides evidence for clinical efficacy of alloHCT, presumably because of a GVSM effect of alloHCT (achieving CR, and response to donor-lymphocyte infusions and RIC alloHCT). However, responses varied among different SM categories: while patients with SM-AHNMD enjoyed excellent outcomes, the OS for MCL patients in general, was poor. Nevertheless it is remarkable that 3 of 13 patients with MCL – an otherwise fatal disease with a median survival of &lt;12 months – became long-term survivors after alloHCT. In summary, our results support development of a prospective alloHCT study, with the aim to optimize therapy and to improve overall outcome in advanced SM. Based on our pilot study, alloHCT should also be considered in practice for eligible and fit patients with SM-AHNMD (if treatment of AHNMD component needs alloHCT or SM component is aggressive), rapidly progressing ASM, MCL and MML when a suitable HLA-matched sibling donor or URD is available. Disclosures: Vercellotti: Sangart Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Akin:Novartis: Consultancy. Valent:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 1733 Introduction: Much remains to be elucidated regarding the etiology of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and why some cases progress to acute myeloid leukemia. Further, there are few data on how accurate case classification is within state cancer registries and the impact of the 2008 WHO MDS classification modifications on clinical practice. We are conducting a large population-based prospective study of MDS to investigate risk factors for initial disease as well as disease progression. Our study includes comprehensive central review of all cases. Initial findings are reported here. Methods: We began evaluation and follow-up of all newly diagnosed MDS cases in Minnesota between the ages of 20 and 85 years from April 1, 2010 onward. Our process includes rapid case identification by the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System (MCSS), contact of individual patients after primary physician approval, and, for interested patients, participation in an extensive questionnaire with medical history review and optional saliva sample for DNA. In concert, all cases pass through central medical review including: 1) independent pathology report +/− slide review by two hematopathologists to confirm diagnosis and subclassification; 2) independent cytogenetic review by a cytogeneticist; and 3) medical chart review by an oncologist to identify pertinent clinical history and prospectively calculate the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and WHO-based prognostic scoring system (WPSS) scores. Annual follow-up is planned to monitor for disease progression and outcome. In cases of unknown cytogenetics, IPSS calculations are not completed. In cases of unknown cytogenetics or diagnosis of MDS-U, not currently stratified in the WPSS, WPSS calculations are not completed. Results: We describe the first 67 patients enrolled on this study that have completed central review. The majority of patients were male (n=44) and the median age of the cohort at diagnosis was 71 (range 41–85). Table 1 Conclusion: Ours is the first large prospective population-based study of MDS that includes central pathology, cytogenetic, and clinical review of newly diagnosed patients with prospective calculation of IPSS and WPSS and plans for long term follow-up. This study is expected to enroll approximately 700 MDS cases over a five year period. While early in investigation, our initial review highlights the variability in distinct WHO diagnosis between initial cancer registry (i.e., MCSS) designation and designation after thorough central review of all appropriate diagnostic components. Our data suggest the robustness of the WHO RA, RARS, and RCMD classifications, the possible over-utilization of MDS-U classification, and highlight the under-representation of therapy-related MDS identification with registry designation. The impact of discordant diagnoses between MCSS and central review on therapeutic strategies is uncertain, but warrants continued evaluation and underscores the importance of complete central review in evaluation of MDS cases. Supported by NIH R01 CA142714. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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

Abstract Abstract 897 Recent changes in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) including increased use of reduced-intensity conditioning, peripheral blood cells as the graft source (PB) and unrelated donors (URD) warrant re-evaluation of risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) and its impact on overall survival (OS). Risk factors for these outcomes were analyzed using more recent data from CIBMTR observational database. Methods: The cohort included adult patients ≥ 20 y transplanted from an HLA-identical sibling (SD) (n=3191) or URD (N=2370) for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), or myelodsyplastic syndrome (MDS) using a T-cell replete graft from 1999–2005. Six groups were created to evaluate the impact of conditioning [(myeloablative (MA) and reduced-intensity or non-myeloablative (RIC)], total-body irradiation (TBI) and graft source [(bone marrow (BM) or PB] as follows: MA+TBI+PB (group 1), MA+TBI+BM (group 2) MA+ no TBI+PB (group 3), MA+ no-TBI+BM (group 4), RIC+PB (group 5) and RIC+BM (group 6). Separate analyses were performed for SD and URD. IBMTR grade was used to classify aGVHD. A p-value of ≤ 0.01 was considered significant. Results: Among the SD cohort, the probability of aGVHD grade B-D and grade C-D at 100 days was 39% (95% CI, 37–41%) and 16% (95% CI, 14–17%). In multivariate analyses, non-TBI based MA regimens with a BM graft (group 4), RIC conditioning with PB (group 5) and tacrolimus plus methotrexate aGVHD prophylaxis were associated with lower odds ratio of grade B-D aGVHD (Table 1). The probability of OS was 51% (95% CI: 49–53%) at 3 y and 46% (95% CI: 44–49%) at 5 y. In multivariate analyses, grade B-D aGVHD was associated with a higher risk of death. Other independent risk factors for OS are shown in Table 2. Among the URD cohort, the probability of aGVHD grade B-D and C-D at 100 days was 59% (95%, CI 57–61%) and 32% (30-34%). In multivariate analysis, BM with MA (TBI and no TBI) or RIC conditioning (groups 2, 4 and 6) were significantly associated with lower odds ratio of grade B-D aGVHD (Table 1). Other independent risk factors included a diagnosis of CML. HCT from a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD showed a trend for higher incidence of aGVHD (p=0.02). The probability of OS was 38% (95% CI: 35–40%) at 3 y and 33% (95% CI: 31–35%) at 5 y. In multivariate analysis, grade B-D aGVHD was associated with a higher mortality. Table 2 shows other independent risk factors for OS. Conclusion: Intensity of the conditioning regimen, TBI and the graft source has a combined effect on the risk of aGVHD. In both SD and URD cohorts, BM with MA, non-TBI regimens were associated with lower risk of aGVHD. In URD cohort, BM after a RIC also was associated with a reduced risk of aGVHD. Modulation of these risk factors is needed to reduce acute GVHD incidence and death after allogeneic transplantation. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction Much remains unknown regarding the etiology of MDS and why some cases progress to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). With MDS reportable as a distinct myeloid malignancy for the first time only in 2001, there are few data on state cancer registry case identification and classification accuracy. To grasp the true incidence and the scope of this heterogeneous clonal hematopoietic malignancy, the accuracy of such information is essential. In our third year of a large population-based prospective study of MDS to investigate risk factors for initial diagnosis and disease progression, we report our experience with MDS case identification and classification according to both our state cancer registry and our comprehensive central review process Methods We began our identification and follow-up of all newly diagnosed adult MDS cases in Minnesota in April 2010. Our process includes rapid case identification by the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System (MCSS), contact of individual patients, and their participation in an extensive questionnaire and medical history review. In concert, all cases pass through central medical review including: 1) independent pathology review by two hematopathologists; 2) independent cytogenetic review by a cytogeneticist; 3) integrated central pathology-cytogenetic review; and 4) medical chart review by an oncologist to identify pertinent clinical history and treatments and prospectively calculate risk stratification scores (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS)). Annual follow-up monitors for disease progression and outcome. Results We describe the first 161 patients enrolled who have completed central review. Our data highlight the excellent concordance between MCSS and central review for the MDS subtypes RAEB (n=40/50, 80%), RARS (n=20/23, 87%), and RCMD (n=19/25, 76%). However, we noted poor concordance for the MDS subtypes RA (n=1/7 (14%) with 5 cases re-classified as RCMD) and MDS-U (n=3/24(13%) with 21 cases re-classified into other MDS subtypes). Notably, our integrated central review process identified and reclassified 12 additional cases of t-MDS when all data were considered. Our central review process noted an additional 30 cases classified as MDS by MCSS that we deemed ineligible after central review due to insufficient morphology (n=20) or reclassification to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) (n=5), MDS/MPD (n=3), or AML (n=4). Conclusion Ours is the first large prospective population-based study of MDS that includes central pathology, cytogenetic, and clinical review of newly diagnosed patients with prospective risk stratification calculation and long term follow-up. Our review highlights the variability in the diagnosis and subclassification of MDS between our state cancer registry and after integrated central review, with as many as 80% of cases in certain MDS subtypes being re-classified, and an approximately 20% ineligibility rate. The high proportion of cases submitted in MCSS as MDS-U that were re-classifiable into specific MDS subtypes following central review suggests a possible misapplication of this MDS category in a way not intended by the 2008 WHO guidelines. The additional classification of t-MDS by our central review process suggests that this subtype is likely underestimated by cancer registries. Assessment of therapeutic implications will be important to determine if these variabilities are consequential. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Total body irradiation (TBI)-based conditioning regimens are considered the standard of care for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, due to concerns regarding acute and long-term toxicities, non-TBI regimens, commonly including busulfan (BU), have been increasingly explored. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with the hypothesis that there would be equivalence of these two myeloablative approaches by reviewing outcomes for adult patients (pts), aged 18-60 years, undergoing a first, well-matched sibling, related or unrelated donor HCT in CR1 or CR2 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) from 2005-2014. Eight hundred nineteen pts received TBI (63% 9-12 Gy, 37% ≥13 Gy) combined with etoposide (25%) or cyclophosphamide (Cy) (75%) and 299 pts received intravenous BU combined with a second alkylator Cy (15%) or melphalan (Mel) (13%), or a nucleoside analogue fludarabine (Flu) (41%) or clofarabine (Clo)(30%). The majority of the BU-based pts were treated at the Moffitt or MD Anderson Cancer Center. The BU-based regimens were grouped together for analyses since no significant differences in basic outcomes among the different chemotherapy-only regimens were noted. Patients in the BU-containing group were older but had better performance status, took longer to achieve CR1 and longer to receive HCT; more received peripheral blood than marrow grafts, peri-HCT ATG, pre- and post HCT tyrosine kinase inhibitors ( TKI), and were treated more recently than pts in the TBI-based group (Table 1). With median follow-up of 3.6 years for the BU-based group and 5.3 years for the TBI-based group, adjusted 3 year outcomes showed treatment-related mortality (TRM) BU 19% vs. TBI 25% (p=.04); relapse BU 37% vs. TBI 28% (p=.007); disease-free survival (DFS) Bu 45% vs. TBI 48% (p=.35); and overall survival (OS) BU 57% vs. TBI 53% (p=.35) (Figures A-B). Patients in the BU group had significantly more grade II-IV acute GVHD (47% vs. 40%, p=.025), but marginally less chronic GVHD (49% vs. 55% at 3 years, p=.073). In multivariate analysis, the BU group had a significantly higher rate of acute GVHD after day 50 (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.19-2.58, p=.004), but marginally less chronic GVHD (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.01 p=.059) and higher risk of relapse (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85 p=.002) compared with TBI-based regimens. Despite the observed higher risks of acute GVHD and relapse, BU-based conditioning led to similar TRM, OS, and DFS following HCT for ALL. Table 1 Table 1. Figure Figure. Disclosures Ciurea: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Cyto-Sen Therapeutics: Equity Ownership. Seftel:Otsuka: Research Funding. Pulsipher:Medac: Other: Housing support for conference; Chimerix: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Study Steering Committee. Champlin:Ziopharm Oncology: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Intrexon: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties.