Wang, Hailin

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 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.

BACKGROUNDPatients with FMS like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3)‐mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have a poor prognosis and are referred for early allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).METHODSData from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) were used to evaluate 511 adult patients with de novo AML who underwent HCT during 2008 through 2011 to determine whether FLT3 mutations had an impact on HCT outcomes.RESULTSIn total, 158 patients (31%) had FLT3 mutations. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed an increased risk of relapse at 3 years in the FLT3 mutated group compared with the wild‐type (WT) group (38% [95% confidence interval (CI), 30%‐45%] vs 28% [95% CI, 24%‐33%]; P = .04; relative risk, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.15‐2.22]; P = .0048). However, FLT3 mutation status was not significantly associated with nonrelapse mortality, leukemia‐free survival, or overall survival. Although more patients in the FLT3 mutated group died from relapsed primary disease compared with those in the WT group (60% vs 46%), the 3‐year overall survival rate was comparable for the 2 groups (mutated group: 49%; 95% CI, 40%‐57%; WT group: 55%, 95% CI, 50%‐60%; P = .20).CONCLUSIONSThe current data indicate that FLT3 mutation status did not adversely impact overall survival after HCT, and about 50% of patients with this mutation who underwent HCT were long‐term survivors. Cancer 2016;122:3005‐3014. © 2016 American Cancer Society.