Farhadfar, Nosha

Abstract Newer approaches to control alloreactivity may produce similar transplant outcomes using HLA-mismatched donors vs HLA-matched unrelated donors (MUD). However, prospective comparisons are lacking. BMT CTN 1702 used a donor search prognosis score to assign patients to an 8/8 HLA MUD or the center’s preference of haploidentical related donors (HAPLO), mismatched unrelated donors (MMUD), or umbilical cord blood (UCB). Outcomes of MUD were compared to HAPLO, MMUD, and UCB transplantation after adjusting for covariates. Patients (n = 1179 [93% adults]) underwent transplantation with MUD (n = 772), HAPLO (n = 254), MMUD (n = 112), and UCB (n = 41) at a median of 3.7, 3.4, 3.9, and 3.8 months from enrollment. Posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) was used in 23.9%, 83.9%, 65.2%, and 0% of MUD, HAPLO, MMUD, and UCB. In multivariate analyses, compared to MUD, survival was lower for UCB (hazard ratio [HR], 2.65; P< .001) but not statistically different for HAPLO and MMUD (HRs, 1.08 and 1.18, respectively). Relapse risk was not significantly different by donor, but treatment-related mortality (HR, 3.31; P< .001) and disease-free survival (HR, 1.99; P = .002) were inferior for UCB but not different for HAPLO and MMUD than MUD. In patients who received PTCy, HAPLO and MMUD were associated with increased grade 3 or 4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD; HR, 2.39 [P = .017] and 2.53 [P = .038], respectively) and chronic GVHD (HR, 1.71 for both; P = .028 and .080) than MUD, but other outcomes were not different. HAPLO or MMUD may be used to expedite transplantation when finding MUD is unlikely. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03904134.

Abstract Introduction: Axatilimab is an anti–colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF-1R) monoclonal antibody that targets monocytes and macrophages, key mediators of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). Axatilimab is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg (up to a maximum dose of 35 mg) every 2 weeks (Q2W) for patients with cGVHD after ≥2 prior lines of therapy, based on results from the pivotal phase 2 AGAVE-201 clinical trial (NCT04710576). Patients treated with the 0.3 mg/kg Q2W dose in the AGAVE-201 study were able to transition to 0.6 mg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) dosing based on the investigator's discretion and per study protocol criteria. Aims: To describe the safety and feasibility of transition from axatilimab 0.3 mg/kg Q2W to 0.6 mg/kg Q4W dosing using data from AGAVE-201. Methods: Patients treated with axatilimab 0.3 mg/kg Q2W in AGAVE-201 who had their Cycle 7 assessment and achieved a partial or complete response (PR/CR) per National Institutes of Health criteria that was sustained for ≥20 weeks or had not progressed were able to change their dosing schedule to 0.6 mg/kg Q4W (without dose capping) per the study protocol and investigator discretion. Safety and treatment duration were assessed in this post hoc analysis; patients who received additional systemic therapies were excluded. The data cutoff was March 30, 2025. Results: In the first 6 treatment cycles, 59 of the 80 patients (73.8%) randomized to axatilimab 0.3 mg/kg Q2W had a response to treatment (primary endpoint). Of these 59 patients, 19 (32.2%) transitioned to 0.6 mg/kg Q4W dosing. Among these 19 patients, demographics (median [range] age, 50.0 [20–73] y; male, 63.2%) and baseline clinical characteristics (median [range] number of organs involved at baseline, 3.0 [2–8]; severe disease, 73.7%; prior use of ibrutinib, ruxolitinib, or belumosudil, 89.5%) were comparable to the full cohort initially randomized to 0.3 mg/kg Q2W. Overall response rate in the first 6 treatment cycles among the 19 patients who switched to 0.6 mg/kg Q4W was 94.7% (95% CI, 74.0%–99.9%; CR, 5.3%; PR, 89.5%); 1 patient had stable disease and thus was eligible to switch, per investigator discretion. Patients were on treatment for a median (range) of 20.9 (2–32) months after switching doses; 16 of 19 patients (84.2%) maintained the 0.6 mg/kg Q4W dose after dose switching. The safety profile for axatilimab was generally similar before and after the dosing change. After switching to 0.6 mg/kg Q4W, 10 patients (52.6%) had grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); pneumonia was the only grade ≥3 TEAE reported in >1 patient (n=2). TEAEs led to treatment interruptions in 4 patients (21.1%) and discontinuations in 3 patients (15.8%) after switching. The most common TEAEs after switching to 0.6 mg/kg Q4W were fatigue (n=5 [26.3%]), upper respiratory tract infection (n=5 [26.3%]), and headache (n=4 [21.1%]); 1 patient (5.3%) had an infusion-related reaction (n=1 [rash]). Incidences of on-target TEAEs were generally similar before and after the switch, including elevations in alanine aminotransferase (n=3 before switching and n=1 after) and amylase (n=0 and n=1).Conclusion: Transition to 0.6 mg/kg Q4W (without dose capping) is feasible and well tolerated in patients treated with axatilimab 0.3 mg/kg Q2W on the AGAVE-201 study. The Q4W dosing strategy at the 0.6 mg/kg dose identified no new safety signals. Patients had a prolonged duration of therapy, with a median of 20.9 months (1.7 y), and 84% of patients continued treatment, suggesting ongoing clinical benefit. These data provide evidence of the safety and feasibility of a 0.6 mg/kg Q4W dosing strategy in alignment with the AGAVE-201 protocol.

PURPOSE The likelihood of finding a human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–matched unrelated donor (MUD) for hematopoietic cell transplantation can be predicted using a donor search prognosis score. Patients without a MUD may use alternative donors (haploidentical related, mismatched unrelated, or umbilical cord blood). METHODS This multicenter biological assignment trial was conducted by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 1702). Eligibility criteria were broad to mirror clinical practice. The primary end point was 2-year survival from evaluability and compared between those Very Likely (>90%) and Very Unlikely (<10%) to find a MUD. All other patients, Less Likely to find a MUD, were enrolled in an observational arm. Transplant outcomes were compared for all three groups. RESULTS A total of 1,751 evaluable patients at 47 centers were Very Likely (54.7%), Less Likely (29.5%), and Very Unlikely (15.8%) to identify a MUD. Survival did not differ in univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.21]; P = .98) or multivariate (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.33]; P = .56) analyses between the Very Unlikely and Very Likely groups, measured through 2 years from the beginning of a search for a MUD or alternative donor. Of the transplanted patients (n = 1,179), MUD was used for 94% of the Very Likely, 38% of Less Likely, and 9% of Very Unlikely patients. Multivariate analyses showed no differences in relapse, treatment-related mortality, disease-free survival, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host diseases for the three search prognosis groups after transplantation. CONCLUSION Using a donor search prognosis strategy to prioritize an alternative donor for patients Very Unlikely to find a MUD resulted in survival and transplant outcomes that were not statistically different compared with those Very Likely to find a MUD.

Abstract Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is a CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory precursor B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). We report infectious complications for 100 days (D100) following tisa-cel therapy in 471 pediatric and young adults (median age 13.8 years) with R/R B-ALL reported from September 2017 to June 2022. By D100, 137 (29%) patients had an infectious event, with an infection density of 0.542 per 100 person-days at risk. D100 cumulative incidences of bacterial, viral, and fungal infections were 14.1%, 11.6%, and 1.3%, corresponding to infection density scores of 0.296, 0.213, and 0.033 per 100 person-days at risk, respectively. In a multivariable analysis, receipt of ≥3 lines of therapy before tisa-cel (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-3.08; P = .015), any-grade cytokine release syndrome (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.17-2.71; P = .007), and lack of neutrophil recovery (HR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.47-4.69; P = .001) were associated with an increased risk for any infection. Similar associations were observed for bacterial infections, with the addition of younger age as an adverse risk (&lt;6 vs 6-15 years; HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.23-4.61; P = .01). Risk factors for viral infections included increasing age (1-year increase; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09; P = .016), prior history of any infection (HR, 2.76, 95% CI, 1.40-5.46; P = .004), and prior hematopoietic cell transplant (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.18-3.71; P = .011). D100 infection-related mortality (IRM) rate was low at 0.2% (95% CI, 0.0-0.8). In this multicenter real-world study, we observed a high incidence of infectious complications but a low IRM following tisa-cel for R/R B-ALL.

Background: A donor search prognosis score based on HLA type and race/ethnicity can classify patients into 3 groups based on the likelihood of finding an HLA-matched (8/8) unrelated donor (MUD): Very Likely (44% of the population), Likely (41%) and Very Unlikely (15%). Previous studies showed that &gt;90% of Very Likely, 26% of Likely and &lt;10% of Very Unlikely patients used a MUD for their hematopoietic cell transplants (HCT), with the rest using other donor sources (mismatched unrelated donor, cord blood, or haploidentical relative). For some patients, prolonged efforts to identify a MUD might be futile and delay HCT, leading to increased morbidity, greater chance for relapse and disease resistance, and worse HCT outcomes. BMT CTN 1702 (NCT03904134) was the first national study to track the entire donor search identification process. Designed as a biologic assignment study, the goal was to estimate and compare overall survival between two arms: patients who are Very Likely to find a MUD versus those who are Very Unlikely to find a MUD. It tested whether provision of a donor search prognosis score to centers could prevent prolonged futile searches for the Very Unlikely group and improve their transplant rates and outcomes, compared to the Very Likely group. Methods: Eligible diagnoses included acute leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, lymphoma, acquired aplastic anemia and sickle cell disease. Patients could be consented at any time after diagnosis until an unrelated donor search was started. Consented patients became evaluable only after it was determined that no appropriate HLA-identical siblings were available. The primary endpoint was survival time after the patient was declared evaluable, regardless of whether HCT occurred, and was compared between the Very Unlikely and Very Likely groups. The target enrollment was 1732 evaluable patients. Because this was a biologic assignment trial and not a randomized trial, formal comparisons of overall survival between the Very Likely and Very Unlikely groups were done using a covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. The following covariates were a priori specified for adjustment in the model, according to the statistical analysis plan: sex, age, Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), race/ethnicity, disease, disease status, and interval from consent to evaluability. Results: 1751 evaluable patients were enrolled at 47 centers: 44% female, median age 59.4 years (range 0.6-81.3 years), 73% were non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic White, 8% Black, 5% Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.5% American Indian/Alaska Native. Among the evaluable patients, 1181 received a HCT, 827 died, and 924 are still alive with or without HCT, with a median of 25 months of follow up (range=6-54 months [mos], inter-quartile range [IQR]=25-34 mos). The distribution was: 958 Very Likely, 517 Less Likely, and 276 Very Unlikely. Individuals in the Very Unlikely group were younger and were less likely to be non-Hispanic White. The unadjusted cumulative incidences of undergoing HCT by 6 mos and 2 years [yrs], in the Very Unlikely group were 51% and 61% vs. 60% and 69% in the Very Likely Group; after adjustment, there was not a significant difference in the likelihood of undergoing HCT (Dehn et al, submitted). There was no difference in median time from evaluability to HCT: 3.4 mos Very Unlikely and 3.3 mos Very Likely. Unadjusted survival rates from the time of evaluability for the Very Unlikely and the Very Likely groups were: 6 mos (85% vs 84%), 1 yr (69% vs. 69%) and 2 yrs (55% vs. 56%). In the multivariate Cox model, there was no significant difference in the risk of death (HR = 1.07 for Very Unlikely vs. Very Likely, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.33, p=0.56) adjusting for significant clinical covariates: age, KPS, disease status, and time from consent to evaluability were all significantly associated with overall survival. There was no significant center effect and no interaction between donor search prognosis group and clinical covariates. Conclusion: In this large multicenter BMT CTN study, using the donor selection strategy described, there was no difference in adjusted time to HCT or survival for patients Very Likely versus Very Unlikely to find an 8/8 MUD. These results suggest that patients Very Unlikely to identify a MUD should proceed to HCT using the best available alternative donor rather than delaying HCT to try to identify a MUD.

Abstract To examine the activity of ibrutinib in steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease (SR-cGVHD) after the US Food and Drug Administration approval, we conducted a multicenter retrospective study. Data were standardly collected (N = 270 from 19 centers). Involved organs included skin (75%), eye (61%), mouth (54%), joint/fascia (47%), gastrointestinal (GI) (26%), lung (27%), liver (19%), genital (7%), and others (4.4%). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) severity was mild in 5.7%, moderate 42%, and severe 53%. Thirty-nine percent had overlap subtype. Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was ≥80% in 72%. The median prednisone was 0.21 mg/kg (0-2.27). Ibrutinib was started at a median of 18.2 months after cGVHD onset and in earlier lines of therapy (second line, 26%; third, 30%; fourth, 21%; fifth, 9.6%; sixth, 10%; seventh or higher, 1.2%). Among evaluable patients, the 6-month NIH overall response rate (ORR; complete response [CR]/partial response [PR]) was 45% (PR 42%; CR 3%). The median duration of response was 15 months (range, 1-46). Liver involvement had association with 6-month ORR (multivariate [MVA] odds ratio, 5.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-14.2; P &lt; .001). The best overall response was 56%, with most (86%) achieving by 1 to 3 months. With a median follow-up for survivors of 30.5 months, failure-free survival (FFS) was 59% (53%-65%) at 6 months and 41% (36%-48%) at 12 months. On MVA, increased age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.0-1.02; P = .033), higher baseline prednisone (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.09-3.38; P = .032), and lung involvement (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.1-2.28; P = .016) had worse FFS. Ibrutinib discontinuation was most commonly due to progressive cGVHD (44%) or toxicity (42%). These data support that ibrutinib has activity in SR-cGVHD, provide new insight into factors associated with response and FFS, and demonstrate the toxicity profile associated with discontinuation.

Abstract We evaluate the impact of donor types on outcomes of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in myelofibrosis, using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry data for HCTs done between 2013 and 2019. In all 1597 patients, the use of haploidentical donors increased from 3% in 2013 to 19% in 2019. In study-eligible 1032 patients who received peripheral blood grafts for chronic-phase myelofibrosis, 38% of recipients of haploidentical HCT were non-White/Caucasian. Matched sibling donor (MSD)–HCTs were associated with superior overall survival (OS) in the first 3 months (haploidentical hazard ratio [HR], 5.80 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.52-13.35]; matched unrelated (MUD) HR, 4.50 [95% CI, 2.24-9.03]; mismatched unrelated HR, 5.13 [95% CI, 1.44-18.31]; P &lt; .001). This difference in OS aligns with lower graft failure with MSD (haploidentical HR, 6.11 [95% CI, 2.98-12.54]; matched unrelated HR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.51]; mismatched unrelated HR, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.58-5.72]). There was no significant difference in OS among haploidentical, MUD, and mismatched unrelated donor HCTs in the first 3 months. Donor type was not associated with differences in OS beyond 3 months after HCT, relapse, disease-free survival, or OS among patients who underwent HCT within 24 months of diagnosis. Patients who experienced graft failure had more advanced disease and commonly used nonmyeloablative conditioning. Although MSD-HCTs were superior, there is no significant difference in HCT outcomes from haploidentical and MUDs. These results establish haploidentical HCT with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide as a viable option in myelofibrosis, especially for ethnic minorities underrepresented in the donor registries.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) is a potentially curative treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). While many factors influence the outcomes of allo‐HCT, the independent impact of donor–recipient ABO mismatching remains unclear. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we identified patients aged ≥18 years with AML or ALL who underwent allo‐HCT between 2008 and 2018. Our objectives were to analyze the outcomes of allo‐HCT based on the donor–recipient ABO status (match, minor mismatch, major mismatch, bidirectional mismatch). Among 4946 eligible patients, 2741 patients (55.4%) were ABO matched, 1030 patients (20.8%) had a minor ABO mismatch, 899 patients (18.1%) had a major ABO mismatch, and 276 patients (5.6%) had a bidirectional ABO mismatch. In multivariable analyses, compared to ABO matched allo‐HCT, the presence of a major ABO mismatch was associated with worse overall survival (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05–1.29; p = 0.005), inferior platelet engraftment (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77–0.90; p < 0.001), and higher primary graft failure (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.12–2.30, p = 0.01). Relapse, acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) grades III‐IV and chronic GVHD were not significantly associated with ABO status. While donor age was not significantly associated with outcomes, older recipient age was associated with worse survival and non‐relapse mortality. Our study demonstrates that donor–recipient ABO status is independently associated with survival and other post‐transplantation outcomes in acute leukemia. This underscores the importance of considering the ABO status in donor selection algorithms and its impact in acute leukemia.

Abstract Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a potentially curative treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). While many factors influence the outcomes of allo-HCT in these leukemias, the independent impact of ABO mismatching between the patient and donor remains unclear. Methods: Using the CIBMTR database, we identified adults aged ≥18 years with AML or ALL who underwent allo-HCT from HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD) or 8/8 matched unrelated donor (MUD) between 2008-2018. We excluded patients who underwent transplant from a mismatched donor source or who received an ex-vivo T-cell depleted graft. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on ABO status (match, minor mismatch, major mismatch, bidirectional mismatch). Outcomes such as overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, incidence of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD), chronic GVHD, neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment and graft failure were evaluated. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier method and significant predictors were evaluated using Cox-proportional hazard regression method. Multivariate regression model included main effect (ABO status) and covariates (patient age, gender match, disease type, disease status, HCT-CI, Karnofsky performance status, donor type, conditioning intensity/use of TBI, stem cell source, GVHD prophylaxis, ATG/alemtuzumab use, transplant year). Results: Of 4946 patients who met the study criteria, 2741 patients (55.4%) were ABO matched, 1030 patients (20.8%) had minor ABO mismatch, 899 patients (18.1%) had major ABO mismatch and 276 patients (5.6%) had bidirectional ABO mismatch. Graft manipulation for ABO incompatibility was performed in 900 patients (minor ABO mismatch=532; major ABO mismatch=226; bidirectional mismatch=142), however, the information on individual graft manipulation techniques was limited. In multivariable analysis (table 1), major ABO mismatch significantly affected the OS, platelet engraftment and primary graft failure. Compared to ABO matched allo-HCT, major ABO mismatched allo-HCT was associated with worse OS (major mismatch - HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.29; p=0.005), inferior platelet engraftment (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.90; p=&lt;0.001), and higher risk of primary graft failure [4.5% (major mismatch) vs. 3.2% (ABO matched) - HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.12-2.30, p=0.01]. There was a significant interaction between the ABO status and graft type (peripheral blood vs. bone marrow) for the acute GVHD grades 2-4 model, and they are presented separately (table 1). Bidirectional ABO mismatch also significantly impacted the outcomes such as acute GVHD grades 2-4 (in bone marrow stem cell subgroup, HR 0.50, 95%CI 0.27-0.93, p=0.02) in addition to a trend towards inferior survival and NRM (p-value not significant). Other outcomes such as relapse (p=0.41), acute GVHD grades 3-4 (p=0.13), and chronic GVHD (p=0.30) were not significantly influenced by the ABO status. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that pre-transplant ABO status is an independent predictor of survival and other post-transplant outcomes in a large cohort of patients with AML and ALL undergoing allo-HCT in the recent era. This demonstrates the importance of considering ABO status in the donor selection algorithms and potential strategies to mitigate its adverse impact. Due to the limited information available on graft manipulation strategies, the impact of graft manipulation techniques on the outcomes could not be evaluated and needs to be investigated in future studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Techspert: Consultancy; Guidepoint: Consultancy; Cancerexpertnow: Honoraria; Qessential: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Other: Advisory board; Cardinal Health Inc.: Honoraria. Devine: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment, Research Funding; Tmunity: Current Employment, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnsonand Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Orca Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Be the Match: Current Employment; Vor Bio: Research Funding; Kiadis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Farhadfar: Incyte: Consultancy. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria. Stefanski: Novartis: Honoraria. Pulsipher: Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria. Shaw: mallinkrodt: Other: payments; Orca bio: Consultancy.