Saber, Wael

Background The relative benefits of haploidentical HCT using PTCy compared to traditional matched-sibling donor, traditional unrelated donor and umbilical cord blood (UCB) allogeneic HCT for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is still being defined. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database comparing post-HCT outcomes of haploidentical donors with PTCy to HLA-identical sibling donors, 8/8 HLA-MUDs, 7/8 HLA-MUDs, and UCB. Outcomes were overall survival (OS) leukemia-free survival (LFS), relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM), grade 2-4 and grade 3-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), and chronic GVHD (cGVHD). Eligible patients were adults with ALL in complete remission (CR1, CR2, or CR3) undergoing first allogeneic HCT from 2013 to 2017. Key exclusion included not receiving PTCy for haploidentical HCT and ex vivo T-cell depleted or CD34-selected grafts. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression analysis was used to compare the treatment groups. Results 4201 patients were studied: 393 haploidentical donor (92 centers), 1627 HLA-identical sibling donor (206 centers), 1646 8/8 HLA-MUD (181 centers), 230 7/8 HLA-MUD (90 centers), and 305 UCB (79 centers). Groups were well matched, however, notable differences between included race, time from diagnosis to HCT (CR1 only), conditioning regimen intensity, donor age, graft source for non-cord (peripheral blood or bone marrow), GVHD prophylaxis modality, and the use of in vivo T-cell depletion. Compared to other groups, haploidentical HCT had the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic white patients (43% vs. 49-74%), was more likely to use reduced-intensity conditioning (42% vs 17-25%), and was more likely to use bone marrow (41% vs. 14-29%). In multivariate analysis comparing haploidentical to matched-sibling donor HCT, no differences were observed in OS, LFS, NRM, relapse, or aGVHD. Compared to haploidentical HCT, the risk of cGVHD was significantly higher with matched-sibling donor HCT (D/R sex match F/M, HR 2.59, P<0.001, D/R sex match, other, HR 1.37, P=0.003). Comparing haploidentical to 8/8 HLA-MUD HCT, no differences were seen in OS, LFS, relapse, or Grade 2-4 aGVHD but 8/8 HLA-MUD HCT was associated with increased incidences of NRM (HR 1.42, P=0.02), grade 3-4 aGVHD (HR 1.59, P=0.005), and cGVHD (HR D/R sex match F/M, HR 2.91, P<0.001, D/R sex match, other, HR 1.38, P=0.001). Comparing haploidentical to 7/8 HLA-MUD HCT, no differences were seen in LFS or relapse but 7/8 HLA-MUD HCT was associated with worse OS (HR 1.38, P=0.01) and increased incidences of NRM (HR 2.13, P=<0.001), grade 2-4 aGVHD (HR 1.33, P=0.04) , grade 3-4 aGVHD (HR 1.86, P=0.003), and cGVHD (HR 1.72, P=<0.001). Comparing haploidentical to UCB HCT, no differences were seen in late OS (>18 months), late LFS, relapse, or cGVHD. Compared to haploidentical HCT, UCB HCT was associated with worse early OS (≤18 months, HR 1.93, P<0.001), worse early LFS (HR 1.40, P=0.007) and increased incidences of NRM (HR 2.08, P<0.001), grade 2-4 aGVHD (HR 1.83, P<0.001), and grade 3-4 aGVHD (HR 1.97, P<0.001). Similar outcomes were observed in sensitivity analyses restricting cohorts to (1) MA conditioning with peripheral blood stem cells and (2) calcineurin inhibitor-based GVHD prophylaxis for matched-sibling, unrelated donor, and UCB HCT. Conclusions For OS and LFS, haploidentical HCT using PTCy for adult ALL was superior to traditional HCT using 7/8 HLA-MUDs and UCB but equivalent to traditional HCT using matched-sibling donors and 8/8 HLA-MUDs. Results were consistent across all subgroups. Haploidentical HCT had a lower incidence of aGVHD compared to 8/8 HLA-MUD, 7/8 HLA-MUD, and UCB HCT and a lower incidence of cGVHD compared to matched-sibling donor, 8/8 HLA-MUD, and 7/8 HLA-MUD HCT. Based on these data, haploidentical HCT with PTCy results in similar survival with less GVHD compared to traditional matched-sibling and 8/8 HLA-matched donor HCT and is the superior alternative donor option for adult patients with ALL needing allogeneic HCT in CR. Figure Disclosures Wieduwilt: Leadiant: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Macrogeneics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de Lima:Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; BMS: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees, advisory board, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kadmon: Other: Personal Fees, Advisory board. Kebriaei:Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Jazz: Consultancy. Hourigan:Merck: Other: Research Support (CRADA); Sellas: Other: Research Support (CRADA). Weisdorf:FATE Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding.

Background: Allogeneic HCT continues to be the optimal consolidation strategy for many patients with AML. Cytogenetic and molecular abnormalities are known to influence post-transplant outcomes. We tested the prognostic ability of a modified (mELN) classification system based on available CIBMTR genetic data, to predict post-transplant outcomes. Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of AML in first complete remission (CR1) with available pre-transplant cytogenetic and molecular mutational data, receiving a first allogeneic HCT from 2013-2017, were included. Patients were stratified according to mELN genetic classification in three distinct groups: favorable (Fav), intermediate (IM) and adverse (Adv). Clinical outcomes following HCT were compared among groups after adjusting for significant patient, disease, and transplant-related variables. The primary endpoint was disease free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), cumulative incidence of relapse, acute GVHD, and chronic GVHD. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare endpoints among mELN risk groups, age groups and genetic subsets within the adverse-risk group. Results: Demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1. 2289 patients (Fav, n=181; IM n=1185; and Adv n=923) met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for survivors was 35 months. Importantly, 41% of transplant recipients (n=936) were >60 years, 76% (n=1743) had de novo AML and 48% (n=1111) received a myeloablative conditioning regimen. Univariate analysis (UVA) demonstrated significant differences in 2-year OS (Fav: 67.7%, IM: 64.9% and Adv: 53.9%; p<0.001); DFS (Fav: 57.8%, IM: 55.5% and Adv: 45.3; p<0.001) and relapse (Fav: 28%, IM: 27.5% and Adv: 37.5%; p<0.001) There were no significant differences in NRM (p=0.467) or the incidence of acute (p=0.423) and chronic GVHD (p=0.442) among mELN groups. Initial multivariate analysis (MVA) of mELN risk groups indicated that there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the Fav and IM risk groups. Thus, these groups were combined for subsequent analyses. Adv risk (vs. Fav/IM) led to significantly worse OS (HR 1.39 [1.24-1.57] p=<0.001), DFS (HR 1.32 [1.18-1.48] p=<0.001), and relapse (HR 1.42 [1.23-1.63] p=<0.001) (Table 2). This mELN classification effectively stratified both younger (<60 y/o) and older (>60 y/o) patients for OS (Adv vs. Fav/IM HR for <60: 1.43 [1.21-1.69] p<0.001; >60: 1.44 [1.21-1.72] p<0.001), DFS (Adv HR for <60: 1.31 [1.12-1.53] p<0.001; >60: 1.41 [1.19-1.66] p<0.001) and relapse (Adv HR for <60: 1.44 [1.20-1.74] p<0.001, >60: 1.42 [1.15-1.76] p=0.001). NRM was higher for older patients (>60 y/o) in both the Fav/IM (HR 1.40 [1.10-1.78] p=0.007) and Adv-risk cohorts (HR 1.59 [1.18-2.13] p=0.002). Genetic subset comparisons within the adverse-risk group showed that patients carrying monosomy 5, del(5q) or monosomy 7 had inferior 2-year OS (42.6%, p<0.001) and DFS (35.2%, p<0.001), as well as higher rates of relapse (45%, p= 0.002) when compared to other patients within the Adv-risk cohort (OS 60%, DFS 50.8%, relapse 33.5%). Conclusion: Stratification using mELN criteria resulted in clear prognostic separation of OS, DFS and relapse in this large cohort of AML patients undergoing allogeneic HCT. While Fav and IM groups had similar OS, DFS and relapse rates; patients in the Adv risk group had the highest risk of relapse and inferior DFS/OS. However, the majority of patients in all cohorts had favorable outcomes for HCT in CR1. Our findings confirm the value of a combined genetic prognostic model in the AML HCT setting and justify the use of this stratification system in future HCT trials. Correlation of genetic subtypes with other important transplant variables, such as conditioning intensity and pre-transplant MRD status deserves further evaluation. There remains a subset of Adv-risk patients for which post-transplant outcomes continue to be poor, even when transplanted in CR1. Novel peri-transplant pre-emptive/therapeutic strategies are urgently needed for this high-risk cohort. Disclosures de Lima: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees, advisory board, Research Funding; BMS: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, advisory board; Kadmon: Other: Personal Fees, Advisory board. Komanduri:Kiadis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Ziopharm: Other: Research Support; Jazz: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Served on advisory board; Amgen: Other: Research Support; Novartis: Other: Served on advisory board; Pfizer: Other: Served on advisory board. Bhatt:National Marrow Donor Program: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Other; Jazz: Research Funding; Agios: Other: Personal Fees; Incyte: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees; Partner Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees; Pfizer: Other, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Other: Drug support for a trial; Partnership for health analytic research, LLC: Other: Personal Fees; Omeros: Other: Personal Fees; Abbvie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding. Saad:Orcabio: Other: research support; Kadmon: Other: research support; Amgen: Other: research support; Incyte Pharmaceuticals: Other: Personal Fees; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Personal Fees. Copelan:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Nishihori:Karyopharm: Other: Research support to institution; Novartis: Other: Research support to institution. Weisdorf:Incyte: Research Funding; FATE Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Abstract Social determinants of health, including poverty, contribute significantly to health outcomes in the United States; however, their impact on pediatric hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) outcomes is poorly understood. We aimed to identify the association between neighborhood poverty and HCT outcomes for pediatric allogeneic HCT recipients in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. We assembled 2 pediatric cohorts undergoing first allogeneic HCT from 2006 to 2015 at age ≤18 years, including 2053 children with malignant disease and 1696 children with nonmalignant disease. Neighborhood poverty exposure was defined a priori per the US Census definition as living in a high-poverty ZIP code (≥20% of persons below 100% federal poverty level) and used as the primary predictor in all analyses. Our primary outcome was overall survival (OS), defined as the time from HCT until death resulting from any cause. Secondary outcomes included relapse and transplantation-related mortality (TRM) in malignant disease, acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease, and infection in the first 100 days post-HCT. Among children undergoing transplantation for nonmalignant disease, neighborhood poverty was not associated with any HCT outcome. Among children undergoing transplantation for malignant disease, neighborhood poverty conferred an increased risk of TRM but was not associated with inferior OS or any other transplantation outcome. Among children with malignant disease, a key secondary finding was that children with Medicaid insurance experienced inferior OS and increased TRM compared with those with private insurance. These data suggest opportunities for future investigation of the effects of household-level poverty exposure on HCT outcomes in pediatric malignant disease to inform care delivery interventions.

BackgroundThe association of community factors and outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has not been comprehensively described. Using the County Health Rankings and Roadmaps (CHRR) and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), this study evaluated the impact of community health status on allogeneic HCT outcomes.MethodsThis study included 18,544 adult allogeneic HCT recipients reported to the CIBMTR by 170 US centers in 2014‐2016. Sociodemographic, environmental, and community indicators were derived from the CHRR, an aggregate community risk score was created, and scores were assigned to each patient (patient community risk score [PCS]) and transplant center (center community risk score [CCS]). Higher scores indicated less healthy communities. The impact of PCS and CCS on patient outcomes after allogeneic HCT was studied.ResultsThe median age was 55 years (range, 18‐83 years). The median PCS was –0.21 (range, –1.37 to 2.10; standard deviation [SD], 0.42), and the median CCS was –0.13 (range, –1.04 to 0.96; SD, 0.40). In multivariable analyses, a higher PCS was associated with inferior survival (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD increase, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00‐1.08; P = .0089). Among hematologic malignancies, a tendency toward inferior survival was observed with a higher PCS (HR, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00‐1.08; P = .0102); a higher PCS was associated with higher nonrelapse mortality (NRM; HR, 1.08; 99% CI, 1.02‐1.15; P = .0004). CCS was not significantly associated with survival, relapse, or NRM.ConclusionsPatients residing in counties with a worse community health status have inferior survival as a result of an increased risk of NRM after allogeneic HCT. There was no association between the community health status of the transplant center location and allogeneic HCT outcomes.

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

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

SummaryTransplant‐associated thrombotic microangiopathy (TA‐TMA) is a complication of allogeneic transplantation (allo‐HCT). The incidence and risk factors associated with TA‐TMA are not well known. A retrospective analysis from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) was conducted including patients receiving allo‐HCT between 2008 and 2016, with the primary objective of evaluating the incidence of TA‐TMA. Secondary objectives included identification of risk factors associated with TA‐TMA, and the impact of TA‐TMA on overall survival and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Among 23,665 allo‐HCT recipients, the 3‐year cumulative incidence of TA‐TMA was 3%. Variables independently‐associated with increased incidence of TA‐TMA included female sex, prior autologous transplant, primary disease (acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and severe aplastic anaemia), donor type (mismatched or unrelated donor), conditioning intensity (myeloablative), GVHD prophylaxis (sirolimus + calcineurin inhibitor), pre‐transplant kidney dysfunction and acute GVHD (time‐varying effect). TA‐TMA was associated with higher mortality (HR = 3·1, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 2·8–16·3) and RRT requirement (HR = 7·1, 95% CI = 5·7–311·6). This study provides epidemiologic data on TA‐TMA and its impact on transplant outcomes. Increased awareness of the risk factors will enable providers to be vigilant of this uncommon but serious transplant complication. The results will also provide benchmarking for future study designs and comparisons.

Optimal post-remission therapy for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 16-39 years) with Ph-negative (Ph-) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in first complete remission (CR1) is not well established. We hypothesized that post-remission therapy with a pediatric-inspired regimen would yield superior outcomes to myeloablative allogeneic HCT for AYA patients with Ph- ALL in CR1. We compared overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse, and non-relapse mortality (NRM) for patients receiving post-remission therapy on CALGB 10403 to a contemporary matched AYA cohort undergoing myeloablative allogeneic HCT in CR1 reported to the CIBMTR (Table). The allogeneic HCT cohort consisted of patients 16-39 years of age with Ph- ALL in CR1 undergoing myeloablative transplant from a matched sibling/relative or unrelated donor using peripheral blood or bone marrow stem cells between 11/2002 and 8/2012 in the United States. Patients receiving post-remission therapy with pediatric-inspired chemotherapy had superior OS (P<0.0001), DFS (P=0.0011), and NRM (P<0.001) compared to allogeneic HCT. Patterns of relapse were time-dependent and examined in the Cox model. In multivariate analysis of Cox model, receiving allogeneic HCT was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.5-2.65, P <0.001), inferior DFS (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17-1.94, P 0.002), and increased NRM (HR 3.93, 95% CI 2.53-6.10, P <0.001; Figure). In the early post-remission period (≤15 months after CR1), relapse was more likely with allogeneic HCT (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03-2.59, p=0.04) whereas beyond 15 months after CR1 relapse was more likely in the chemotherapy arm (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.62, P <0.001; Figure). Obesity (BMI ≥30) was independently associated with inferior OS (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.69-2.91, P<0.001), inferior DFS (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.52-2.53, P <0.001), increased relapse (1.90, 95% CI 1.37-2.64, P <0.001), and increased NRM (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.33-2.97, P <0.001). Extramedullary disease at diagnosis was independently associated with inferior OS (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00-1.79, P=0.05). We conclude from this large retrospective study that post-remission therapy with pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as given on CALGB 10403 was superior to allogeneic HCT in CR1 for OS, DFS, and NRM in AYAs with newly-diagnosed Ph-negative B- and T-cell ALL. Late relapse was more likely with chemotherapy whereas early relapse was more likely with allogeneic HCT. Future study should aim to elucidate the impact of measurable residual disease at CR1 and high-risk genetics, including Ph-like ALL, on the superiority of post-remission pediatric-inspired chemotherapy over allogeneic HCT. Figure. Allogeneic HCT (HCT) vs. CALGB 10403 pediatric-inspired chemotherapy (chemo) after CR1: Adjusted (left-truncated) overall survival, disease-free survival, cumulative incidence of relapse, and cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality. Disclosures Wieduwilt: Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Leadiant, Merck, Servier: Research Funding; Reata Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership. Stock:Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Honoraria. Advani:Macrogenics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Luger:Ariad: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria. Larson:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Contracts for clinical trials; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Weisdorf:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy.

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