Hogan, William J.

SummaryRuxolitinib for steroid‐refractory acute graft‐versus‐host disease (SR‐aGVHD) results in resistance or intolerance in 1/5 of patients. Outcomes of such patients are undefined. We identified these patients in a multicentre review and reported outcomes. Ruxolitinib‐resistant aGVHD was identified in 48/307 patients. Among patients receiving additional therapy, the overall response rate to next therapy was 36%. Median survival was 21 days. Ruxolitinib intolerance led to treatment discontinuation in 16/307 patients. Ten intolerant patients received additional therapy with 50% experiencing continued improvement of aGVHD. Median survival was 50 days in these patients. These data serve as a baseline for future SR‐aGVHD studies.

e20000 Background: In the novel agents’ era, refractoriness to induction in Multiple Myeloma (MM) is relatively rare. This population remain an unmet need and are often excluded from clinical trials. In the current era, chemotherapy-induced stem cell collections are used at Mayo Clinic in “poor responders” to induction, such as patients that progress prior to ASCT or patients with significant disease burden after induction. Methods: This is a retrospective study that includes all MM patients the underwent chemo-mobilization between January 2012 and September 2020 at Mayo Clinic. We compared our cohort to a cohort of 125 matched patients that were transplanted over the same time period and underwent mobilization with G-CSF and “on-demand” plerixafor. We matched the cohorts by level of response by IMWG at pre-transplant evaluation. Results: 125 newly diagnosed MM patients who received novel agents’ induction and had a poor response to induction were mobilized using IV intermediate-dose cyclophosphamide (83%) or VDT-PACE (17%) plus G-CSF and “on-demand” plerixafor. The median PFS and OS of the chemo-mobilized cohort were 16 months (95% CI 11-20) and 47 months (95% CI 37-71), respectively. Patients receiving chemo-mobilization had higher stem cell yields than the growth factor only cohort (median 9.88X106 cells/kg versus median 8.77X106 cells/kg, respectively (P<0.001)). The safety profile of chemo-mobilization was favorable, with no difference between the two groups in length of hospitalization during ASCT (P=0.95), days to neutrophil or platelet engraftment, and risk of bacteremia (P=0.38). 29% of the chemo-mobilized cohort and 66% of the matched cohort required plerixafor for adequate mobilization (P<0.001). Conclusions: Chemo-mobilization enhances stem cell collection in MM patients with a suboptimal response to induction and reduces the need for plerixafor without adversely impacting the post-transplant clinical course. [Table: see text]

7022 Background: Philadelphia-like Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (Ph-like ALL) is a high-risk subset of adult ALL. Until recently, there has not been a systematic platform to recognize this entity in clinical practice. Furthermore, data regarding the role of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is lacking. We conducted this study to identify patients with Ph-like ALL and describe their outcomes in comparison to Ph+ and Ph- ALL with emphasis on the role of allo-HCT. Methods: To identify cases of Ph-like ALL, available diagnostic cytogenetic pellets for patients in the Mayo Clinic ALL cohort (N=365) were tested using a targeted fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) panel developed by the Mayo Clinic Genomics Laboratory and includes probes to detect Ph-like-specific rearrangements (i.e., ABL1, ABL2, PDGFRB, JAK2 and CRLF2). Results: Thirty-three (9%) patients with Ph-like ALL were identified, the remaining patients were classified as Ph+ (N=132, 36%) or Ph- ALL (N=200, 55%). Patients with Ph-like ALL were younger (Median: 39 vs. 50 vs. 49 years, P=.01), had higher WBC (Median: 27.9 vs. 21.5 vs. 4.5 x109/L, P<.001), were less likely to achieve CR (91% vs. 99% vs. 96%, P=.02), more likely to be MRD+ (64% vs. 34% vs. 36%, P=.03), had a higher relapse rate (5-year: 39% vs. 24% vs. 38%, P=.01) and lower OS (5-year: 41% vs. 64% vs. 49%, P=.02), see Table. Patients who achieved MRD negativity had better OS (MRD+ vs MRD-, P=.01). Importantly, no statistically significant difference in OS, relapse or non-relapse mortality were noted between the 3 groups in patients who underwent allo-HCT in CR1. Conclusions: Ph-like ALL is a high risk subgroup with increased prevalence in younger adults. Allo-HCT appears to offset the poor prognosis associated with this entity. A targeted FISH panel offers timely recognition of this entity in a clinical setting.[Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Amphiregulin (AREG) is an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ligand that can restore integrity to damaged intestinal mucosa in murine models of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD). We previously described AREG as a circulating biomarker of late-onset aGVHD, but its relevance combined with clinical risk factors has not yet been tested in a large cohort of patients with aGVHD occurring prior to day 100 post-transplant. We therefore tested samples from two aGVHD first-line treatment trials, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 0302 and 0802, and identified a clinically relevant threshold level of circulating AREG at aGVHD onset. We then investigated whether incorporating AREG into the refined Minnesota Risk Score could further risk-stratify patients. Patients and Methods: Blood samples were obtained at the onset of systemic aGVHD treatment within BMT CTN 0302 (serum) and BMT CTN 0802 (plasma). All patients with response data and samples for analysis from both trials were included (N=251). We determined the association of AREG with clinical outcomes, including risk stratification by the refined Minnesota criteria, day 28 complete/partial response (CR/PR) to first-line therapy, 2-year overall survival (OS) and 6-month and 2-year non-relapse mortality (NRM). We investigated the effect of AREG on clinical endpoints per a doubling in the value of AREG, defined a clinically relevant threshold level in the AREG values using two-fold cross-validation, and confirmed the clinical relevance of this cut-point in independent samples (N=92) from pooled from drawn from the Chronic GVHD Consortium and the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Results: In patients enrolled in BMT CTN 0302/0802, AREG levels were 1.7-fold higher in patients with Minnesota high-risk (HR) compared to standard-risk (SR) aGVHD (HR median 53.4 vs SR 31 pg/ml, p&lt;0.01). Every 2-fold increase in AREG was associated with a 33% decrease in the likelihood of day 28 CR/PR (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, p&lt;0.01, table). Clinical factors alone, as determined by the refined Minnesota Risk Score, were associated with day 28 CR/PR (p=0.02, table). Adding AREG to the Minnesota Risk Score could further risk-stratify patients. Minnesota SR patients with elevated AREG ≥ 33 pg/mL showed a 59% lower odds of day 28 CR/PR than SR patients with low AREG (OR 0.41, p=0.02). Patients with Minnesota HR aGVHD with AREG ≥ 33 pg/mL had the worst outcomes, with an 82% lower odds of day 28 CR/PR in comparison to HR with low AREG (OR 0.18, p&lt;0.01). High AREG was associated with worse OS and NRM in both Minnesota SR (hazard ratios 2-year OS 2.3, p&lt;0.01 and 6 month NRM 2.95, p=0.01, respectively) and HR patients (hazard ratios 2-year OS 3.35, p&lt;0.01 and 6-month NRM 9.38, p&lt;0.01 respectively, figure). Finally, in independent samples from the Chronic GVHD Consortium/MAGIC we confirmed that high AREG was associated with worse day 28 CR/PR (55.2% vs. 79.4%, p=0.02) and significantly worse 6-month survival after the onset of aGVHD (57.1% vs. 82.5%, p=0.01). Conclusion: AREG is elevated in patients with poor aGVHD outcomes and adds to the accuracy of risk stratification when combined with the refined Minnesota Risk Score. AREG ≥33 pg/mL at aGVHD onset is associated with lower day 28 CR/PR and higher mortality in samples from 4 multicenter cohorts. The mechanism of elevated circulating AREG in severe aGVHD is not yet known, although we hypothesize the degree of AREG elevation reflects the intensity of immune-mediated tissue injury resulting in AREG release. With accumulating evidence of altered EGFR ligands in aGVHD, further investigation into epithelial repair pathways involving AREG may lead to new adjunctive therapies to overcome poor steroid response in high-risk aGVHD. Disclosures Holtan: Incyte: Other: One-time advisory board member. Khera: Novartis: Consultancy. Lee: Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Amgen: Other: One-time advisory board member; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Other: One-time advisory board member; Kadmon: Other: One-time advisory board member. Chen: Immudex: Research Funding. Arora: Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Flowers: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Cutler: Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy. Jagasia: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Therakos: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy. Hexner: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Levine: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. MacMillan: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Introduction Orally administered tacrolimus is widely used in hematopoietic cell transplant patients, but multiple clinical situations may arise rendering oral administration infeasible. The undesirable sequelae of intravenous administration, including toxicity, challenges with administration and cost call for innovative solutions to conserve existing supply and optimize safety and efficacy of medication delivery. We sought to demonstrate feasibility of sublingual tacrolimus use and estimate a sublingual-to-oral (SL:PO) conversion ratio in the hematopoietic cell transplant setting. Methods Ten adults undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant received tacrolimus 0.04 mg/kg/dose twice daily. Initial doses were given via sublingual route and a steady state trough level was collected after 4 consecutive doses. Participants were then switched to oral tacrolimus, the dose adjusted for a goal trough 8-12ng/mL, and another steady state trough was drawn. Total daily dose was divided by trough concentration for each route to determine the dosing ratio of SL:PO. Results Median trough level following sublingual administration was 11.3 ng/mL. Three of these were within goal, 3 were low (4.7–6.4 ng/mL) and 4 were elevated (15.9–18.6 ng/mL). Median SL:PO ratio was 1.02. In 5 participants the SL:PO ratio was <1 (range 0.57–0.94) and in 5 the ratio was ≥1 (range 1.10–1.92). No significant barriers or intolerance to sublingual tacrolimus use were noted. Conclusions Results demonstrate reliable absorption with sublingual tacrolimus use in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant. Sublingual administration may allow for avoidance of the undesirable complications of IV tacrolimus, such as increased toxicities, required hospitalization for continuous infusion, risk of dose conversion and dilution errors and increased cost. Trial Registry name: Use of Sublingual Tacrolimus in Adult Blood and Marrow Transplant Patients, NCT04041219 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04041219?term=NCT04041219&draw=2&rank=1

AbstractBackgroundNeutropenia is a risk factor for development of infections; however, the direct effect of neutropenia on development of bloodstream infection (BSI) is not known. D‐index, which is area between the neutrophil time curve and a neutrophil count of 0.5 × 109/L, incorporates the combined effect of severity and duration of neutropenia. We aimed to evaluate whether D‐index can be used as a marker for BSI in patients with allogeneic stem cell transplantation.MethodWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation between January 1, 2005, and September 30, 2015. The primary outcome measure was the development of BSI within 30 days of transplantation.ResultsA total of 714 patients were included in the study of whom 101 developed BSI. Patients with BSI had a significantly higher median D‐index value compared with patients who did not have BSI (4990 vs. 3570, P < .001). As a marker, the performance of the D‐index was similar to that of the duration of profound neutropenia (P = .18) and significantly better than the total duration of neutropenia (P = .001).ConclusionThe D‐index performed better than the total duration of neutropenia as a marker for BSI in patients with allogeneic stem cell transplantation. There was no difference between D‐index and, a more easily calculable indicator, duration of profound neutropenia.

Background: Elevated serum ferritin (SF) is common in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) given the frequent red-cell transfusion requirements and impaired iron metabolism. The dysregulation of iron metabolism is associated with increased hepcidin levels which predict for inferior survival in patients with MF (Pardanani et al AJH 2013). High pre-transplant SF negatively impacts overall survival and non-relapse mortality in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for hematological malignancies (Chee et al BMT 2017 & Yan et al 2018). However, the impact of elevated pre-transplant SF specifically on post-alloHCT outcomes has not been described in MF. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with MF undergoing allo-HCT at Mayo clinic Rochester, Arizona, and Florida from January 1st 2012 - December 31st 2019. We abstracted demographic and outcome variables to evaluate the impact of pre-transplant ferritin levels on post-transplant outcomes. We used a Receiver Operand Characteristic Curve to identify a pre-transplant serum ferritin (SF) of ≥ 1,123 ng/mL as the cutoff which best correlated with poor survival. Results: We identified 67 patients with MF who underwent allo-HCT during the study period with readily available data. Patients with a pre-transplant ferritin ≥ 1,123 ng/mL (n=18) had a median age of 59.4 years and were predominantly male (n=9, 50%) with primary myelofibrosis (n=12, 67%), had a DIPSS-plus int-2 (n=10, 56%) and high (n=6, 33%) risk categories and received a reduced-intensity conditioning (n=14, 78%) from a matched-unrelated donor (n=7, 50%) Table1. Patients with SF ≥ 1,123 ng/mL had a worse overall survival (OS) (median OS= 12.64 months [95%CI=6.08-19.20 months] vs. not-reached (NR) p=0.001). Patients with elevated SF had an increased non-relapse mortality (NRM) rate at 6 months (16.7%, [95%CI=0.4-37.2%]) vs 8.2%,[95%CI= 2.6-18.1%] p=0.021) and 12 months (33.3% [95%CI=13.0-55.4%] vs 10.4% [95%CI=3.8-21.0%] p=0.021) Patients with ≥ 1,123 ng/mL SF had a non-statistically significant higher rate of acute graft-vs-host disease grades 3-4 (28% vs 12.2% p=0.13) but similar rates of moderate to severe chronic graft-vs-host disease (31% vs 28% p=0.78). In the univariate analysis, SF ≥1,123 ng/mL and a Hematopoietic stem cell transplant comorbidity index (HCT-CI) ≥3 were associated with an increased risk of mortality (Hazard ratio [HR]=4.18 [95%CI=1.64-10.62] p=0.003] and HR=4.42 [95%CI=1.70-11.46] p=0.003, respectively). Both retained significance in multivariate analysis SF ≥1,123 ng/mL (HR= 2.80 [95%CI= 1.0-7.6], p=0.04)] and HCT-CI score ≥ 3 (HR 3.10 [95%CI= 1.12-8.62, p=0.03]) after adjusting for age, DIPSS-plus score, conditioning regimen intensity, donor type, CMV risk, prior use of ruxolitinib, and ABO mismatch. We grouped the patients into low, intermediate and high risk categories using SF level and HCT-CI scores as detailed in Figure 1. The risk category based on SF and HCT-CI was statistically significant in impacting OS and NRM in this cohort. The 12 month OS rate was lower in the high risk category (44.4% [95%CI= 13.6%-71.9%]) when compared to the intermediate (64.6%, [95%CI=39.7%-81.3%]) and low risk (91.9%, [95%CI= 76.9%-97.3%], p=0.0002) categories. Similarly, the 12 month NRM rate was higher in the high risk category (44.4%, [95%CI=11.0%-74.2%]) when compared to the intermediate (25%, [95%CI=8.7%-45.5%]) and low risk (5.3% [95%CI=0.9%-15.9%], p=0.0046) categories. Conclusion: In patients undergoing allogeneic SCT for myelofibrosis, serum ferritin ≥ 1,123 ng/mL is a predictor of high NRM and inferior OS. Combining ferritin serum levels with HCT-CI may help in better patient selection for allo-HCT in MF population. Larger patient cohort is warranted to confirm our findings. Disclosures Kharfan-Dabaja: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Shah:Dren Bio: Consultancy.

Introduction: Cardiac involvement is one of the main predictors for survival in patients with light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Biomarkers such as Troponin T and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are used routinely for detecting cardiac involvement. In addition echocardiogram (ECHO) is used to determine septal and left ventricular wall thickness and strain. Most patients with AL present with preserved ejection fraction (EF) however, the outcomes of AL patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) with decreased EF are not very well described. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who had a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis and received ASCT between March 1996 and September 2017. All patients had an ECHO done before ASCT and the EF was documented. In our practice, the threshold for performing ASCT is an EF &gt;40%. We evaluated the outcomes of patients who had an EF &lt;55% compared to patients with an EF ≥55%. The baseline characteristics were compared between patients with high and low EF. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from ASCT to disease progression, relapse, or death of any cause. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of ASCT to death of any cause. Univariate and multivariate analysis for PFS and OS were done using the following variables: age&gt;65 vs. ≤65 years, Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2, bone marrow plasma cell percentage (BMPC) ≥ 10% vs. &lt;10%, organs involved &gt;2 vs. ≤2, melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 ,ASCT year &gt;2010 vs. ≤2010, and EF &lt;55% vs. ≥55%. Results: We identified 716 patients and 69 (10%) had an EF&lt;55%, with most (n=63, 91%)having cardiac involvement . Compared to patients with EF ≥55%, patients with EF &lt;55% were more likely to have Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 (58% vs. 22%, P&lt;0.0001) and more likely to have thicker interventricular septum (median 14 vs. 12 mm, P&lt;0.0001). The day 100 transplant related mortality (TRM) was higher in patients with EF &lt;55% compared to EF ≥55% (19% vs. 6%, P=0.0006). In patients with Mayo 2012 stage 3/4, the day 100 TRM was higher in patients with an EF&lt;55% compared to EF ≥55% (27% vs. 7%, P=0.004). Overall, PFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients with EF &lt;55% compared to patients with EF ≥55% (Figure 1 A,B). Evaluating PFS and OS according to EF specifically in Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 patients is displayed in Figure 1 (C,D). Predictors for PFS included Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (hazard ratio (HR): 1.4, P=0.006), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. &lt;10% (HR: 1.5,P=0.0005), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.7, P=0.01), ASCT year &gt;2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.7, P=0.01), and EF &lt;55% vs. ≥55% (HR: 1.5, P=0.02). For OS, age &gt;65 vs. ≤65 years (HR:1.4, P=0.04), Mayo 2012 stage 3/4 vs. 1/2 (HR: 1.96, P&lt;0.0001), melphalan conditioning 200mg/m2 vs. 140 mg/m2 (HR:0.5, P&lt;0.0001), BMPC ≥ 10% vs. &lt;10% (HR: 1.8, P=0.03), ASCT year &gt;2010 vs. ≤2010 (HR: 0.5, P&lt;0.0001), and EF &lt;55% vs. ≥55%(HR:1.9, P=0.003) were predictive. Conclusion: Having an EF &lt;55% is associated with a higher day 100 TRM and is an independent predictor for PFS and OS in patients with AL amyloidosis undergoing ASCT. Disclosures Sidiqi: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant. Dingli:Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Janssen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding. Gertz:Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Sanofi: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Celgene: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Aurora Bio: Other; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee.