Citations

Abstract TMB is used to guide PD-1-directed immunotherapy in solid tumor Oncology. However, it has not been systematically studied in AML, where the focus has been on cytogenetic risk and individual driver gene mutations (GM's). TMB contribution to AML epidemiology is also uncertain. We therefore studied its association with epidemiologic risk factors; driver GM's and somatic mutations (SM's) in AML risk genes which we recently demonstrated (ABCB1; CYP1A1; CYP2B6; EPHX1; ERCC1,2,& 5; MEFV; MTRR; and TERT); clinical and cytogenetic features; and outcome after therapy in the MCAEC, a highly annotated clinical epidemiology cohort of consecutive AML pts [Finn, Cancer Epidemiol 39:1084, 2015]. Methods: We obtained somatic leukemia DNA from remnant diagnostic cytogenetic pellets in 98 MCAEC patients (pts), as previously described [Foran, Blood (2017) 130:570a]. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed at depth of ~100 million paired end 100bp reads using Agilent SureSelectXT Human All Exon V5 + UTRs target enrichment kit. Reads were mapped to human genome build hg19 using BWA-MEM. Single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and small INDELs were identified using Mayo Clinic (MC) analytic pipeline GenomeGPS 4.0.1 following Broad GATK variant discovery best practices of alignment, realignment and recalibration, and multi-sample joint genotyping; and filtered using both germline whole exome and genome sequencing of ~1200 MC Biobank samples and public germline variant databases of 1000 genome project, 6500 individuals in exome sequencing project, and HapMap phase 3. Remaining variants were annotated using ANNOVAR, and functional variants of non-synonymous, truncating, frame-shift, and splice-sites were used in the statistical association analyses. TMB was defined as the number of functional mutations per Mb of coding region, heterozygous or homozygous. TMB associations with epidemiologic risk, clinical characteristics, and SM's in AML risk genes (listed above) or driver GM's (occurring in 5 or more pts: ASXL1, BCOR, CEBPA, DNMT3A, FLT3, IDH2, KRAS, MLL2-5, NF1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, RUNX1, SF3B1, STAG2, TET2, TP53, U2AF1) were evaluated using linear regression models; a rank transformation of TMB was utilized due to its skewed distribution. Multivariable analysis (MVA) models were adjusted for variables with p-value <0.05 in unadjusted analysis. Regression coefficients ("β") were estimated, interpreted as change in mean TMB rank for specified variables or characteristic. Associations with outcomes were examined using logistic regression or Cox proportional hazards regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided (version 3.6.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Results Median age at AML diagnosis was 70 yrs (Range: 19-94 yrs), and 67 pts were male. Cytogenetic risk group was favorable (7%), intermediate-normal (46%) or abnormal (20%), and poor risk (27%). 40/61 pts (66%) achieved complete remission (CR). With a median follow-up of 8.0 months (Range: 0.1 - 186), 80 pts (82%) died and 20 (20%) underwent allogeneic transplantation (AlloBMT). Median TMB was 18.2 (Range: 15.0-70.1). In MVA, significant associations with increased TMB were observed in pts with history of prior immunosuppressive therapy or solid organ transplantation (β=19.48, P=0.015), and with FLT3 (β=21.12, P=0.015), MLL2 (β=20.91, P=0.001), and MLL3 (β=11.31, P=0.031) GM's. A borderline association was observed for U2AF1 (β=16.14, P=0.057). TMB was also associated with SM's in TERT (β=25.13, P=0.028); a borderline association with SM's in ABCB1 was not confirmed in MVA (β=-17.98, P=0.069). Additionally, cytogenetic risk group was associated with TMB in MVA (P=0.005), being highest in intermediate-normal and lowest in poor risk groups. Body Mass Index was inversely associated with TMB (unadjusted β=-16.99, P=0.005), but unconfirmed in MVA (β=-8.29, P=0.12). There was no association with CR (OR=0.93, P=0.46), use of (HR=0.96, P=0.64) or relapse risk (HR=1.00, P=0.98) following AlloBMT, or survival (HR=0.97, P=0.56) (Figure). Conclusions Measurement of TMB is feasible in this AML epidemiologic cohort, and we observed important associations with AML risk factors, risk gene SM's, cytogenetic risk group, and driver GM's. We acknowledge the relatively small sample size and possibility of type II error, and therefore these observations require validation in a large prospective cohort which is planned. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Foran: OncLive: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; servier: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; revolution medicine: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; trillium: Research Funding; syros: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; bms: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Finn: Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration.

Abstract Introduction: Historically, clinical outcome of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), progressing on hypomethylating agents (HMA; azacitidine or decitabine) has been dismal with median overall survival (OS) of less than 6 months (Jabbour et al. Cancer 2010). With recent approval of venetoclax based combinations for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and CPX-351 for AML with MDS related changes (primary or secondary), clinical outcome has improved in sub-set of high-risk patients compared to historical cohorts. Hence, we analyzed clinical outcome of MDS patients progressing on HMA, in the current era of novel therapies. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical outcome of 43 MDS patients who progressed on HMA-based therapy and treated at the Mayo Clinic between February 2015 and February 2021. We describe clinical characteristics of these patients, therapies received after progressing on HMA-based therapy, duration of response attained after 1st line therapy post HMA-based therapy and OS from time of HMA failure till death or last follow up. We also performed Cox regression multivariate analysis for OS after progression on HMA-based therapy. Results: Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1.The median age of the patients were 69 years (range [R], 48-93). R-IPSS score in this cohort of patients was very low (2[5%]), low (5[12%]), intermediate (5 [12%]), high (11[26%]) and very high (20 [46.5%]). Forty-nine percent of patients had complex cytogenetics. Most commonly occurring mutations (≥ 5%) were TP53 (42%), splicing mutation (SRSF2/SF3B1/ or U2AF1) (16%), ASXL1 (12%), RUNX1 (7%), DNMT3A (5%) and IDH1/ or IDH2 (5%). The HMA-based therapy patients received were azacitidine (40%), decitabine (30%) and HMA plus venetoclax (30%). The median time to progression from time of initiation of HMA-based therapy was 5 months (R= 1-30). Sixty-three percent (n= 27) of patients progressed to AML after HMA-based therapy. The most common 1 st line therapies post HMA was venetoclax-based (12 [28%]), CPX-351 (12 [28%]), and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) (4 [9%]). Fifteen (45.5%) patients achieved CR/CRi, 17 (51.5%) patients progressed and 1 (3%) patient had stable disease. The percentage of patients received venetoclax with HMA, 1 st and 2 nd line therapy post HMA were 26%, 28% and 10%, respectively. Overall, 11 (25%) patients received SCT in this cohort of patients. The median duration of response after 1 st line therapy post HMA was not reached (NR; 66% progression free at 1 year) (Figure 1A). The median OS after HMA failure was 12.7 months (95% CI: 3.1-22.2) (Figure 1B). In the univariate analysis for OS after HMA failure, SCT at any time point (p = 0.01) and achieving CR/CRi after 1 st line therapy post HMA (p= <0.001) showed favorable significance for OS. Whereas, R-IPSS high/very high (p= 0.35), treatment with CPX-351 on AML progression (p=0.33), venetoclax-based therapy (p= 0.59) did not show statistical significance. Subsequently, in multivariate analysis, only achievement of CR/CRi after 1 st line therapy post HMA retained significance for favorable OS (HR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04-0.86, p= 0.03). Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report analyzing outcome of MDS patients progressing on HMA in the recent era. Acknowledging the limitations of retrospective analysis, our report suggests improved outcome of these high-risk patients compared to historical data. Utilizing venetoclax plus HMA combination earlier in patients with high-risk MDS as being evaluated in VERONA trial and consolidation therapy with SCT in eligible patients have potential to improve long term outcome of this group of high-risk patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Al-Kali: Astex: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Research Funding. Palmer: PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Litzow: Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Foran: pfizer: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; syros: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; revolution medicine: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; actinium: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: AHCT is a standard of care treatment for eligible patients (pts) with MM. Most consensus guidelines recommend that at the time of first AHCT, enough APBHC should be collected to perform two AHCT. However, recent studies have shown that with each decade after 1990, the use of cryopreserved APBHC for a salvage AHCT has declined and is now in the range of 4.6-15% in the decade between 2010-2018. The collection and storage of APBHC for two AHCT incurs additional costs and a prior single center cost analysis revealed that having had collected for just one AHCT in a cohort of 726 MM pts would have saved 3.8 million USD between 1993 and 2011. 1 Most centers that perform AHCT for MM pts continue to collect and store PBAHC for 2 AHCT. Herein we evaluate utilization trends and costs associated with cryopreserved APBHC in patients with MM. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the clinicopathologic data from 440 patients with MM who underwent APBHC mobilization and collection at Mayo Clinic Florida between 2010 and 2019. The number of apheresis/collection sessions and APBHC product collection yields were determined for patients who were mobilized by any method. We estimated the costs involved in PBSC collection (apheresis) and cryopreservation storage based on our institution-specific charges as of May 2021. The cost of 1 session of APBHC collection/apheresis was $4,680 and the cost of 1 year of APBHC cryopreservation was $4,790 per patient. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP Pro 15 (SAS). Chi-square and Fischer exact tests were used to carry out univariate analysis for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum/Kruskal Wallis for continuous variables. Results: Patient demographics are shown in Table 1. 440 pts underwent at least one collection session and 347 underwent at least 1 AHCT. The median number of mobilization sessions was 1 (95% CI 1.0-1.03), the median number of collection/apheresis sessions was 2.0 (95% CI 2.39-2.59), 84.3% (n=371) required ≥1 collection session. The median number of CD34 stem cells collected was 7.6 x10 6 (95% CI 7.76-8.19 x10 6), and the median number of infused CD34 cells was 4 x10 6(95% CI 4.13-4.37x10 6). The median cost of total collection sessions (defined as # of apheresis/collection sessions x $4,680) was $9,360 per pt (95% CI $11,181-$12,100). The median cost of cryopreservation (defined as # of years of storage x $4,790) was $19,160 per pt (95% CI $9,682-$22,252). The median number of years of storage was 4 (95% CI 4.11-4.65). 77(17.5%) pts have had APBHC in storage for <2 years, 218 (49.5%) have had APBHC in storage for 2-5 years, and 145 (33%) had have APBHC in storage for >5 years. The median time from MM diagnosis to AHCT was 9.0 months (range 13.8-18.5). 82% of patients collected enough APBHC (≥6x10 6, at least 3x10 6 per AHCT)for 2 AHCT. 8% of patients had all APBHC infused during their first AHCT, 83.5% had half of their APBHC infused during their first AHCT, and 8.1% had a different amount of APBHC infused during their first AHCT thus 91.6% of patients who collected APBHC had cells in storage. The median OS for the entire cohort after AHCT was 94.7 months (95% CI 88.6-100). Out of 347 patients who had stem cells in cryopreservation, 5 (1.4%) underwent a salvage AHCT and 3 (0.9%) underwent a tandem AHCT. 61% percent of patients had ≥1 excess collection sessions for APBHC that ultimately went unused. The median cost of excess collection sessions was $4,680 per pt (range, $4,680-$32,760) and the median total cost for excess collection sessions plus costs for storage was $23,840 per pt (range, $4,680-$85,450). The sum of costs of excess collection sessions was $2,077,920 and the sum of costs of cryopreservation was $5,812,665. Conclusion: The results of this single center analysis show that only 1.4% of patients underwent a salvage AHCT between 2010 and 2019 while 91.6% had APBHC left in storage which confirms the increase in storage of cryopreserved APBHC and declining trend in the use of stored APBHC for salvage AHCT in pts with MM. This is likely due to the advent of next generation novel therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents. Excess collections, and cryopreservation of unused APBHC incur a cost of nearly $8 million. Institutional policies regarding universal APBHC collection and long-term storage should be reevaluated. 1Phipps C, et al. Bone Marrow Transplantation 2015:50;663-667. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: Sanofi: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Abstract Background :COVID-19 adversely affects individuals with cancer. Several studies have found that seroconversion rates among patients with hematologic malignancies are suboptimal when compared to patients without cancer. Among patients with hematologic malignancies, seroconversion rates also appear to be influenced by recent treatment and the type of treatment they have received. Patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM) are immunocompromised due to impaired humoral and cellular immunity in addition to prescribed immunosuppressive therapy. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy is now widely used for NHL and MM, but little is known about seroconversion rates after COVID-19 vaccination among these populations. Current national guidelines recommend COVID-19 vaccination to be offered to CAR T recipients as early as three months thereafter. We retrospectively evaluated SARS-CoV-2 spike-binding IgG antibody levels following COVID-19 vaccination among NHL and MM CAR T therapy recipients. Methods:This retrospective study was conducted at three Mayo Clinic sites on NHL and MM patients that received CAR T infusions from Sept 2016 to June 2021. Baseline characteristics were ascertained from medical records. All NHL and MM patients who had received CAR T at any point and were alive at the time that the COVID-19 vaccine first became available were eligible for inclusion for antibody response evaluation. For antibody response to vaccination, antibody spike values > 0.80 U/mL were considered positive. Results: Out of 104 CAR T infusions, 73 patients are alive at the time of this submission. We have had 7 patients with known COVID-19 pre-CAR T and all 7 are currently alive (5 have antibody titers and 2 have not been tested yet). Nineteen patients developed known COVID infection post-CAR T (13 alive and 6 deceased). The mortality of COVID post-CAR T in our sample was 31.5%. Furthermore, of the 13 patients that survived COVID-19, they received CAR T an average of 416 days prior to COVID-19 infection (median = 337, range = 54 - 1406); the 6 patients who died from COVID-19 had received CAR T an average of 250 days prior to COVID-19 infection (median = 164, range = 7 - 846). All 6 deceased patients did not receive COVID-19 vaccination pre-CAR T. Out of 17 CAR T patients tested for antibody spike titers post COVID-19 vaccination, 76.4% were able to mount an antibody response. More patients with MM had a higher titer response to the vaccine (>250 U/mL) compared to the NHL counterparts (0.80-249 U/mL). All patients that received the vaccine, regardless of antibody response, were alive at the time of this submission. Conclusions:The majority of CAR T recipients with NHL and MM are able to mount an antibody response following COVID-19 vaccination in our relatively small sample. The frequency of seroconversion among CAR T recipients seems to be similar to patients with hematologic malignancy who had received a hematopoietic cell transplant reported elsewhere. These findings are limited by our small sample size and may be influenced by the timing of vaccination relative to CAR T. Furthermore, almost half of our patients received IVIG post CAR T which could potentially cause false positive antibody results as pooled immunoglobulin preparations may contain COVID-19 antibodies from vaccinated healthy donors. To better understand the characteristics of the immunologic response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients post-CAR T, larger multicenter studies exploring both humoral and cellular immunity will be needed. JEWN, MI and JM are co-first authors and PV, HM and AR are co-senior authors. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Bergsagel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria. Wang: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca: Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Palmer: Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Kapoor: Sanofi: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: CD19 CAR T cell therapies have demonstrated high initial complete remission (CR) rates of 70-80% in relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with durable remissions observed in a subset of patients. Despite the remarkable initial CR rate, relapses occur in 20-45% of patients and with increasing use of CD19 CAR T cell therapies in ALL, a key remaining clinical question is the role of post-CAR HCT. Methods: Patients up to 26 years treated with the commercial (i.e., tisagenlecleucel) or investigational CD19 CAR T cell products from 2014 to 2019 in the United States were included. The objectives were to examine the impact of post-CAR HCT on mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), leukemia relapse, GVHD and transplant related mortality among HCT recipients. The intent of HCT was analyzed as consolidation when there was no evidence of post-CAR T cell relapse prior to HCT. Cox regression multivariable analysis used HCT as time-dependent variable along with age, performance status and time from diagnosis to CAR-T cell infusion to evaluate its impact on outcomes. Results: We identified 347 patients who received CD19 CAR T cells from 86 centers. Median age was 13 (range, 0.4-26 years) with 39% of patients from Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin. Patients were high risk and heavily pretreated; 56% had poor cytogenetics, 51% had ≥3 line of prior therapies and 34% had prior HCT. Most of the patients (74%) received tisagenlecleucel. Disease burden at the time of CAR T cell infusion included morphologic disease (≥5% bone marrow blasts) (65%), measurable residual disease (MRD) positive (16%) and negative CR (18%). CRS of all grades was observed in 57.6% and grade 3-4 CRS in 13%; neurotoxicity of all grades was observed in 25% and grade 3-4 in 8%. With a median follow-up of 12.7 months (range, 2.2-60.3), DFS at 3, 6 and 12 months following CAR T cell infusion was 80.9% % (95% CI: 76.6%-84.9%), 71.2% (95% CI: 66.1%-76.0%) and 57.6% (95% CI: 51.8%-63.3%), respectively. OS at 3, 6 and 12 months was 93.6% (95% CI: 90.8%-96.0%), 89.8% (95% CI: 86.4%-92.8%) and 79.4% (95% CI: 74.7%-83.6%), respectively. Incidences of relapse without censoring at subsequent HCT at month 3, 6 and 12 were 18.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-22.8%), 28.2% (95% CI: 23.5%-33.3%), and 40.6% (95% CI: 35.0%-46.3%), respectively. Of the 347 patients who received CD19 CAR therapy, 62 patients (18%) had subsequent HCT in CR as a consolidation post-CAR with a median time from CAR T to HCT of 4.7 months (range, 1.1-18.6). 36% had a prior HCT (i.e., pre-CAR), 87% received myeloablative regimen and among the 57 patients with MRD evaluation 56 were negative (98%). Frequencies of post-CAR HCT did not change during the 5-year study period. Overall, transplant related mortality (TRM) at month 6 was 8.9% (95% CI: 3.6-16.1), and grade 2-4 acute GvHD was observed in 38.0% (95% CI: 28.4-48.2) of patients at month 6. Post-CAR HCT used as a consolidation was associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.37; p=0.037) but no significant impact on mortality (HR 0.75, p=0.51) or DFS (HR=0.46, p=0.057). When accounting for any HCT performed after CAR T cell, HCT was associated with higher mortality (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest clinical series to date examining the impact of post-CAR HCT on clinical outcome of R/R B-ALL patients. We found that 18% of the patients had post-CAR HCT as a consolidation therapy with a favorable safety profile of 8.9% TRM rate despite a prior transplant rate of 36%. Consolidation HCT after CAR T cell resulted in significant reduction in leukemia relapse with a trend towards better DFS. Consolidation HCT seem safe and incurred a benefit by reducing disease relapse. Further studies in understanding the role of consolidation HCT as planned, or post-CAR T cell response-based strategy or treatment for early B-cell recovery are needed to further define the best candidates for HCT after tisagenlecleucel . Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Park: BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Ahmed: Merck: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cairo: Servier: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dholaria: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Grover: Kite: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC: Other: Advisory Board; Tessa: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mussetti: GILEAD: Other: Clinical trials participation, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trials participation. Pulsipher: Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria; Adaptive: Research Funding; Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medexus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other. Reshef: Gilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Rizzieri: Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acrotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution. Schultz: BMS DSMB: Other: payment; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Turtle: Century Therapeutics Ad hoc advisory boards (last 12 months): Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene, PACT Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eureka Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; T-CURX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloid Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArsenalBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Minerva: Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Other; Juno Therapeutics/BMS: Other: Payments, Patents & Royalties: Patent licensed to Juno Therapeutics.; Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Myeloid Therapeutics, ArsenalBio: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Perales: MorphoSys: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) based GVHD prophylaxis has shown lower rates of acute and chronic GVHD when compared with the traditional prophylaxis of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) and methotrexate (MTX) in matched donor (related and unrelated) allo-HCT. The combination of PTCy with sirolimus as a calcineurin inhibitor-free GVHD prophylaxis has shown promising results with cumulative rates of grade II-IV acute and chronic GVHD in the range of 15-27% and 20-27% respectively in patients undergoing matched and haploidentical allo-HCT. We report a single center, nonrandomized comparison of patients undergoing matched donor allo-HCT receiving PTCy in combination with sirolimus (PTCy/Siro) with those receiving the standard GVHD prophylaxis of tacrolimus and MTX (Tac/MTX). Methods One hundred and sixteen consecutive patients who had undergone a MRD or MUD allo-HCT between January 2018 to January 2021 and received either PTCy with sirolimus or tacrolimus with methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis regimens were eligible for inclusion. The selection of PTCy with sirolimus or tacrolimus with methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis regimen was based on physician choice. Primary endpoints were cumulative incidence of acute (grade II to IV) and chronic GVHD. Secondary endpoints were a) neutrophil and platelet engraftment; b) overall survival (OS); c) non-relapse mortality (NRM); d) relapse; e) clinical infections and f) time to immunosuppression (IS) withdrawal. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 1-year and 2-year freedom from long term adverse events, including chronic GVHD, relapse, NRM and OS. All tests were two-sided with alpha level set at 0.05 for statistical significance. Results Out of a total of 116 patients undergoing MRD and MUD allo-HCT, 29 received PTCy/Siro and 87 Tac/MTX. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two arms except patients in PTCy/Siro were younger with median of 48 (range: 24-69) years vs. 61 (range: 20-73) years (p=0.004) in Tac/MTX. There was difference in primary indication for allo-HCT between the two arms with non-hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) being the most common in PTCy/Siro and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the Tac/MTX group. Patients receiving PTCy/Siro had a significantly higher median CD3 day 100 chimerism at 100 (90-100) vs. 90 (40-100) % (<0.001) and a significantly shorter median time to IS withdrawal at 138 (37-312) vs 232(66-1120) days for patients receiving Tac/MTX. There was no difference between the two arms for length of hospital stay and time to neutrophil engraftment, but PTCy/Siro had a significantly longer median time for platelet engraftment at 17.5 (12-74) vs.14 (11-38) days (p= 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two arms for incidence of grade II to IV acute GVHD, grade III to IV acute GVHD, steroid refractory acute GVHD or clinical infections (Table 1). After a median follow up of 1.1 (range: 0-1.8) years, patients receiving PTCy/Siro were significantly less likely to have chronic GVHD with 2-year freedom from GVHD of 75% (95%CI: 58-98%) vs 20% (95%CI 10-40%), p=0.005 (Figure 1). There was no difference between the two arms for OS, disease relapse or non-relapse mortality (Table 2). Conclusion In this study, the combination of PTCy/Siro is associated with a significantly lower risk of chronic GVHD when compared against the traditional GVHD prophylaxis of CNI and methotrexate, despite significantly earlier IS withdrawal. Other long-term outcomes of interest remained comparable between the two arms. Chronic GVHD contributes to significant morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing allo-HCT. Newer strategies to limit the impact of chronic GVHD are needed. The results of our study warrant validation in a large, multicenter, randomized prospective trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Foran: gamida: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; trillium: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; certara: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; revolution medicine: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Outcomes of adults with relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoma (T-ALL or T-LBL respectively) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remained poor despite the availability of newer agents. CD38 is a 45 kDa transmembrane glycoprotein expressed by lymphoid and myeloid cells with several important functions including a role in immune escape from tumor cells [Chillemi A et al. Front Immunol 2017, Furano A et al. J Immunol 1990]. Several studies have demonstrated that CD38 is expressed in tumor cells of patients with T-ALL and AML and potentially targetable using CD38 blocking agents [Naik J et al. Haematologica 2019, Bride KL et al. Blood 2018, Tembhare et al. J Immunother Cancer 2020, Farber M et al. ASH 2018]. XmAb18968 is structurally distinct CD3-CD38 bi-specific T-cell engager with a full fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain modified to minimize Fcγ receptor binding and non-selective activation of T cells and other immune effector cells. XmAb18968 has optimized relative affinities for both CD3 and CD38 which results in reduced cytokine release without compromising target cell killing. We hypothesize targeting CD38 in relapsed/refractory- T-cell ALL/LBL and AML is safe and feasible using XmAb18968, a novel CD3-CD38 bispecific antibody. Study design and methods: This is an investigator-sponsored multi-institutional phase I study evaluating the safety and tolerability of XmAb18968. Patients aged 18 years or above with T-ALL, T-LBL or AML (including undifferentiated leukemia and bi phenotypic leukemia), in relapsed/refractory status (at least one line of prior therapy) including measurable residual disease relapse, CD38 expression ≥ 20%, and adequate organ function will be eligible. Major exclusion criteria are hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) within 6 months of enrollment, active acute GVHD, veno-occlusive disease, and acute promyelocytic leukemia. The study is planned to be conducted at 6 sites in United States. The primary endpoint is to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and toxicity profile of XmAb18968. The secondary endpoints include determination of response rates, duration of response, survival and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints include correlation of responses with genomic profile, assessment of serum cytokine response, identifying the changes in phenotypic expression of activated T-cells and leukemic cells, correlation of the phenotypic expression with changes in the transcriptome at the single-cell level, proteomics evaluation of cytokine secretion at the single-cell level and correlation of response with N-glycan profiling, quantitative site-occupancy and direct glycopeptide analysis. The study will follow 3+3 design for dose escalation and de-escalation in case of dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Dose escalation will proceed in two separate groups: Group A for subjects with T-ALL and T-LBL and Group B for subjects with AML. Patients will be entered sequentially to each dose level, starting with the first dose level. The DLT observation period for dose-escalation will be 28-days. RP2D will be defined as the highest dose level at which none of the first 3 treated subjects, or no more than 1 of the first 6 treated subjects experience a DLT. A minimum of 24 and a maximum of 60 patients will be needed for the dose escalation phase. Disclosures Guru Murthy: Curio Sciences: Honoraria; Techspert: Consultancy; Qessential: Honoraria; CancerExpertNow: Honoraria; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board meeting; Cardinal health: Honoraria; Guidepoint: Consultancy. Johnson: Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Abedin: AltruBio: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding. Stock: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; amgen: Honoraria; agios: Honoraria; jazz: Honoraria; kura: Honoraria; kite: Honoraria; morphosys: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pluristeem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shah: Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Servier Genetics: Other; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Leonard: Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pratz: Agios: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Research Funding; University of Pennsylvania: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Patients (pts) with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) progressing after anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T (CART) cell therapy have poor prognosis and may benefit from new therapy options through clinical trials. However, in a single center report, only 12% of such pts were treated in trials (Chow et al. Am J Hematol, 2019). Identifying the reasons for this low enrollment is needed to design future studies for this population. Here, we evaluated the eligibility criteria for recent landmark trials for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell NHL to learn what eligibility barriers are present. Methods Pts with aggressive B-cell NHL who received FDA-approved CART cell therapy at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Arizona, Florida) since 2018 and progressed after CART cell therapy were identified. The potential eligibility for the following key trials was evaluated: a) polatuzumab + bendamustine + rituximab, b) tafasitamab + lenalidomide, c) selinexor and d) loncastuximab. The eligibility for each trial was retrospectively assessed at the time of disease progression after CART cell therapy based on hemoglobin (Hb), absolute neutrophils count (ANC), platelet count (Plt), renal and liver function tests, ECOG performance status (PS), and central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Results Seventy-five pts had disease progression to axicabtagene ciloleucel (N=73, 97%) or tisagenlecleucel (N=2, 3%) and are included in this analysis. Median time to progression after CART was 2.1 months (IQR: 1.0 - 3.1). Thirteen (17%) pts were treated in clinical trials after progression following CART cell therapy, while 46 (61%) were treated off trials, and 16 (22%) pts never received any treatment after progression. At a median follow-up of 13.6 months (IQR: 9.1 - 26.7) from CART progression, the median overall survival (mOS) from CART progression was 5.8 months (95% CI 3.5 - 10.1) and 53 (71%) pts died. Thirty-eight pts (51%) did not meet eligibility criteria for any of the 4 recent landmark trials. Hematologic impairment was the most common barrier to inclusion of these patients in clinical trials: Hb < 9 g/dL n=23 (31%) or Hb < 10 g/dL n=36 (48%), ANC < 1.0 x 10 9/L n=19 (25%) or ANC < 1.5 x 10 9/L n=32 (43%), and Plt < 75 x 10 9/L n=30 (40%) or Plt < 90 x 10 9/L n=34 (45%). Renal (n=11, 15%) or liver dysfunction (n=5, 7%), CNS involvement (n=8, 11%) and ECOG PS > 2 (n=3, 4%) were less common reasons leading to exclusion from trials. Post CART trial ineligible pts had significantly shorter time to progression (median 1.7 months, IQR: 1.0 - 2.6 vs. 3.0 months IQR: 1.9 - 3.4, p < 0.01) and inferior overall response to CART (45% vs 67%, p = 0.06) compared to pts who met trial eligibility post CART. Baseline Hb (median Hb 9.5 g/dL, IQR: 8.5 - 10.5 vs. 10.9 g/dL, IQR: 9.7 - 12.2, p < 0.01) and Plt (median Plt 106 x 10 9/L IQR: 54 - 165 vs. 201 x 10 9/L IQR: 141 - 243, p < 0.01) were also significantly lower in pts ineligible for trials post CART. There were no significant differences between pts eligible or ineligible for trials with regards to age (median 59 vs. 60 years), number of prior therapies (median 3 vs. 3), prior autologous stem cell transplant (41% vs. 37%), bridging therapy (65% vs. 63%), baseline ANC (median 4,1 vs. 3,0 x10 9/L), or high-grade (grade ≥ 2) cytokine release syndrome (19% vs. 21%) or neurotoxicity (32%, vs. 42%), respectively. Survival after CART progression was significantly shorter (mOS 2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.6 - 5.1) for the 38 pts ineligible for trials compared to pts eligible for trials (mOS 10.6 months, 95% CI: 8.9 - NA), (p < 0.01). In the 59 pts who received therapy post CART progression, the mOS of pts treated on (n = 13) or off (n = 46) trials was 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.2 - NA) vs. 6.6 months (4.9 - 10.7), respectively (p = 0.047). Conclusion Approximately half of the pts (51%) with aggressive B-cell NHL progressing after CART cell therapy would have be excluded from landmark clinical trials. The current hematologic exclusion criteria are a major barrier to enrollment in clinical trials, which would exclude many pts who have disease progression within 3 months of CART cell therapy (ie, primary refractory disease), in whom cytopenia as a toxicity from therapy is prevalent. Given the known delayed hematologic recovery after CART cell therapy and the unmet need of pts progressing to CART cell therapy, the hematologic exclusion criteria should be adjusted to increase trial participation of this population, especially of those with primary refractory disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin: Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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=<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.

Purpose To develop a standardized method for tibial tunnel volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) analysis with quantitative computed tomography (qCT) using cadaveric specimens to provide validation of this technique on a healthy control population and to determine whether osteopenia occurs following an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Methods: qCT was used to develop a volumetric BMD (mg/cm 3 ) measurement technique throughout the region of a standard tibial tunnel. This method was applied to 90 lower extremities, including 10 matched cadaveric knees, 10 matched healthy knees, 25 ACL‐injured knees, and 25 contralateral ACL‐uninjured knees. The mean total and segmental (proximal, middle, and distal) tibial tunnel BMD were analyzed. Results The mean entire tibial tunnel BMD measured 165.8 ± 30.5 mg/cm 3 (cadaver), 255.9 ± 28.2 mg/cm 3 (healthy control), 290.3 ± 36.4 mg/cm 3 (ACL‐injured), and 300.1 ± 35.1 (ACL‐uninjured). Segmental tibial tunnel BMD demonstrated distal one‐third segments as the greatest areas of BMD, followed by proximal one‐third, and middle one‐third for all cohorts with all pairwise comparisons ( P < .001). The mean BMD was significantly greater in the uninjured extremity compared with the injured extremity in the entire tunnel (290.3 vs 300.1; P < .001), proximal (271.2 vs 279.1; P = .002), middle (167.6 vs 179.6; P < .001), and distal segments (432.7 vs 441.7; P = .004) at an average of 8 weeks following ACL injury. Conclusions A standardized method to quantitatively measure the volumetric BMD within the region of a standard tibial tunnel for ACL reconstruction was successfully developed and validated. Significant osteopenia of the injured knee occurs following ACL injury when compared with the contralateral uninjured knee. This observation has potential clinical implications for ACL graft tibial fixation and healing. Level of Evidence Descriptive diagnostic study, Level III.