Murthy, Hemant S.

Abstract Carfilzomib was approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma in 2012 and since then there have been concerns for cardiovascular toxicity from its use. With this study, we aim to further study the hazards and underlying risk factors for cardiovascular adverse events associated with carfilzomib. This study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)‐Medicare data set of multiple myeloma from 2001 to 2015. Data were analyzed for hazards ratio of cardiovascular adverse events between carfilzomib users and nonusers. We identified 7330 patients with multiple myeloma of whom 815 were carfilzomib users. Carfilzomib users had a statistically significant hazard ratio of 1.41 with p < 0.0001 for all cardiovascular adverse events as compared to nonusers. Carfilzomib use was significantly associated with increased risk of heart failure (HR 1.47, p = 0.0002), ischemic heart disease (HR 1.45, p = 0.0002), and hypertension (HR 3.33, p < 0.0001), whereas there was no association between carfilzomib use and cardiac conduction disorders (arrhythmia and heart blocks). Carfilzomib users were at higher risk of new‐onset edema (HR 5.09, p < 0.0001), syncope (HR 4.27, p < 0.0001), dyspnea (HR 1.33, p < 0.0001), and chest pain (HR 1.18, p < 0.0001) as compared to carfilzomib nonusers. Age above 75 years, preexisting cardiovascular disease, obesity, and twice a week carfilzomib schedule were significant risk factors associated with cardiovascular adverse events in carfilzomib users. The median time of the onset for all cardiovascular adverse events was 3.1 months. This study has identified a significantly higher likelihood of cardiovascular adverse events in elderly Medicare patients receiving carfilzomib.

Background: Allogeneic HCT continues to be the optimal consolidation strategy for many patients with AML. Cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities are known to influence post-transplant outcomes. We tested the prognostic ability of a modified (mELN) classification system based on available CIBMTR genetic data, to predict post-transplant outcomes. Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of AML in first complete remission (CR1) with available pre-transplant cytogenetic and molecular mutational data, receiving a first allogeneic HCT from 2013-2017, were included. Patients were stratified according to mELN genetic classification in three distinct groups: favorable (Fav), intermediate (IM) and adverse (Adv). Clinical outcomes following HCT were compared among groups after adjusting for significant patient, disease, and transplant-related variables. The primary endpoint was disease free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), cumulative incidence of relapse, acute GVHD, and chronic GVHD. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare endpoints among mELN risk groups, age groups and genetic subsets within the adverse-risk group. Results: Demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1. 2289 patients (Fav, n=181; IM n=1185; and Adv n=923) met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for survivors was 35 months. Importantly, 41% of transplant recipients (n=936) were &gt;60 years, 76% (n=1743) had de novo AML and 48% (n=1111) received a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Univariate analysis (UVA) demonstrated significant differences in 2-year OS (Fav: 67.7%, IM: 64.9% and Adv: 53.9%; p&lt;0.001); DFS (Fav: 57.8%, IM: 55.5% and Adv: 45.3; p&lt;0.001) and relapse (Fav: 28%, IM: 27.5% and Adv: 37.5%; p&lt;0.001) There were no significant differences in NRM (p=0.467) or the incidence of acute (p=0.423) and chronic GVHD (p=0.442) among mELN groups. Initial multivariate analysis (MVA) of mELN risk groups indicated that there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the Fav and IM risk groups. Thus, these groups were combined for subsequent analyses. Adv risk (vs. Fav/IM) led to significantly worse OS (HR 1.39 [1.24-1.57] p=&lt;0.001), DFS (HR 1.32 [1.18-1.48] p=&lt;0.001), and relapse (HR 1.42 [1.23-1.63] p=&lt;0.001) (Table 2). This mELN classification effectively stratified both younger (&lt;60 y/o) and older (&gt;60 y/o) patients for OS (Adv vs. Fav/IM HR for &lt;60: 1.43 [1.21-1.69] p&lt;0.001; &gt;60: 1.44 [1.21-1.72] p&lt;0.001), DFS (Adv HR for &lt;60: 1.31 [1.12-1.53] p&lt;0.001; &gt;60: 1.41 [1.19-1.66] p&lt;0.001) and relapse (Adv HR for &lt;60: 1.44 [1.20-1.74] p&lt;0.001, &gt;60: 1.42 [1.15-1.76] p=0.001). NRM was higher for older patients (&gt;60 y/o) in both the Fav/IM (HR 1.40 [1.10-1.78] p=0.007) and Adv-risk cohorts (HR 1.59 [1.18-2.13] p=0.002). Genetic subset comparisons within the adverse-risk group showed that patients carrying monosomy 5, del(5q) or monosomy 7 had inferior 2-year OS (42.6%, p&lt;0.001) and DFS (35.2%, p&lt;0.001), as well as higher rates of relapse (45%, p= 0.002) when compared to other patients within the Adv-risk cohort (OS 60%, DFS 50.8%, relapse 33.5%). Conclusion: Stratification using mELN criteria resulted in clear prognostic separation of OS, DFS and relapse in this large cohort of AML patients undergoing allogeneic HCT. While Fav and IM groups had similar OS, DFS and relapse rates; patients in the Adv risk group had the highest risk of relapse and inferior DFS/OS. However, the majority of patients in all cohorts had favorable outcomes for HCT in CR1. Our findings confirm the value of a combined genetic prognostic model in the AML HCT setting and justify the use of this stratification system in future HCT trials. Correlation of genetic subtypes with other important transplant variables, such as conditioning intensity and pre-transplant MRD status deserves further evaluation. There remains a subset of Adv-risk patients for which post-transplant outcomes continue to be poor, even when transplanted in CR1. Novel peri-transplant pre-emptive/therapeutic strategies are urgently needed for this high-risk cohort. Disclosures de Lima: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees, advisory board, Research Funding; BMS: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Kadmon: Other: Personal Fees, Advisory board. Komanduri:Kiadis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Jazz: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board. Bhatt:National Marrow Donor Program: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Other; Jazz: Research Funding; Agios: Other: Personal Fees; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees; Partner Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees; Pfizer: Other, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Other: Drug support for a trial; Partnership for health analytic research, LLC: Other: Personal Fees; Omeros: Other: Personal Fees; Abbvie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding. Saad:Orcabio: Other: research support; Kadmon: Other: research support; Amgen: Other: research support; Incyte Pharmaceuticals: Other: Personal Fees; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees. Copelan:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Nishihori:Karyopharm: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Other: Research support to institution. Weisdorf:Incyte: Research Funding; FATE Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Introduction: Cryopreservation of peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) or bone marrow (BM) grafts is rarely performed, thus information about the effect of cryopreservation on graft characteristics and HCT outcomes is limited. Given the global pandemic leading to changing practices for donor graft collection and increasing utilization of cryopreservation, we evaluated the outcomes of HCT recipients who received either fresh or cryopreserved allogeneic BM or PBSC grafts. The primary endpoint was engraftment. Secondary endpoints were incidence of acute graft-vs.-host disease (aGVHD), relapse, transplant related mortality (TRM), disease free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Methods: We included 7397 patients transplanted between 2013 and 2018. 1883 cryopreserved graft recipients were divided into three cohorts based on graft source and donor type: matched related (MRD) PBSC (n=1,051), matched unrelated (MUD) PBSC (n=678), and matched related or unrelated bone marrow donors (n=154). All patients received conventional calcineurin-based GVHD prophylaxis strategies. Patients who received cryopreserved grafts were matched with 5514 patients who received fresh adjusting for graft type (BM vs. PB), donor source (MRD vs. 8/8 MUD), Disease Risk Index (DRI, low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. high risk), recipient age (within 5-years) and propensity score (within 1 standard deviation from pooled sample). The propensity score was based on age, Karnofsky score, diagnosis, disease risk index, HCT-comorbidity index, and conditioning intensity. The level of statistical significance for the main analyses was p&lt;0.01 due to multiple comparisons. The reason for cryopreservation was available on a subset of URD product recipients. Results: Baseline characteristics for all cohorts are shown in Table 1. CD34+ doses reflect enumeration at infusion. In univariate analyses, rates of graft failure and neutrophil recovery at day 28 were similar for cryopreserved and fresh grafts for BM or related PBSC recipients but differed in cryopreserved vs. fresh MUD PBSC (5% vs 2%, p&lt;0.001 and 87 vs 94%, p&lt;0.001, respectively). Rates of platelet recovery within 28 days were similar in marrow cohorts, but lower with cryopreserved related (92% vs 96%, p&lt;0.001) and MUD PBSC (87 vs 94%, p&lt;0.001) grafts. In matched pair multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in any outcomes with cryopreserved vs fresh BM grafts, irrespective of donor type. With related donor PBSC, cryopreservation was associated with decreased platelet recovery (HR=0.73, CI=0.68-0.78, p&lt;0.001) and an increased risk of both grade II-IV (HR=1.27, CI=1.09-1.48, p=0.002) and grade III-IV (HR=1.48, CI=1.19-1.84, p&lt;0.001) aGVHD, but had no impact on other outcomes. In contrast, with MUD PBSC grafts, cryopreservation was associated with delayed engraftment of neutrophils (HR=0.77, CI=0.71-0.84, p&lt;0.001) and platelets (HR=0.61, CI=0.56-0.66, p&lt;0.001), an increased risk of TRM (HR=1.4, CI=1.18-1.66, p&lt;0.001) and relapse (HR=1.32, CI=1.11-1.58, p=0.002), and decreased DFS (HR=1.36, CI=1.20-1.55, p&lt;0.001) and OS (HR=1.38, CI=1.22-1.58, p&lt;0.001) but did not affect the incidence of aGVHD. In a subset analysis of 299 URD recipients, the most common reason for cryopreservation was delays due to patient-related events, eg., additional chemotherapy, infection. These recipients had decreased OS compared to products cryopreserved for non-patient reasons (HR=0.65, CI=0.44-0.96, p=0.029). Conclusions: The retrospective nature of this analysis, and the fact that cryopreservation is likely to have been performed in recipients with a different (higher) risk profile compared to those receiving fresh products limits our ability to draw firm confusions. Despite these limitations, we conclude that cryopreservation in some patient populations may have a negative impact on engraftment and transplant outcomes. The decision to cryopreserve donor grafts, particularly PBSC grafts, should be carefully considered and highlights the need for further investigation of the effect of cryopreservation of allogeneic grafts where patient factors can be controlled for. Disclosures Farhadfar: CSL Behring: Research Funding; Incyte pharmaceutical: Other: Member of GVHD advisory forum. Frey:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Syntax: Consultancy, Honoraria. Devine:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy. Shaw:Orca Bio: Consultancy. Wingard:Shire: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Ansun: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Merck: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Cidara: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; ReViral: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial.

Introduction The molecular basis for the clinical heterogeneity observed in DLBCL was initially elucidated with gene expression profiling, identifying three distinct subgroups with prognostic relevance based on COO namely activated B-cell like (ABC), germinal center B-cell like (GCB) and a type 3 subtype. Shortly afterwards the Han's algorithm was developed allowing for widespread applicability and correlation of gene expression with protein expression. GCB profile at diagnosis is generally associated with superior long term outcomes compared to non-GCB in patients treated with conventional chemo-immunotherapy. Patients with relapsed/refractory disease (R/R) after front-line therapy undergo salvage treatment and, upon demonstration of objective response, proceed with high dose therapy and autologous transplantation (auto-HCT). Whether COO by Han's algorithm retains its prognostic significance post auto-HCT in patients with R/R DLBCL is not well established. Methods A retrospective analysis was carried out using the Mayo database across all three sites. It included all patients between 18-75 years of age who were diagnosed with de-novo DLBCL and underwent first auto-HCT for R/R disease. Patients must have received salvage treatment and shown chemotherapy sensitive disease. Patients with transformed DLBCL or other variants and those who underwent auto-HCT in first complete remission for high risk disease were excluded. Patients who had less than a partial response at time of transplantation and still underwent auto-HCT were also excluded. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS); relapse and relapse-free survival (RFS). Continuous variables were summarized as mean (standard deviation) and median (range). Categorical variables were reported as frequency (percentage). Continuous baseline variables were compared between GCB and non-GCB using Wilcoxon rank sum test and categorical baseline variables were compared with Chi-squared test. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 5 and 10-year rates of freedom from long-term events and draw corresponding survival curves. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate the impact of cell of origin on long-term survival after adjusting for baseline factors. All tests were two-sided with alpha level set at 0.05 for statistical significance. Results A total of 357 patients underwent auto-HCT between 2005 and 2018. Cell of origin was determined for 284 patients and these were included in the analysis. Median age was 61 (range: 19-78) years, and 64% patients were male. GCB and non-GCB patients did not differ significantly with regards to baseline factors (Table 1). During a median follow up of 1.7 years, 139 patients died, 151 had relapse and 175 either died or had relapse. Five year OS for GCB patients versus (vs) non-GCB was at 44% vs 64% (p=0.004) (Figure 1); relapse was at 67% vs 49% (p=0.012) and RFS was at 28% vs 50% (p=0.003). The difference between GCB and non-GCB groups remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis, with GCB patients 60% more likely to die and 50% more likely to experience relapse compared to non-GCB patients. The only other factor that retained significance in multivariate analysis for both endpoints was response at the time of transplant (Table 2A-C). Conclusions In this analysis, GCB DLBCL results in worse OS and higher relapse vs. non-GCB DLBCL following an auto-HCT. It is unclear if relapse/progression of GCB subtype after front-line therapy alters its natural history into a more aggressive disease. Disclosures Ansell: Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Foran:Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tun:Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

AbstractWe studied 2,528 patients with upfront autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) from 2008–2017 to develop a prognostic model to predict outcomes. High‐risk cytogenetics included t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del13q on karyotype, del17p, +1q or 1pdel. A Cox model identified factors prognostic of progression/relapse in a training subset (n = 1,246). A weighted score using these factors was assigned to a validation cohort (n = 774). Presence of high‐risk cytogenetics [hazard ratio, (HR) 1·68 (1·3–2·17)] and pre‐AHCT bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% [1·68 (1·33–2·12)] were assigned 4 points each; albumin at diagnosis <3·5 g/dl [1·31 (1·07–1·61)] 2; standard risk cytogenetics 1, and no cytogenetics abnormality, BMPCs <10% at AHCT and albumin ≥3·5 g/dl at diagnosis 0 points each. A three‐category system with low risk (0–3), intermediate risk (4–8) and high risk (9–10) showed 3‐year progression‐free survival in the low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 58% (95% CI: 52–63) vs. 49% (95% CI: 43–56) vs. 31% (95% CI: 12–51), P < 0.001 respectively, and 3‐year OS in low vs. intermediate vs. high risk of 88% (95% CI: 84–91) vs. 81% (95% CI: 76–86) vs. 64% (95% CI: 39–80); P < 0·001. Our prognostic scoring system can identify MM patients at risk for early relapse after AHCT.

BackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) with the translocation t(11;14) may have inferior outcomes in comparison with other standard‐risk MM, and it has been suggested to portend a worse prognosis in African Americans in comparison with Whites. This study used the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database to examine the impact of t(11;14) on the clinical outcomes of patients with MM of African American and White descent.MethodsThis study evaluated 3538 patients who underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) for MM from 2008 to 2016 and were reported to the CIBMTR. Patients were analyzed in 4 groups: African Americans with t(11;14) (n = 117), African Americans without t(11;14) (n = 968), Whites with t(11;14) (n = 266), and Whites without t(11;14) (n = 2187).ResultsAfrican Americans with t(11;14) were younger, had lower Karnofsky scores, and had more advanced stage MM with a higher Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation–Comorbidity Index (HCT‐CI). Fewer African Americans with t(11;14) (21%) had a coexistent high‐risk marker in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (27%). In a multivariate analysis, race and t(11;14) had no association with progression‐free survival. However, overall survival was superior among African Americans with t(11;14) in comparison with Whites with t(11;14) (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.30‐0.93; P = .03). Survival was also associated with female sex, stage, time from diagnosis to transplant, a low HCT‐CI, and receipt of maintenance.ConclusionsRace may have a differential impact on the survival of patients with t(11;14) MM who undergo autoHCT and needs to be further studied.

BackgroundUpfront autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) remains an important therapy in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), a disease of older adults.MethodsThe authors investigated the outcomes of AHCT in patients with MM who were aged ≥70 years. The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database registered 15,999 patients with MM in the United States within 12 months of diagnosis during 2013 through 2017; a total of 2092 patients were aged ≥70 years. Nonrecurrence mortality (NRM), disease recurrence and/or progression (relapse; REL), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were modeled using Cox proportional hazards models with age at transplantation as the main effect. Because of the large sample size, a P value <.01 was considered to be statistically significant a priori.ResultsAn increase in AHCT was noted in 2017 (28%) compared with 2013 (15%) among patients aged ≥70 years. Although approximately 82% of patients received melphalan (Mel) at a dose of 200 mg/m2 overall, 58% of the patients aged ≥70 years received Mel at a dose of 140 mg/m2. On multivariate analysis, patients aged ≥70 years demonstrated no difference with regard to NRM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3; 99% confidence interval [99% CI], 1‐1.7 [P = .06]), REL (HR, 1.03; 99% CI, 0.9‐1.1 [P = 0.6]), PFS (HR, 1.06; 99% CI, 1‐1.2 [P = 0.2]), and OS (HR, 1.2; 99% CI, 1‐1.4 [P = .02]) compared with the reference group (those aged 60‐69 years). In patients aged ≥70 years, Mel administered at a dose of 140 mg/m2 was found to be associated with worse outcomes compared with Mel administered at a dose of 200 mg/m2, including day 100 NRM (1% [95% CI, 1%‐2%] vs 0% [95% CI, 0%‐1%]; P = .003]), 2‐year PFS (64% [95% CI, 60%‐67%] vs 69% [95% CI, 66%‐73%]; P = .003), and 2‐year OS (85% [95% CI, 82%‐87%] vs 89% [95% CI, 86%‐91%]; P = .01]), likely representing frailty.ConclusionsThe results of the current study demonstrated that AHCT remains an effective consolidation therapy among patients with MM across all age groups.

AbstractIntroductionLenalidomide maintenance, commonly prescribed in the postautologous transplantation (AHCT) setting for multiple myeloma (MM), is associated with development of secondary primary malignancies (SPM). Proteasome inhibitor maintenance (PIM) has also been evaluated in MM. We conduct a systematic review/meta‐analysis to assess the efficacy of PIM in MM.MethodsPerforming a comprehensive search of the medical literature using PubMed/Medline and EMBASE on September 11, 2019, we extracted data on clinical outcomes related to benefits (OS, PFS, and depth of hematologic response [DOHR]) and harms (SPM and adverse events). 2144 references were identified; three studies were eligible for inclusion.ResultsA total of 1760 patients were included in the analysis; 507 patients received bortezomib and 395 received ixazomib maintenance. Control arms were either placebo (n = 261) or thalidomide (n = 358). PIM did not improve OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73‐1.05, P = .15) but improved PFS (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69‐0.86, P ≤ .00001) and DOHR (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79‐0.98, P = .02) compared with control. There were no significant differences between PIM and control regarding SPM (p = NS) and ≥grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (PN) (p = NS).ConclusionsPIM following AHCT in MM improves PFS and DOHR without an increase in development of SPM or severe PN compared with placebo/thalidomide.

7523 Background: tALL is a recently appreciated but poorly defined clinical entity. We define tALL as any prior exposure to cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or radiation for another malignancy, and we report a comparative analysis of characteristics, cytogenetics and outcomes for this subset among a modern unselected ALL cohort from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC). Methods: We performed a systematic search in the 3-site MCCC registry and included all patients (pts) diagnosed and received at least 1 cycle of ALL-directed therapy and/or underwent allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) between 2008-2018. Comparisons of characteristics between tALL and dnALL were made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test (continuous variables) and Fisher’s exact test (categorical variables). Time-to-event variables were compared using unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: 431 ALL pts were identified during the study period, including n = 69 (16%) classified as tALL. Median follow-up from diagnosis was 2.3 years (range 0-18 years). The most common prior malignancies among tALL pts were Breast (24.6%), Lymphoma (15.9%), Myeloid (15.9%), GU/GYN (14.5%) and Myeloma (11.6%). In comparison to dnALL, pts with tALL were significantly older (63.2 vs 45.2 years, P < 0.001), more often female (65.2% vs 39.8%, P < 0.001), less frequently Hispanic (3.5% vs 13.1%, P = 0.042); more often of B-lineage (92.8% vs 81.8%, P = 0.022). On review of cytogenetics, tALL pts more often had hypodiploidy/near triploidy (Ho/Tr) (21.7% vs 4.1%, P < 0.001), more often had monosomal (MDS-like) (33.3% vs 12.4%, P = 0.0047) and complex karyotype (38% vs 17.3%, P = 0.0069). Importantly, incidence of BCR/ABL-positive (Ph+) ALL was not significantly different. Latency period between exposure to prior cancer therapy and development of tALL was significantly longer for Ph+ compared to Ph-negative ALL (median 9 vs. 4 years, P = 0.007). Patients with tALL had a 3-year OS after diagnosis of 37% [vs 59.7% for dnALL (HR death 1.86, 95% CI 1.31-2.65, P < 0.001)]. However, the two groups did not differ significantly regarding occurrence of AlloHCT (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31, P = 0.61) or post-AlloHCT survival (HR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.75-2.23, P = 0.35). Conclusions: Therapy-related ALL represents an important & unique clinical entity with poor prognosis & adverse cytogenetic features. Ph+ tALL has a longer latency and similar frequency in both tALL and dnALL. AlloHCT appears to be an appropriate treatment strategy, possibly abrogating the poor prognosis of tALL.