Brunstein, Claudio G.

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

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

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

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.

6591 Background: BMT CTN 1101 was a Phase III randomized controlled trial evaluating the comparative effectiveness of unrelated umbilical cord blood (UCB) versus HLA-haploidentical related donor bone marrow (haplo-BM) cell sources for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies (leukemias, lymphomas). We report results of an economic evaluation conducted as part of the clinical trial. Methods: 368 patients (90% of planned accrual) enrolled from 33 centers in the U.S. were randomly assigned to unrelated UCB (n=186) or haplo-BM (n=182) transplant. Healthcare utilization and costs were estimated using propensity-score matched cohorts of BMT patients in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse for trial participants <65 years, and Medicare claims for trial participants ≥65 years. Cost-effectiveness was calculated from payer perspectives (commercial, Medicare) over a 20-year time horizon from time of transplant. Weibull models (best fit based on AIC/BIC) were used to extrapolate survival from 5-year trial follow-up data. Trial participant surveys (EQ-5D) were used to derive health state utilities for estimating Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in results. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Results: At 5-year follow-up, overall survival was 42% for haplo-BM versus 36% for UCB (P=.06). Over a 20-year time horizon, haplo-BM is expected to be more effective and more costly for <65 year-olds and in ≥65 year-olds it is expected to be more effective and less costly. In one-way uncertainty analyses, for persons <65, the cost/QALY result was most sensitive to life years and health state utilities. For persons ≥65, life years were more influential than costs and health state utilities. Using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, for persons <65 there was a 43% chance that haplo-BM was cost-effective using a willingness to pay threshold of $150k/QALY and 52% at a $200K/QALY threshold. Conclusions: Results from a large national clinical trial indicate that compared to UCB, haplo-BM was moderately cost-effective for patients aged <65 years, and less costly and more effective for persons ≥65 years. Haplo-BM is a fair value choice for commercially insured patients with high-risk leukemia and lymphoma who require HCT. For Medicare enrollees, haplo-BM is a preferred choice when considering costs and outcomes. [Table: see text]

Abstract BACKGROUND: Our group recently reported on the results of Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) Clinical Trials Network (CTN) 1101 a randomized comparison between double umbilical cord blood (dUCB) and haploidentical bone marrow (haplo) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (ptCy) in the nonmyeloablative setting that showed similar progression free survival (PFS) between the two treatment groups, but lower non-relapse mortality (NRM) and better of overall survival (OS) in the haplo arm. In this secondary analysis we sought to investigate if transplant center experience with haplo and or cord blood HCT had an impact on outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patient randomized in BMT CTN 1101 were included. In order to determine the transplant center experience with either haplo or dUCB we queried the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) for number of transplants with each platform in the year prior to initiation of the study. Centers were then grouped as dUCB center (&gt; 10 dUCB, n=117, 10 centers), Haplo center (&gt;10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB, n=110, 2 centers), and ≤10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB HCTs (other center, n=140, 21 centers). Further analysis considered the alternative cut-off for haplo (&gt; 5 vs ≤ 5) experience, and considered the outcomes based on the donor experience vs. others (e.g. dUCB &gt; 10 vs. ≤ 10; haplo &gt; 5 vs. ≤ 5). RESULTS: The effect of center experience on HCT outcomes shown in Figure, below . After adjusting for age, Karnofsky performance score and, disease risk index we found that there was no difference in outcomes between haplo and dUCB for centers that were experienced with dUCB or had limited to no experience with either dUCB or haplo. In contrast, in centers that were primarily experienced with haplo had better outcomes with this donor type, as compared to dUCB. The higher risk of treatment failure (relapse or death) and overall mortality in dUCB in haplo experienced centers was driven by significantly higher risk of relapse. We then considered the transplant experience with each of the donor types separately. In transplant centers that had performed &gt; 10 dUCB, there were similar outcomes for recipients of both dUCB and haplo. Similarly, centers that had ≤ 5 haplo HCTs had no difference in outcomes between donor types suggesting an overlap with centers that had performed &gt; 10 dUCB HCTs. Overall mortality was higher among dUCB recipients in centers that had performed ≤ 10 dUCB. Notably, the hazard ratio of non-relapse mortality favored haplo in all four donor experience type of transplant center, albeit not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Except for dUCB recipients in centers with &lt; 10 dUCB/year had worse overall mortality, primarily driven by relapse, the transplant center experience in the year prior to the initiation of BMT CTN 1101 had limited impact on the outcomes of this randomized clinical trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Brunstein: NANT: Research Funding; FATE: Research Funding; GamidaCell: Research Funding; BlueRock: Research Funding; AlloVir: Consultancy. Costa: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cutler: Deciphera: Consultancy; Cimeio: Consultancy; Editas: Consultancy; Kadmon: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy; Mesoblast: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Horowitz: Sobi: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mesoblast: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy; Actinium: Research Funding. Horwitz: Gamida Cell: Research Funding. McGuirk: Novartis: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rezvani: US Department of Justice: Consultancy; Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding. Rybka: Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Vasu: Kiadis, Inc.: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: Travel support; Seattle Genetics: Other: travel support; Omeros, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

SummaryIn young and fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), intensive induction therapy followed by a consolidative autologous haematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT) is the standard of care in the front‐line setting. Recently, time‐to‐event analysis has emerged as an important risk assessment tool in lymphoma, though its impact in MCL is not well defined. We utilized the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database to evaluate the effect of post‐autoHCT time to relapse on overall survival (OS) over time in 461 patients who underwent autoHCT within 12 months of MCL diagnosis. On multivariate analysis, the impact of relapse on OS was greatest at the six‐month [hazard ratio (HR) = 7·68], 12‐month (HR = 6·68), and 18‐month (HR = 5·81) landmark timepoints. Using a dynamic landmark model we demonstrate that adjusted OS at five years following each landmark timepoint improved with time for relapsing and non‐relapsing patients. Furthermore, early relapse (<18 months) following autoHCT defines a high‐risk group with inferior post‐relapse OS. This retrospective analysis highlights the impact of time to relapse on OS in MCL patients undergoing up‐front autoHCT and emphasizes the need to consider novel therapeutic approaches for patients suffering early relapse.

PURPOSETo compare the outcomes of patients with Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma undergoing nonmyeloablative haploidentical or unrelated cord blood (UCB) hematopoietic cell transplantation.PATIENTS AND METHODSWe retrospectively studied 740 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 283, 38%) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 457, 62%) age 18-75 years who received transplantations from 2009 to 2016. Data were reported to the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Eurocord, or Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Of the 526 patients who received haploidentical transplantation, 68% received bone marrow and 32% received peripheral blood. All patients received a uniform transplantation conditioning regimen (2 Gy of total-body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine) and graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis (calcineurin inhibitor and mycophenolate). In addition, patients who received a haploidentical transplantation received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide.RESULTSCompared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantations and adjusted for age, lymphoma subtype, and disease status, survival was lower after UCB transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; P = .001; and HR, 1.59; P = .005, respectively). Similarly, progression-free survival was lower after UCB transplantations compared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantations (HR, 1.44; P = .002; and HR, 1.86; P < .0001), respectively. The 4-year overall and progression-free survival rates after UCB transplantation were 49% and 36%, respectively, compared with 58% and 46% after haploidentical bone marrow transplantation and 59% and 52% after peripheral-blood transplantation, respectively. Lower survival was attributed to higher transplantation-related mortality after UCB transplantation compared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantation (HR, 1.91; P = .0001; and HR, 2.27; P = .0002, respectively).CONCLUSIONWhen considering HLA-mismatched transplantation for Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the data support haploidentical related donor transplantation over UCB transplantation.

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.