Zhang, Mei‐Jie

Although some data (Scott, JCO 2017) suggest that myeloablative conditioning (MAC) is preferred for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), these data were not informed by analysis of disease specific risk factors. We analyzed AML and MDS HCT outcomes stratified by the disease risk index (DRI) in order to identify the preferred transplant conditioning intensity (reduced-intensity conditioning [RIC] vs. MAC). In this large CIBMTR registry study we identified 4387 adult patients (age 40-65 years) who received HCT for AML (68%) or MDS (32%) between 2009 and 2015. DRI was stratified as low/ intermediate risk (1539 MAC and 999 RIC) and high/ very high risk (1121 MAC and 728 RIC). Examining the low/ intermediate risk DRI cohort (Table), RIC was associated with lower risk of TRM (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88; p<0.001) but significantly higher risk of relapse (HR=1.54, 95% CI 1.35-1.76; p<0.001). As a result, RFS in this cohort was significantly worse with RIC (HR=1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.33; p=0.001). In the high/ very high risk DRI cohort, RIC resulted in similar TRM (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.00; p=0.051) but again significantly higher risk of relapse (HR=1.23, 95% CI 1.08-1.41; p=0.002). RFS in high/ very high risk DRI cohort was similar between RIC and MAC. Adjusted outcome curves for the 3 endpoints are shown in the Figure. In this large study of HCT for AML or MDS stratified by DRI, RIC was independent predictor of lower TRM, but significantly higher risk of relapse. The MAC was an independent predictor of lower relapse in both low/ intermediate and high/very high DRI groups. However, MAC only resulted in RFS benefit in the low/ intermediate group where the magnitude of impact on relapse was not offset by the higher TRM. In adults with AML or MDS aged 40-65 years, these data support MAC as the preferred conditioning intensity for low/ intermediate risk DRI, whereas MAC does not provide significant benefit in those with high/ very high risk DRI. Safer, yet still potent MAC regimens could benefit this higher risk group. Disclosures Bejanyan: Kiadis Pharma: Other: advisory board. Brunstein:Gamida: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Magenta: Research Funding. Kebriaei:Amgen: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria. Weisdorf:Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients (pts) with AML remains uncertain. We compared outcomes for older AML pts in CR1 receiving HCT reported to the CIBMTR to older AML pts achieving CR1 on National Clinical Trials Network induction and non-HCT consolidation therapy (CT) trials. Methods: This study focused on pts 60-75 years of age treated between 2004 to 2013. CT pts (n=211) underwent induction and consolidation on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN or SWOG clinical trials for initial therapy for newly diagnosed AML; the CIBMTR provided data for HCT pts (n=431). CT patients received at least one cycle of CT on study and were excluded if HCT occurred at any time. Time to event started at CR1 and pts entered at CT or HCT, respectively, using left-truncation to account for differential entry times. Results: For the CT cohort, first consolidation included standard therapy (e.g., cytarabine or a hypomethylating agent) and additional study drug (e.g., bortezomib, dasatinib, sorafenib, and Zosuquidar, gemtuzumab) or tipifarnib alone. Among HCT pts, the donor was a HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor (URD) in 66% and the others were partially HLA-matched/mismatched URD (10%) or cord blood (24%). HCT pts were younger and more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML and unfavorable cytogenetics) (Table). The median time from CR1 to HCT and CT was 3.2 and 0.5 months, respectively. Allogeneic HCT showed worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.52, p=0.02) prior to 9 months and better OS thereafter (HR= 0.53, p <0.0001) relative to CT (figure 1A). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was worse after HCT in the first 9 months (HR=2.8, CI: 1.5 -5.2, p=.0009), while relapse was less frequent beyond 9 months after treatment (HR = 0.42, CI: 0.29 to 0.61, p<.0001). Despite higher early TRM, HCT recipients went on to manifest superior OS [5 year OS: HCT 29% (24-34%), CT 13.8% (9 -22%)] (Figure 1A). The benefit of HCT for survival after 9 months was more prominent in those with unfavorable cytogenetics (Figure 1B). Multivariate analysis for OS showed no statistically significant effect of age or performance status, while unfavorable cytogenetics were detrimental (HR=1.74, p<.0001). Conclusions. Allogeneic HCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, but resulted in superior long-term survival in older AML pts receiving HCT relative to CT by reducing relapse. Efforts to attenuate early TRM after allogeneic HCT may further improve HCT outcomes for older pts. Disclosures Ustun: novartis: Speakers Bureau. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Stone:Fujifilm: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Weisdorf:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 532 Primary Plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is a rare plasma cell disorder characterized by an aggressive clinical course. The efficacy of autologous and allogeneic HCT in PCL is uncertain due to the small number of patients that have been reported in the literature. To determine the potential for long-term disease control using HCT in PCL, we performed a retrospective review of 160 patients with primary PCL who received autologous (n=107), allogeneic (n=52) or syngeneic (n=1) HCT and were reported to the CIBMTR between 1995 and 2006. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Cumulative incidence estimates of non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, acute and chronic GVHD were calculated. Median age at the time of autologous HCT was 57 years (range, 32-74 years) and allogeneic HCT was 48 years (range, 24-62 years). Median time from initial treatment to autologous HCT was 7 months and allogeneic HCT was 6 months. At the time of transplant, in the autologous HCT group, 19% patients were in complete remission, 56% in partial remission and 1% had relapsed/progressive disease; in the allogeneic HCT group, 17% were in complete remission, 46% in partial remission and 10% had relapsed/progressive disease. In the allogeneic HCT group, 83% of the patients received myeloablative conditioning regimens and 17% received nonmyeloablative/reduced-intensity conditioning. The rate of acute GVHD was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22%-49%) and the rate of chronic GVHD at 3 years was 27% (95% CI, 13%-40%). After a median follow-up of 38 months, 20 of the 52 patients (38%) are alive in the allogeneic HCT group and 68 of the 107 pts (64%) are alive in the autologous HCT group (Figure 1). Progressive disease accounted for 38% of the deaths in the allogeneic HCT group and 86% of the deaths in the autologous HCT group. The outcomes are summarized in table 1. The remarkable overall survival of patients after autologous HCT in this analysis is noteworthy and indicates that autologous HCT is a safe and acceptable treatment option for patients with primary PCL. Although relapse rates are lower, allogeneic HCT carries a much higher risk of NRM and should be considered primarily in the context of a clinical trial. Disclosures: Lonial: Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gloucester: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 680 Cytogenetics play an essential role in determining the prognosis of patients with AML. However, there is still no validated cytogenetics grouping scheme that specifically applies to patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which hampers accurate prognostication and risk stratification. We studied 821 adult patients (median age 41, range 18–74) who underwent SCT between 1999 and 2004 for AML (excluding APL) in CR1 or CR2 and who were reported to the CIBMTR from centers with >20 patients meeting study criteria. 75% of patients received a myeloablative conditioning. 496 patients had a normal karyotype. The primary cytogenetics reports were manually reviewed for 92% of the patients with an abnormal karyotype. We compared the ability of the 6 existing grouping schemes (MRC, CALGB, EORTC/GIMEMA, SWOG/ECOG, DFCI, and Monosomal Karyotype (MK) classifications) to stratify patients, using both the Akaike Information Criterion in multivariable models and the C-statistic. Among all existing schemes, the DFCI system provided a marginally superior stratification for overall and leukemia-free survival. We also built a new classification using individual cytogenetic abnormalities in a Cox model that included other significant covariates (performance status, therapy-related disease, conditioning intensity, graft source, donor match, duration of CR1, and gender match). This CIBMTR scheme (see Table), which is similar to the DFCI scheme except for the inclusion of patients with t(8;21) in the intermediate group, could stratify patients into 3 groups with similar treatment-related mortality but significantly different overall survival, leukemia-free survival, and incidence of relapse. This scheme appeared to apply to both patients in CR1 and in CR2 (see FiguresF2). This transplant-specific scheme could be adopted for prognostication purposes and to stratify patients with karyotypic abnormalities entering transplantation clinical trials. Future studies may clarify the relative outcome of patients with t(8;21) and refine this scheme with the inclusion of molecular abnormalities. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Total body irradiation (TBI)-based conditioning regimens are considered the standard of care for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, due to concerns regarding acute and long-term toxicities, non-TBI regimens, commonly including busulfan (BU), have been increasingly explored. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with the hypothesis that there would be equivalence of these two myeloablative approaches by reviewing outcomes for adult patients (pts), aged 18-60 years, undergoing a first, well-matched sibling, related or unrelated donor HCT in CR1 or CR2 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) from 2005-2014. Eight hundred nineteen pts received TBI (63% 9-12 Gy, 37% ≥13 Gy) combined with etoposide (25%) or cyclophosphamide (Cy) (75%) and 299 pts received intravenous BU combined with a second alkylator Cy (15%) or melphalan (Mel) (13%), or a nucleoside analogue fludarabine (Flu) (41%) or clofarabine (Clo)(30%). The majority of the BU-based pts were treated at the Moffitt or MD Anderson Cancer Center. The BU-based regimens were grouped together for analyses since no significant differences in basic outcomes among the different chemotherapy-only regimens were noted. Patients in the BU-containing group were older but had better performance status, took longer to achieve CR1 and longer to receive HCT; more received peripheral blood than marrow grafts, peri-HCT ATG, pre- and post HCT tyrosine kinase inhibitors ( TKI), and were treated more recently than pts in the TBI-based group (Table 1). With median follow-up of 3.6 years for the BU-based group and 5.3 years for the TBI-based group, adjusted 3 year outcomes showed treatment-related mortality (TRM) BU 19% vs. TBI 25% (p=.04); relapse BU 37% vs. TBI 28% (p=.007); disease-free survival (DFS) Bu 45% vs. TBI 48% (p=.35); and overall survival (OS) BU 57% vs. TBI 53% (p=.35) (Figures A-B). Patients in the BU group had significantly more grade II-IV acute GVHD (47% vs. 40%, p=.025), but marginally less chronic GVHD (49% vs. 55% at 3 years, p=.073). In multivariate analysis, the BU group had a significantly higher rate of acute GVHD after day 50 (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.19-2.58, p=.004), but marginally less chronic GVHD (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.01 p=.059) and higher risk of relapse (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.85 p=.002) compared with TBI-based regimens. Despite the observed higher risks of acute GVHD and relapse, BU-based conditioning led to similar TRM, OS, and DFS following HCT for ALL. Table 1 Table 1. Figure Figure. Disclosures Ciurea: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Cyto-Sen Therapeutics: Equity Ownership. Seftel:Otsuka: Research Funding. Pulsipher:Medac: Other: Housing support for conference; Chimerix: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Study Steering Committee. Champlin:Ziopharm Oncology: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Intrexon: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Abstract 596 Background Large population-based studies have demonstrated a significant improvement in survival (OS) for patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM) over time since the mid-1990s. The improvement has mostly affected younger patients suggesting a beneficial impact of AHCT. The availability of novel drugs within the last decade and their impact on the utilization and outcomes of AHCT recipients is unknown. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the characteristics and outcomes of 20,278 patients undergoing AHCT within 12 months of diagnosis in USA and Canada and reported to CIBMTR in the periods of 1995–1999 (n=2226), 2000–2004 (n=6408) and 2005–2010 (n=11644) including a subgroup of 4373 individuals with detailed patient, disease and treatment information. We subsequently compared survival and analyzed patient, disease and treatment characteristics across the three periods with the time period serving as a surrogate for pre- and post-transplant exposure to novel agents. Results Across the 3 time periods, there was a marked increase in the number of upfront transplants across all age groups (Figure 1a). Patients receiving upfront HSCT in the more recent period were older, less likely to have stage 3 MM at diagnosis and more likely to have received thalidomide (<1 % vs. 22% vs. 52%), lenalidomide (0% vs. <1% vs. 21%) or bortezomib (0% vs. 2% vs. 35%) and have chemosensitive disease at the time of AHCT. The proportion of African-American patients remained low and stable across the three periods (14 vs. 13 vs. 15%). Over the 3 periods, there was a decrease in chemotherapy based stem cell mobilization and increase of single agent G-CSF based mobilization (24% vs. 24% vs. 41%). The use of single agent Melphalan conditioning increased from 54% in 1995–1999 to nearly 100% in the latest period concomitant with near disappearance of total body irradiation-based and multi-drug conditioning regimens. Compared with 1995–99 cohort, survival was superior in the 2000–04 and 2005–09 cohorts at 24 (72% vs. 79% vs. 84%, P<0.001), 48 (54% vs. 60% vs. 64%, P<0.001) and 60 months (47% vs. 52% vs. 55%, P<0.001) (Figure 1b). In multivariate analysis, we found that transplant in the 2000–04 period (HR=0.77, 95% C.I. 0.67–0.89) or in the 2005–10 period (HR=0.68, 95% C.I. 0.59–0.79) along with Karnofsky performance score of 80–100 (HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.51–0.70) and chemosensitivity (HR= 0.76, 95% C.I. 0.66–0.87) were associated with lower risk of death. Factors associated with higher risk of death were age 50–65 (HR=1.29 95% 1.13–1.47), age 65–80 (HR=1.45, 1.23–1.72), Durie-Salmon or ISS stage III at diagnosis (HR 1.56, 95% C.I. 1.39–1.76) and more than one prior line of therapy (HR=1.15, 95% C.I. 1.03–1.28). In comparison to patients transplanted in 1995–99, post relapse survival was superior for patients transplanted in 2000–04 and 2005–10 at 24 months (58% vs. 65% vs. 72%, P=0.005 and <0.001 respectively) and 48 months (33% vs. 39% vs. 40%, P=0.023 and 0.033 respectively). The use of maintenance therapy has changed with 27% in 1995–99 receiving planned interferon vs. 23% in 2005–09 receiving planned thalidomide, lenalidomide or bortezomib maintenance. Conclusions Utilization of upfront AHCT is increasing in the USA, particularly in older patients. Improvement in survival for MM patients seen in population studies results not only from greater utilization of AHCT but also from the improvement in outcomes after AHCT and a significant recent improvement in post-relapse survival. Pre- and post-transplant exposure to novel agents likely contributes to survival. AHCT and novel agents are complementary and should be combined for the optimal management of newly diagnosed MM. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.