Artz, Andrew

Abstract Despite concerns about the toxicity of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in older patients, prospective data characterizing prevalence or risk stratification for geriatric morbidity such as disability or frailty are limited. We prospectively assessed the prognostic impact of the novel composite health assessment risk model (CHARM), a score established to predict 1-year nonrelapse mortality (NRM), among 1105 patients aged ≥60 years enrolled on the Bone Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Study 1704. Secondary end points were assessed post-alloHCT at day 100 (D100), D180, and D365 in multivariable models adjusted with predetermined clinical variables. Among alloHCT survivors, the prevalence of disability by instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), frailty by the Physical Frailty Phenotype, and physical function impairment by Patient Reported Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was highest at D100 and lower on D180 and D365. Higher CHARM scores were independently associated with greater disability (coefficient, −0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.85 to −0.43; P< .001), increased frailty (coefficient, 0.19; CI, 0.081-0.31; P< .001), worse PROMIS physical function, greater PROMIS depression, increased serious organ toxicity by D100, more cognitive decline at D100, and higher mortality after acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) but not significantly associated with PROMIS anxiety or acute GVHD. Higher CHARM scores predicted worse disability-free survival (odds ratio [OR], 2.03; CI, 1.66-2.48; P< .001) and lower frailty-free survival (OR, 2.00; CI, 1.61-2.49). In summary, CHARM is an independent prognostic scoring system not only for NRM but also for geriatric morbidity and functional limitation–free survival through 1 year after alloHCT. Pre-alloHCT CHARM is a novel tool to aid shared decision-making for older patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03992352.

Abstract Approximately 17% of people aged 65 years and older are anemic, and 10% of death certificates report anemia as a secondary cause of death in the United States. Nonetheless, anemia remains unexplained in 30%-50% of older adults. This unexplained anemia of aging (UAA) is a diagnosis of exclusion. The mechanism, impact, and progression of UAA remain unknown. At older ages, anemia adds to pre-existing co-morbidities with significant adverse health consequences, representing a compelling unmet clinical concern. The National Institute on Aging held a workshop in 2024 to discuss current knowledge and research opportunities. Topics included the epidemiology of anemia at older age and its clinical implications; probable mechanism(s) underlying UAA, that is, low-grade inflammation’s effects on erythropoiesis; the role of microbiota in iron regulation in bone marrow; the importance of ruling out a diagnosis of leukemic clonal hematopoiesis (CH), which is more prevalent in older age; the role of senescence and aging governing hematopoiesis; and the effects of sex hormones on hematopoietic stem cell aging. Understanding the roles of these factors could reduce the proportion of the older anemic population whose anemia remains unexplained and offer insights into new potential diagnostic and intervention strategies. Speakers reviewed previous clinical trials in patients with UAA and CH. They discussed lessons learned and future research priorities, including efforts to develop new diagnostic algorithms and potential uses of machine learning.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is potentially curative for older adults with hematologic malignancies. Concerns on nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in older adults limit allo-HCT utilization. We executed a prospective, observational study BMT-CTN 1704 (Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network) enrolling allo-HCT recipients aged ≥60 years from 49 centers in the United States. We analyzed associations between 13 measurements of older adult health and NRM within 1 year to construct a comprehensive health assessment risk model (primary-CHARM) using multivariate Fine-Gray model and grouped penalized variable selection. Two machine learning (ML) models (Cox and pseudo-value boosting) were also explored. Models’ performances were compared using area under the curve (AUC), with bootstrap and cross-validation sampling to correct for optimism, decision curve analysis (DCA), calibration, and Brier scores. Among 1105 patients with median age of 67 (range, 60-82) years who received allo-HCT, NRM was 14.4% and overall survival (OS) 71.7% at 1 year. Factors statistically selected for inclusion in primary-CHARM were higher comorbidity burden, lower albumin, higher C-reactive protein, older age, higher weight-loss percentage, lower patient-reported performance score, and cognitive impairment. Primary-CHARM scores were independently associated with higher NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; P < .0001) and worse OS (HR, 2.09; P < .0001). Bootstrap bias–corrected AUC for primary-CHARM was 0.591. Comparing primary-CHARM with HCT-comorbidity index and 2 ML-CHARM models, calibration, Brier score, and DCA analysis favored primary-CHARM. Primary-CHARM, with mostly simple and readily available parameters, risk stratifies older adults for allo-HCT. Adopting primary-CHARM in practice may promote broader use of HCT by quantifying risk and enhance the design of strategies to improve outcomes. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03992352.

Introduction: The BMT CTN 1704 study developed and validated the CHARM that stratified risk for non-relapse mortality and overall mortality among older adults, performing better than the HCT-CI alone (Artz A et al, Blood. 2023;142:109) and equally to two machine learning models. CHARM assigns a total score for 7 health variables: increasing age, higher HCT-CI scores, lower albumin, higher C-reactive protein, higher percent of weight loss over the preceding year, lower patient-reported performance status scores, and lower cognitive score per Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA). A CHARM calculator is available at:https://cibmtr.org/CIBMTR/OffNav/DevSandbox/CHARM-Risk-NRM-Calculator No multi-institutional prospective data exist on functional trajectories and morbidity after HCT in older patients. We now report on the association of CHARM to trajectories of secondary morbidity outcomes among allo-HCT survivors of this large, prospective study. Patients and Methods: Allo-HCT candidates, aged ≥60 years (yrs), were enrolled (n=1226) from 49 centers in the US between 2019 - 2021. The primary analysis includes 1105 patients proceeding to allo-HCT on study and secondary endpoints were assessed at day (D) 100, 180 and 365 except MoCA and organ toxicity were restricted to D100 and frailty had inadequate data for D100. A sequential multiple imputation strategy was implemented to impute endpoints for survivors at each time point with missing data. Analyses on multiply imputed datasets were conducted and the results combined using Rubin's rule. Associations between CHARM scores and secondary outcomes were analyzed using a multivariable Cox, Fine-Gray, Generalized Estimating Equations, and logistic regression model for survival, competing risks, continuous, and binary outcomes, respectively, with latter two focused on surviving patients. Models were adjusted for other variables including conditioning intensity, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimen, disease-risk index, donor-recipient gender match, ethnicity, baseline value of the dependent variable, and visit timepoints. Results: Higher CHARM scores were associated with development of serious organ toxicities by D100 (OR: 2.05, [1.52-2.78], p<0.0001) and ≥2 worsening score on the MoCA (odds ratio (OR) 1.55 [1.16-2.1], p=0.003). Among survivors at all timepoints, higher CHARM scores were associated with greater disability by instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) (Slope -0.640 [-0.433-0.846], p<0.001) and worsening Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Reporting System (PROMIS) physical function (Slope -0.981 [-0.057 - -1.904], p=0.037), depression (Slope 0.763 [0.042-1.484], p=0.038) and in a lesser magnitude anxiety (Slope 0.659, p=0.076). Among survivors at D180 and D365, higher CHARM scores were associated with worse frailty (Slope 0.193 [0.081-0.305], p<0.001). CHARM scores were not associated with development of acute GVHD grades 2-4 or 3-4 but were associated with post-GVHD increased mortality (HR: 1.61, [1.25-2.08], p=0.0002). Higher CHARM scores are associated with a lower incidence of chronic GVHD (HR: 0.83, p=0.026), likely due to the effect of CHARM on the competing risk of death leaving fewer patients at risk for chronic GVHD. Conclusions: The novel primary CHARM, originally developed to predict risks of NRM, also predicts worse frailty, disability, cognitive decline, and serious organ toxicities; outcomes that are critically important to older recipients of allo-HCT. CHARM therefore informs risks of transplant morbidity, separate from risks of developing acute GVHD. Results further support adopting CHARM in practice to counsel patients, expedite HCT referrals for lower risk CHARM, and design trials for high CHARM score patients.

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) improves outcomes for patients with AML harboring an internal tandem duplication mutation of FLT3 ( FLT3-ITD) AML. These patients are routinely treated with a FLT3 inhibitor after HCT, but there is limited evidence to support this. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial of post-HCT maintenance with the FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02997202 ) to determine if all such patients benefit or if detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) could identify those who might benefit. METHODS Adults with FLT3-ITD AML in first remission underwent HCT and were randomly assigned to placebo or 120 mg once daily gilteritinib for 24 months after HCT. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and the effect of MRD pre- and post-HCT on RFS and OS. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-six participants were randomly assigned post-HCT to receive gilteritinib or placebo. Although RFS was higher in the gilteritinib arm, the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.679 [95% CI, 0.459 to 1.005]; two-sided P = .0518). However, 50.5% of participants had MRD detectable pre- or post-HCT, and, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, gilteritinib was beneficial in this population (HR, 0.515 [95% CI, 0.316 to 0.838]; P = .0065). Those without detectable MRD showed no benefit (HR, 1.213 [95% CI, 0.616 to 2.387]; P = .575). CONCLUSION Although the overall improvement in RFS was not statistically significant, RFS was higher for participants with detectable FLT3-ITD MRD pre- or post-HCT who received gilteritinib treatment. To our knowledge, these data are among the first to support the effectiveness of MRD-based post-HCT therapy.

Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains the only therapy for long-term disease control for many high-risk hematologic malignancies (HM). HCT use in older HM patients (pts) continues to increase. However, concerns of excessive transplant-related morbidity and non-relapse mortality (NRM) limit referrals and broader application of curative intent HCT. The HCT-comorbidity index (HCT-CI) was initially developed to improve risk-stratification of NRM. More recently, geriatric assessment (GA) and biomarkers have emerged as promising additional tools that may refine estimates of these risks. We hypothesized that a combination of health assessments by GA and biomarkers would constitute a robust and valid model, CHARM, for accurate personalized estimation of one-year (1-yr) NRM. Here, we report the results of the largest, first of its kind, prospective study of older recipients of HCT through the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 1704 study (NCT03992352). Patients and Methods: Adults aged ≥60 years (yrs) with HM institutionally eligible for HCT were enrolled (n=1226) from 49 centers in the US between 2019 - 2021. Within 21 days of conditioning, 13 prospectively identified older pt.-specific health variables, informed from prior studies, were collected: age, HCT-CI, % of weight loss over the past yr, pt reported Karnofsky performance status, PROMIS physical function scale, instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), number of falls, PROMIS depression scale, number of prescribed medications, 4-meter walk speed, cognition by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin. The CHARM score to predict NRM within 1 yr was built using a multivariable (MVA) Fine-Gray model, with multiple imputation to handle modest missingness in covariates and grouped penalized variable selection using SCAD to identify variables to retain in the model. Final variables were used as continuous. The model further considered adjustment for conditioning intensity, CMV serostatus, and donor type. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated to validate the CHARM and compare to HCT-CI alone, with bootstrap sampling to correct for optimism in the within-sample AUC. MVA of overall survival (OS) within 1 yr used the CHARM score and adjusted for other significant variables derived from stepwise regression. Results: The primary analysis included 1105 pts who were confirmed eligible and proceeded to transplant. Median age was 67 (range 60-82) and 32% were ≥ 70 yrs. AML (45%) and MDS (30%) were the most common indications and matched donors the most frequent donor type at 72%. Reduced intensity conditioning with fludarabine (flu)-melphalan (38%) and flu-busulfan (20%) were the most common regimens. Baseline geriatric vulnerabilities among evaluable pts were frequent including slow walk speed (<0.8 meter/second) in 22%, any IADL limitation in 37%, and cognitive impairment (MoCA < 23) in 12%. 1-yr NRM was lower than expected at 14.4% with 1-yr OS of 72%. In the MVA model, albumin, CRP, HCT-CI, and weight loss were independently associated with NRM (Table) and comprised the CHARM. Of note, increasing age did not significantly affect NRM. The CHARM had within sample and bootstrap corrected AUC of 0.641 and 0.607 whereas the HCT-CI alone achieved corresponding AUC values of 0.601 and 0.598. NRM by tertiles is shown in Figure. Each point increase in the CHARM (median -2.2504, range -3.6327 to 0.1381), was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.83 (95% CI 2.12 - 3.78, p < 0.0001) for NRM. The CHARM also predicted overall mortality within 1-yr with a HR of 2.04 (1.65- 2.53, p <0.0001) per one point increase, independent of the disease risk index, which had a HR of 1.5 (95% CI 1.12 - 1.99, p =0.0059) for high/very high vs low/intermediate categories. Conclusions: We report on the first prospectively established tool, CHARM, to risk-stratify older adult HCT comprised of simple and readily available parameters in transplant and oncology clinics. Adopting CHARM in practice may promote HCT referrals and access for older pts, given low risks of NRM among CHARM lower 2/3 rd tertiles. Identifying high-risk CHARM pts pre-HCT will promote developing novel strategies to reduce NRM. Further analysis of the impacts of the 13 health assessment variables on geriatric morbidity such as disability trajectories is in-process.

PURPOSE Impaired response to erythropoietin underlies ineffective erythropoiesis and anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). We investigated whether treatment with lenalidomide (LEN), which augments erythropoietin receptor signaling in vitro, can restore and improve hemoglobin response to epoetin (EPO) alfa in patients with lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS who have anemia that is refractory to or have low probability of benefit from treatment with recombinant erythropoietin. METHODS In a phase III, US intergroup trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive either LEN and EPO alfa or LEN alone following stratification by serum erythropoietin concentration and prior erythropoietin treatment. RESULTS A total of 195 evaluable patients were randomly assigned: 99 patients to the LEN-EPO alfa cohort and 96 to LEN alone. After four cycles of treatment, the primary end point of major erythroid response (MER) was significantly higher (28.3%) with the combination compared with LEN alone (11.5%) ( P = .004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 38.9% and 15.6% achieved MER, respectively ( P = .004). Additionally, minor erythroid response was achieved in 18.2% and 20.8% of patients, for an overall erythroid response rate of 46.5% versus 32.3%. Among LEN nonresponders, 38 crossed over to the addition of EPO alfa with 10 patients (26.3%) achieving a MER. Responses to the combined treatment were highly durable with a median MER duration of 23.8 months compared with 13 months with LEN alone. CONCLUSION LEN restores sensitivity to recombinant erythropoietin in growth factor–insensitive, lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS, to yield a significantly higher rate and duration of MER compared with LEN alone (funded by the National Cancer Institute; E2905 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02048813 ).

Background: Only a small subset of Lower risk (LR) MDS patients benefit from treatment with rhu-Erythropoietin (Epo). We previously reported that lenalidomide (LEN) restores sensitivity to Epo in MDS progenitors by inducing the formation of lipid rafts that are enriched for signaling competent, JAK2/Epo-receptor complexes (McGraw K, et. al. PLoS One 2014; Basiorka A, et. al. Cancer Res 2016). In the MDS-002 and MDS-005 trials, treatment with LEN monotherapy gave rise to RBC transfusion-independence (TI) in 26% of azanucleoside-naïve, transfusion-dependent (TD) LR, non-del(5q) MDS patients for a median of 10.2 and 7.75 months, respectively. In a pilot study of Epo-refractory LR-MDS patients, the addition of epoetin alfa (EA) to LEN treatment yielded erythroid responses in 28% of patients who were unresponsive to LEN alone, suggesting that LEN may overcome clinical resistance to augment response to rhEpo (Komrokji R, et. al. Blood 2012). To test this hypothesis, we performed a randomized phase III trial comparing treatment with LEN to LEN+EA in LR non-del(5q) MDS patients who were refractory to, or not candidates for treatment with rhEpo. Methods: Patients with Low or Intermediate-1 IPSS risk MDS with hemoglobin <9.5 g/dL who were unresponsive to rhEpo treatment or were TD (>2 units/month) with serum Epo >500mU/mL were eligible. Patients were stratified by serum Epo level and prior rhEpo (EA vs. darbepoetin vs. none) then randomized to treatment with LEN 10 mg/d x21d q4wk (Arm A) or LEN + EA 60,000U SC/wk (Arm B). The primary endpoint was major erythroid response (MER) at week 16 which was defined according to transfusion status at baseline: (1) achievement of RBC-TI for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks AND a sustained ≥1 g/dL hemoglobin rise compared to mean pre-transfusion baseline value in TD patients; and (2) a >2 g/dL rise in hemoglobin without transfusion for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks in non-TD patients (<4U RBC/8 wks). Arm A non-responders were offered cross-over to combined therapy. Results: Among 205 patients randomized, 14 were excluded from the primary analysis due to a 4 month interruption in drug supply. Among the 195 evaluable patients, 96 were assigned to Arm A and 99 to Arm B. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms with 85% of patients heavily TD, receiving a median of 4 units/8 weeks. Overall, 93% of patients received prior treatment with Epo and 18% azanucleosides. In an intent to treat analysis, 28/99 patients (28.3%) in Arm B achieved MER compared to 11/96 (11.5%) in Arm A (P=0.004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 28/72 (38.9%) and 10/64 (15.6%) achieved MER, respectively (P=0.004). Forty-four Arm A non-responders crossed over to combination-therapy with 11 patients (25%) experiencing a MER. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified only treatment with LEN + EA as an independent covariate for erythroid response (P=0.01). Responses were durable with MER median duration of 23.8 months in Arm B compared to 13 months in Arm A. There was no significant difference in the frequency or distribution of >Grade 3, non-hematologic adverse events between treatment arms. Two patients progressed to AML while on study (Arm A), and no thromboembolic events were reported. Conclusions: LEN restores sensitivity to rhEpo in otherwise refractory, LR-non-del(5q) MDS patients to yield a significantly higher frequency of durable major erythroid responses compared to LEN alone. The addition of LEN to EA treatment is an effective strategy for the management of Epo-refractory patients with a potential duration of benefit extending to years. Disclosures List: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Verma:Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Stelexis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Maciejewski:Novartis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Komrokji:JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy. Luger:Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Claxton:Astellas Pharma: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Medimmune Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Celgene Corporation: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Incyte Corporation: Other: Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies. Artz:Miltenyi: Research Funding. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Lenalidomide used for treatment non-del 5q myelodysplastic syndromes.

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 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.