Sobecks, Ronald

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.

12011 Background: Patients (pts) with high HCT-Comorbidity Index scores (HCT-CI of ≥3), older age (≥65 years), and/or who are frail per gait speed (<0.8 meters/second) have increased morbidity and mortality after allo-HCT compared to younger and healthier counterparts. We report the phase II analysis (PIIA) and interim phase III primary outcome analysis (PIIIA) of a seamless phase II/III prospective, randomized clinical trial conducted at 11 transplant centers to test new approaches to improve quality of life (QOL) in this population. Methods: Phase II compared specialist-administered supportive and palliative care (SPC), patient-administered management of comorbidities (MC, e.g. physical exercise, stress reduction, etc), both (SPC+MC), and usual care (UC) for change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) QOL scores from baseline to day 90 (D90). Pts deceased prior to D90 were assigned FACT-BMT score=0. The winning phase II arm moved forward versus UC in phase III. Results: PIIA was done after enrolling 35 pts to each of the 4 study arms. Calculating the difference between FACT-BMT scores on D90 minus baseline, excluding missing data, indicated that only SPC resulted in a small improvement in QOL compared to either MC or SPC+MC (Table); hence SPC was the winning phase II arm. The PIIIA was conducted after enrolling 158 SPC pts and 153 UC pts. The SPC and UC arms were well balanced with median age (both 68 years), HCT-CI ≥3 (49% vs 55%), frailty per gait speed (13% vs 12%), female sex (41% vs 34%), non-white race (9.5% vs 11.5%), and Hispanic or unreported ethnicity (7.7% vs 5.7%), respectively. After median follow-up of 362 days, 45 pts had died in each arm. The mean QOL difference between D90 and baseline was 2.83 for SPC and 4.27 for UC (difference of differences, -1.44, 95% CI of difference, -5.03 to 2.14, p=0.43). Fitting a generalized linear model that included baseline, D30, and D90 values and testing the null hypothesis that the slope of scores differs between SPC and UC resulted in p=0.85. Using the Kaplan Meier method, no difference in survival was observed across arms (HR 1.13 [0.75-1.73]). Conclusions: Specialist-administered palliative care showed no meaningful improvement in QOL, nor a survival advantage, compared to usual care in frail, older and comorbid allo-HCT recipients, resulting in the cessation of this Phase II/III trial. Analysis of the whole patient population for primary and secondary outcomes is in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT03870750 . Change in FACT-BMT (D90 value minus baseline value) comparing the 4 arms of phase II. Group Mean difference (sd) Median difference (range) SPC (n=28) -2.93 (28.52) 0.25 (-102 to 38.22) CM (n=18) -18.37 (33.80) -9.50 (-98.33 to 11) SPC+CM (n=27) -15.76 (32.69) -7.67 (-90 to 32)

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 &lt; .0001) and worse OS (HR, 2.09; P &lt; .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 While prognostic understanding (PU) is important for all patients (pts) considering hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT), it may be particularly important for older (&gt;65 years), medically infirm, and/or frail pts deciding whether to undergo allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT). This abstract reports on PU and concordance with transplant physician (hereafter MD) PU for pts participating in an ongoing seamless, phase II-III randomized clinical trial (ACE-BMT) comparing 4-arms: a pt-administered comorbidity management intervention (CM), specialist-administered palliative care (PC), a combined arm of CM and PC to standard of care. Here we report preliminary data on the concordance between pt and MD PU on the chance of cure 1-year (yr) post allo-HCT. METHODS Pt PU was compared to MD PU (gold standard) to determine concordance. MD and pt answers were compared on a single validated question asked at enrollment to the study (typically 2 weeks prior to HCT). Both pts and MD's estimated the chance of cure 1 yr after allo-HCT by selecting one of six possible response options: very good (more than 90%), good (75-90%), better than 50% (50-74%), worse than 50% (25-49%), bad (10-24%) or very bad (less than 10%). PU was “concordant” or “accurate” if MD and pt selected the same response option. Pts with discordant PU were labeled “pessimistic” if the pt selected a response option with a lower chance of cure than the MD (and “optimistic” if a higher chance). Response options were further simplified to greater than or less than 50% chance of cure and MD and pt PU were compared again. Descriptive statistics, chi-square for categorical and t-tests for continuous variables were used. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between pt prognostic concordance and pt socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS All pts consented to date were included (n=358), except those who did not answer the prognosis question (n=61). 54.2% (n=194) had HCT-Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) of ≥3, 67.9% (n=243) were older than 65 yrs and 4.5% (n=16) were frail, defined by walk speed &lt;0.8 m/s. Median age was 68 yrs (range 20-80). 39.7% (n=141) were female. 89.9% (n=322) identified as White, 4.2% (n=15) Asian, and 1% each as Black/African American and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. 5.3% (n=19) identified Hispanic. 11.5% (n=44) had high school education or less. 54.1% (n=183) made less than $100,000/yr. 40.1% (n=136) had acute myelogenous leukemia, 25.4% (n=86) had high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and 10.6% (n=36) had a myeloproliferative cancer. 72.1% (n=245) had matched, 82.5% (n=283) unrelated and 95.0% (n=36) peripheral blood allo-HCT. 9% (n=31) had KPS of 100%, 35% (n=121) KPS 90%, and 47.5% (n=147) KPS 80%. Pts reported having a very good, good, better than 50%, worse than 50% and bad/very bad chance of cure 1 yr post allo-HCTL 34.4% (n=123), 30.7% (n=110), 26.0% (n=93), 7.3% (n=26) and 1.7% (n=6), respectively. 91.1% (n=326) of pts felt they had a &gt;50% chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT. MD answers were missing for 159/358 (44.4%) pts. MDs reported pt had a very good, good, better than 50%, worse than 50% and bad/very bad chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT, 3.0% (n=6), 6.5% (n=13), 52.8% (n=105), 35.7% (n=71) and 2% (n=4) respectively. 62.3% (n=124) of MDs felt the pt had a &gt;50% chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT. For the subset of pts with MD prognostic data (n=199), pt's PU was concordant 20.6% (n=41) of the time when compared across all 6 response options. Overall, 71.9% (n=143) of pts erred toward optimism, while 7.5% (n=15) of pts were pessimistic. 60.8% of MD and pts agreed on prognosis when dichotomized to better or worse than 50% chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT. Prognostic concordance was not significantly associated with any pt socio-demographic factors, HCT-CI or KPS via descriptive statistics or regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS In this prospective randomized trial focusing on a population of older, medically infirm, and/or frail pts receiving allo-HCT, pts' PU was not concordant with MD prognosis approximately 80% of the time. While some pts were pessimistic, the majority overestimated the likelihood they would be cured of disease compared to MD estimates. Future studies should investigate the true accuracy of both MD and pt prognosis, as well as how to improve communication about prognosis and pt PU (if inaccurate based on best available information) prior to HCT.

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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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.

Abstract Comparative outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for BCR-ABL1− myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) in blast phase (MPN-BP) vs de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and AML with prior myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs; post-MDS AML), are unknown. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we compared HCT outcomes in 177 MPN-BP patients with 4749 patients with de novo AML, and 1104 patients with post-MDS AML, using multivariate regression analysis in 2 separate comparisons. In a multivariate Cox model, no difference in overall survival (OS) or relapse was observed in patients with MPN-BP vs de novo AML with active leukemia at HCT. Patients with MPN-BP in remission had inferior OS in comparison with de novo AML in remission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.76]) due to higher relapse rate (HR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.69-2.80]). MPN-BP patients had inferior OS (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.00-1.43]) and increased relapse (HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.31-1.96]) compared with post-MDS AML. Poor-risk cytogenetics were associated with increased relapse in both comparisons. Peripheral blood grafts were associated with decreased relapse in MPN-BP and post-MDS AML (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57-0.86]). Nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was similar between MPN-BP vs de novo AML, and MPN-BP vs post-MDS AML. Total-body irradiation–based myeloablative conditioning was associated with higher NRM in both comparisons. Survival of MPN-BP after HCT is inferior to de novo AML in remission and post-MDS AML due to increased relapse. Relapse-prevention strategies are required to optimize HCT outcomes in MPN-BP.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). In this large multicenter retrospective study, overall survival (OS) in MF patients treated with allogeneic HCT (551 patients) and without HCT (non-HCT) (1377 patients) was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards model. Survival analysis stratified by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) revealed that the first year of treatment arm assignment, due to upfront risk of transplant-related mortality (TRM), HCT was associated with inferior OS compared with non-HCT (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS intermediate 1 [Int-1]: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.26, P &lt; .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 0.39, P &lt; .0001). Similarly, in the DIPSS low-risk MF group, due to upfront TRM risk, OS was superior with non-HCT therapies compared with HCT in the first-year post treatment arm assignment (HR, 0.16, P = .006). However, after 1 year, OS was not significantly different (HR, 1.38, P = .451). Beyond 1 year of treatment arm assignment, an OS advantage with HCT therapy in Int-1 and higher DIPSS score patients was observed (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS-Int-1: HR, 2.64, P &lt; .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 2.55, P &lt; .0001). In conclusion, long-term OS advantage with HCT was observed for patients with Int-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of early TRM. The magnitude of OS benefit with HCT increased as DIPSS risk score increased and became apparent with longer follow-up.

Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is currently the only potentially curative therapy in eligible patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens that have been developed to extend HSCT to older patients resulted in encouraging outcomes. However, several retrospective studies have raised concerns about disease control when RIC is used in MDS and the ideal conditioning regimen has not yet been found. In this study, we aimed to compare two most commonly used RIC regimens; intravenous use of fludarabine with busulfan (FluBu) and fludarabine with melphalan (FluMel). Study population: Through the CIBMTR, after excluding patients with ex-vivo T cell depletion, we identified 1045 MDS patients aged ≥ 60 years and underwent first HSCT with matched related or matched (8/8) unrelated donor (MRD and MUD) using RIC between 2007-2016. RIC was defined via CIBMTR criteria as a regimen that incorporated an IV busulfan (BU) total dose ≤ 7.2 mg/kg or low-dose melphalan (MEL) total dose ≤ 150 mg/m2. By that, we identified 697 MDS patients who received FluBu (BU 6.4 mg/kg: 87%, BU 3.2 mg/kg: 13%) and 448 receiving FluMel (MEL 140 mg/m2: 80%, MEL 100 mg/m2: 20%). Results: The two groups, FluBu and FluMel, were comparable for disease and transplant related characteristics except the more frequent use of ATG or Campath in FluBu group (39% vs. 31%). The median age was 67 in both groups, and 26% and 19% of FluBu and FluMel groups were aged ³70, respectively. Hematopoietic comorbidity index (HCT-CI) was ³3 in 61% and 59% of FluBu and FluMel groups and MDS risk score by CIBMTR at HCT was high/very high in 34% in both groups. FluMel was associated with a reduced relapse incidence (RI) after HSCT compared with FluBu as presented in Table 1 and Table 2. Adjusted RI at 1-year was 43% with FluBu and 25% with FluMel (p=&lt;0.0001). On the other hand, transplant related mortality (TRM) was higher with FluMel compared with FluBu (27% vs. 15%, p=&lt;0.0001). The difference persisted at 2- and 3-years after HSCT as presented in the figure. Since the magnitude of improvement in RI was greater with FluMel than the improvement in TRM with FluBu, disease-free survival (DFS) was improved at 1-year and beyond with FluMel compared with FluBu (48% vs. 41% at 1-year, p=0.030, and 38% vs 28% at 3-years, p=0.0030). These outcome differences remained significant when sensitivity analyses were performed excluding patients who received RIC with either BU 3.2 mg/kg or Mel 100 mg/m2. FluMel, did not lead to higher incidence of severe grade 3-4 aGvHD (HR=1.2, 95%CI, 0.9-1.6, p=0.3) or chronic GvHD (HR=0.9, 95%CI=0.7-1.06, p=0.2). However, grade 2-4 aGVHD was observed more often with FluMel than FluBu (HR=1.3, 95%CI, 1.1-1.6, p=0.006). This led to inferior outcomes of GRFS within the first 2 months with FluMel (HR=1.9, HR=1.4-2.6, p&lt;0.001) but superior outcomes of GRFS beyond 2 months with FluMel compared with FluBu (HR=0.7, 95%CI=0.6-0.8, p&lt;0.001). Conclusion: Our results suggest that between the two most commonly used RIC regimens in older MDS patients, FluMel was associated with superior DFS and overall survival compared with FluBu due to reduced RI despite higher TRM. Disclosures Oran: AROG pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astex pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nakamura:Kirin Kyowa: Other: support for an academic seminar in a university in Japan; Alexion: Other: support to a lecture at a Japan Society of Transfusion/Cellular Therapy meeting ; Celgene: Other: support for an academic seminar in a university in Japan; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scott:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Speakers Bureau. Popat:Jazz: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding.