Chen, Yi‐Bin

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of > 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.

Abstract Relapse of malignancy and lethal graft versus host disease (GVHD) are the principal causes of failure of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Recently we have shown that at seven days after HCT an algorithm using two serum biomarkers (ST2 and REG3α) can predict severe GVHD (Hartwell et al. JCI Insight 2017). We determined whether serial testing (in the first month following HCT) of patients with low probability biomarkers would improve the predictive accuracy of the algorithm and identify patients with different risks of relapse and lethal GVHD. Patients who received an HCT at 18 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) for hematologic malignancy and who supplied three blood samples were divided into a training set and validation set with equal numbers of lethal GVHD events, which was defined as death from GVHD or infection during treatment for GVHD. Patients in the training set (n=702) underwent HCT from January 1, 2006 until June 30, 2015, whereas patients in the validation set (n=906) underwent HCT from July 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017. Serum samples were analyzed using the previously published algorithm of two biomarkers up to three times (day 7, day 14, day 28 or GVHD onset, if onset occurred within the first 28 days). The algorithm generates a predicted probability of lethal GVHD between 0 and 1 for each patient. Patients were categorized as either low probability (LP) or high probability (HP) for lethal GVHD. HP thresholds of 0.20 and 0.16 were used to classify patients with and without GVHD symptoms, respectively (once categorized as HP, patients remained in that category and were not retested). All results were similar between training and validation sets, and we present here the validation set results. Serial testing identified 28% of patients as HP with a three-fold greater cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD at one year (13% vs 4%, p<0.001, Figure 1). Relapse rates were the same in both probability groups, and thus LP patients experienced significantly better relapse free survival (RFS) (69% vs 53%, p<0.001). As expected, significantly fewer LP patients experienced severe GVHD at onset (as measured by Minnesota risk), maximum grade III/IV GVHD, or steroid resistant GVHD by day 180 after HCT (Figure 2, p<0.001 for all three parameters). To measure the accuracy of prediction, at each timepoint we calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves; the AUC increased significantly with each subsequent evaluation, from 0.59 at one timepoint (dotted line) to 0.74 at the third timepoint (solid line) (p<0.001), with a final sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 74% (Figure 3A). Early development of GVHD (by day 28) is a risk factor for lethal GVHD. Therefore, we next plotted RFS (dashed line), relapse (solid line), and lethal GVHD (dotted line) rates in patients who developed GVHD by day 28. 25% of patients with GVHD were categorized as HP and had a cumulative incidence of lethal GVHD more than four times higher (28%) than that of relapse (6%); however the risks were reversed for the 75% of patients who were LP, where relapse (15%) occurred twice as often as lethal GVHD (7%) (Figure 3B). In patients who did not develop GVHD in the first month, this reversal of risks was even more dramatic. Approximately half (53%) of the entire validation cohort did not develop GVHD by day 28 and was LP at all three evaluations. These patients had an exceptionally low risk of lethal GVHD and thus they relapsed (25%) much more often than they died from GVHD (3%). When malignancies were classified according to risk for relapse by the disease risk index (DRI) (Figure 3C), the probability of relapse was three fold higher than lethal GVHD in malignancies with a low DRI (12%), six fold higher for intermediate DRI (20%), and eleven fold higher for high/very high DRI (33%). We conclude that a serial monitoring strategy using GVHD biomarkers for one month after HCT is able to identify two groups of patients with very different risks of lethal GVHD and relapse. For these patients, the intensity of immunosuppression after day 28 could be tailored according to the probabilities of developing lethal GVHD and relapse in the context of clinical trials. Disclosures Aziz: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Ayuk:Therakos (Mallinckrodt): Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Chen:REGiMMUNE: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Merli:Neovii Biotech: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria. Roesler:Sanofi: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Immunomedics: Equity Ownership; Biogen: Equity Ownership; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kitko:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mallinckrodt: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Qayed:Novartis: Consultancy. Wölfl:Bristol-myers Squibb: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Equity Ownership; Taheda: Equity Ownership; Juno: Equity Ownership; Neovii: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Mielke:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Speakers Bureau; EHA: Speakers Bureau; Kiadis Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Speakers Bureau. Wudhikarn:Takeda Oncology: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Nakamura:Celgene: Honoraria; Molmed: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Pulsipher:CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Levine:Therakos: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Research Funding; Viracor: Patents & Royalties. Ferrara:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Xenikos: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Kamada: Consultancy, Research Funding; Viracor: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Introduction Older patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation may experience a higher degree of morbidity and limitations from transplant related complications. Chronic graft-versus –host disease (GVHD) causes a significant reduction in patients’ quality of life (QOL), physical functioning, and functional status. However, it is not known if moderate to severe chronic GVHD has a worse impact on QOL, or survival outcomes for older patients. Methods We analyzed data of patients with moderate or severe chronic GVHD (N=522, 1661 follow-up visits, a total of 2,183 visits) from the Chronic GVHD Consortium, a prospective observational multicenter cohort. Moderate or severe chronic GVHD was defined by the National Institutes of Health global severity score at the time of enrollment. We examined the relationship between age group (adolescent and young adult “AYA” 18-40, “middle-aged” 41-59, and “older” ≥ 60 years) and clinical manifestations of chronic GVHD, patient-reported outcomes, functional status, non-relapse mortality and overall survival. Clinical manifestations of chronic GVHD were determined by the clinician-reported individual organ scores. Patient-reported outcomes included (1) QOL as measured by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) and the Medical Outcome Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (2) chronic GVHD symptom burden as measured by the Lee Symptom Scale; and (3) physical fitness as measured by the Human Activity Profile (HAP). Functional status was assessed using the 2-minute walk test (2MWT). Because of multiple testing, p-values <0.01 were considered significant. Results There were 115 (22%) AYA, 279 (53%) middle-aged and 128 (25%) older patients with moderate (58%) or severe (42%) chronic GVHD included. At study enrollment, older patients (≥60) were similar to younger patients in sex, time from transplant (median 12 months), prior acute GVHD, percentage of severe chronic GVHD, and current co-morbidity scores but differed in disease distribution and conditioning regimen intensity. At enrollment, in unadjusted analyses using all available data, older patients had similar rates and severity of global and organ-specific manifestations of chronic GVHD compared to younger patients, except for genital involvement, which was more prevalent and severe in AYA patients. Although older patients reported worse physical functioning [SF-36 Physical Functioning (p=0.01)], shorter 2MWT (p=0.002), and lower HAP scores (p=0.001) than AYA and middle-aged patients suggesting they have more physical limitations, older patients had better QOL [FACT-BMT (p=0.01)] scores compared to middle-aged patients and similar to AYA patients. Older patients had better psychological [Lee Psychological Scale (p<0.001), SF-36 Mental Health (p=0.01)] and emotional functioning [FACT-Emotional Well-being (p=0.001)] and less pain [SF-36 Bodily Pain (p=0.006)] than AYA and middle-aged patients but similar chronic GVHD symptom burden [Lee Symptom Scale (p=0.47)]. In multivariable linear mixed models utilizing all visit data and adjusted for clinical covariates, older patients had QOL (FACT-BMT) that was comparable to AYA patients (estimate -0.04, p=0.99) and better than middle-aged patients (estimate 5.7, p=0.004), while the SF36 physical and mental component scores and symptom burden were not different between the groups. Non-relapse mortality and overall survival were similar between the age groups in unadjusted analyses (p=0.23, p=0.17) and after adjusting for clinical covariates (p=0.17, p=0.15) in Cox models. In a subgroup analysis, we found that there were no differences in overall and organ-specific chronic GVHD manifestations, QOL and survival between patients in the 60-64 (n=73), 65-70 (n=39), and >70 (n=16) age groups, except for more moderate-severe skin involvement in the 65-70 year olds. Conclusion Despite higher physical and functional limitations, older patients with moderate or severe chronic GVHD have preserved QOL, comparable disease manifestations and symptom burden, and similar overall survival and non-relapse mortality when compared to younger patients. Therefore we did not find evidence that older age itself is associated with worse QOL or survival in patients with moderate or severe chronic GVHD. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction: Depression is associated with increased mortality among healthy individuals and patients with various medical conditions including cardiovascular disease and cancer. The impact of an existing diagnosis of depression prior to autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) on clinical outcomes including overall survival has not been studied. Methods: We analyzed data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry to compare overall survival and hospital-length-of-stay during the first 100 days after autologous (n= 3786) or allogeneic (n = 7433) HCT for adult (≥ 18 years) patients with hematologic malignancies with an existing diagnosis of pre-transplant depression requiring treatment vs. those without pre-transplant depression. Data regarding an existing diagnosis of pre-transplant depression requiring treatment were collected from medical chart reviews and reported to the CIBMTR. Data for autologous and allogeneic HCT were analyzed separately. Using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusting for patient-, disease-(including the disease risk index for allogeneic HCT), donor-(for allogeneic HCT), and transplant-related variables, we compared overall survival between patients with or without pre-transplant depression. To account for early deaths, we compared the number of days alive and out of the hospital in the first 100 days post-transplantation using Poisson models adjusting for patient-, disease-, and transplant-related variables. Among patients undergoing allogeneic HCT, we also compared the risk of grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and chronic GVHD among patients with or without pre-transplant depression using Cox proportional hazard regression analyses controlling for significant confounders. Results: We included 1116 (15%) patients with pre-transplant depression and 6317 (85%) patients without pre-transplant depression who underwent allogeneic HCT between 2008 and 2012. Patients with pre-transplant depression were similar to those without pre-transplant depression with regards to age, disease distribution, disease risk index, time from diagnosis to transplant, conditioning regimen, receipt of total body irradiation, graft type, donor type, and donor source, but they were more likely to be female, white, divorced, less educated, not working full-time, and had lower performance status and higher number of comorbid conditions. In multivariable analyses, pre-transplant depression was associated with higher overall mortality (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.23, p = 0.004) and higher risk of grade II-IV acute GVHD (HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.14-1.37, p < 0.0001), but similar risk of chronic GVHD (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.26). Pre-transplant depression was associated with fewer days alive and out-of-the hospital (Means Ratio (MR) = 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, P = 0.004). Among patients undergoing autologous HCT, we included 512 (13.5%) patients with pre-transplant depression and 3274 (86.5%) patients without pre-transplant depression between 2007 and 2012. Patients with pre-transplant depression were similar to those without pre-transplant depression with regards to disease distribution, disease status prior to HCT, time from diagnosis to transplant, conditioning regimen, and year of transplant, but they were slightly younger, more likely be to female, white, divorced, less educated, not working full-time, and had lower performance status and higher number of comorbid conditions. Pre-transplant depression in autologous HCT recipients was not associated with overall survival in multivariable analyses (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98-1.34, p = 0.096), but was significantly associated with fewer days alive and out of the hospital (MR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, p = 0.002). Conclusion: Pre-transplant depression was associated with higher mortality and higher risk of acute GVHD among patients undergoing allogeneic HCT. Moreover, pre-transplant depression is associated with a longer hospital-length-of stay during the first 100 days after autologous and allogeneic HCT. Therefore patients with pre-transplant depression represent a highly vulnerable population at risk for post-transplant mortality and complications, and they may benefit from more intensive interventions to mitigate the risk of depression on their post-transplant outcomes. Disclosures Chen: Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lee:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kadmon: Consultancy. Hahn:Novartis: Equity Ownership; NIH/NHLBI: Research Funding.

Abstract Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the primary cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, does not always respond to treatment with high dose systemic corticosteroids. We have recently shown that a combination of three biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) measured at onset of GVHD can predict day 28 response to treatment and 6-month NRM (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to determine if the same biomarker-based Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm can alsopredict treatment response andmortality whenapplied after one week of systemic corticosteroid treatment. The study population consisted of 378 patients (pts) with acute GVHD from 11 centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. All pts were treated with systemic steroids and provided a plasma or serum sample obtained after one week of treatment (±3 days). The median starting dose of systemic steroids for Grade II-IV GVHD was 2.0 mg/kg/day and for Grade I was 1.0 mg/kg/day, after which treatment varied. Patients were divided into test (n=236) and validation (n=142) cohorts. We applied the Ann Arbor GVHD algorithm to concentrations of TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α measured after one week of treatment to generate a predicted probability of 6-month NRM, which we term the treatment score (TS). We employed unsupervised k-medoidclustering to partition TS values from the test cohort into two groups (high and low). This unbiased approach identified a high score group made up of 25% of pts (n=58) in the test cohort. We observed that the day 28 response rate (complete, CR + partial, PR) was significantly lower in pts with high scores compared to low scores in the test cohort (24% vs 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1A). Analysis of the validation cohort using the same TS definitions showed similar differences in response rates (22% vs 61%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1B). Further, nearly four times as many pts with high scores in both cohorts died within 6 months from non-relapse causes compared to pts with low scores (test: 57% vs 17%, p<0.0001; validation: 57% vs 14%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1C/D). As expected, the majority of non-relapse deaths in pts treated for GVHD were directly attributable to GVHD (test: 95%; validation: 89%). Relapse rates for high and low score pts were similar (data not shown), and thus pts with a high TS experienced significantly worse overall survival in both cohorts (test: 37% vs 72%, p<0.0001; validation: 38% vs 79%, p<0.0001) (Fig 1E/F). Approximately half of the pts in each cohort (test: 48%; validation: 44%) responded (CR+PR) to the first week of steroids and these ptshad significantly lower 6-month NRM than non-responders (NR) (test: 17% vs 36%, p=0.0002; validation: 13% vs 36%, p=0.0014). Yet the TS continued to stratify mortality risk independently of clinical response. In the test cohort, pts with a high score comprised 16% of all early responders and experienced more than twice the NRM of early responders with a low score (33% vs 13%, p=0.022) (Fig 2A). Conversely, test cohort pts who did not respond by day 7, but had a low score, fared much better than non-responders with a high score (NRM 21% vs 68%, p<0.0001) (Fig 2B). Two thirds of early non-responders comprised this more favorable group. These highly significant results reproduced in the independent validation cohort in similar proportions (CR+PR: 45% vs 6%, p=0.0003; NR: 61% vs 22%, p=0.0001) (Fig 2C/D). Finally, a subset analysis revealed that pts classified as NR after one week of steroids due to isolated, yet persistent, grade I skin GVHD (24/378, 6%) overwhelmingly had low treatment scores (22/24, 92%) and experienced rates of NRM (9%) comparable to responders with low scores, thus forming a distinct, albeit small, subset of pts with non-responsive GVHD that fares particularly well (Fig 3). In conclusion, a treatment score based on three GVHD biomarkers measured after one week of steroids stratifies pts into two groups with distinct risks for treatment failure and 6-month NRM. It is particularly noteworthy that the TS identifies two subsets of pts with steroid refractory (SR) GVHD who have highly different outcomes (Fig 2B/D). The much larger group, approximately two thirds of all SR pts, may not need the same degree of treatment escalation as is traditional for clinical non-response, and thus overtreatment might be avoided. Because the TSis measured at a common decision making time point, it may prove useful to guide risk-adapted therapy. Disclosures Mielke: Novartis: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel grants; JAZZ Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent.

Abstract Background: Chronic GVHD contributes to morbidity and mortality after allogeneic transplantation. Several phase 2 and 3 open label studies suggested that ATLG (formerly referred to as ATG-F) reduces cGVHD without impacting relapse or survival. This report describes the first prospective randomized double blind phase 3 trial to assess the effect of ATLG (Neovii) when added to tacrolimus / methotrexate prophylaxis on cGVHD free survival. Patients and Methods: This study was conducted at 27 sites in the United States and Australia. 260 patients were randomized (132 placebo, 128 ATLG). 6 patients who were randomized never received ATLG/placebo (4 placebo and 2 ATLG). Data presented include the 128 placebo and 126 ATLG patients who underwent treatment and transplant. Patients were ages 18-65 years with a diagnosis of acute myeloid (AML, 64%) or lymphoblastic (ALL, 21%) leukemia in first or subsequent complete remission or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS, 15%) with less than 10% marrow blasts. Median age was 48 years (18-65) with 55% males. All patients received 8/8 HLA (A, B, C, DR) allele matched unrelated products (80% mobilized peripheral blood, 20% bone marrow). Myeloablative conditioning was with cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation (Cy/TBI, 27%), busulfan and cyclophosphamide (Bu/Cy, 33%), or busulfan and fludarabine (Bu/Flu, 40%). All patients received tacrolimus starting on Day -1 and standard mtx on days 1, 3, 6, and 11 for GVHD prophylaxis. Patients received ATLG or placebo on Days -3, -2, -1 at an ATLG dose of 20 mg/kg per day (60 mg/kg total). The primary endpoint of the study was moderate/severe chronic GVHD free survival. cGVHD was scored by the investigator and then confirmed or overturned by an independent adjudication committee. Secondary endpoints included engraftment, acute GVHD , moderate/severe cGVHD, non-relapse mortality, GVHD and relapse free survival (GRFS), progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The impact of ATLG on immune reconstitution was assessed in 91 patients. Results: Treatment arms were balanced with respect to age, diagnosis, remission status, cytogenetics, graft source (PB or BM), CMV serostatus and conditioning regimen. Median follow up of survivors was 745 days (61, 1425). Regarding the primary endpoint, there was no difference in 2 year moderate/severe cGVHD free survival between ATLG and placebo (48 vs 44%, p = 0.57), nor was there a difference in GRFS (Table 1). Neutrophil engraftment at Day 30 was less in the ATLG arm (85% vs 95%, p=0.00001). Grade 2 or higher infusion reactions were higher in the ATLG arm (16% vs 2.3%, p=0.0001). Reactivation of CMV was similar (27% vs 31%, p=0.58). The Day 180 cumulative incidence of grades 2-4 acute GVHD was lower in the ATLG arm (23 vs 40%, p = 0.003) as was the 2-year cumulative incidence of moderate/severe cGVHD (12 vs 33%, p = 0.000006). However, both 2-year OS and PFS were lower in ATLG treated patients (58 v 76% and 47 vs 67%, respectively) due in part to a higher incidence of relapse (32 vs 19%, p=0.068). Multivariable models confirmed that ATLG was associated with inferior OS, HR 1.85 (1.1-2.9, p=.0075) and PFS, HR 1.63 (1.1-2.41, p=0.015). We then conducted an unplanned post-hoc analysis and discovered a striking influence of conditioning regimen on outcomes. There were no differences in OS or PFS between ATLG and placebo arms in patients receiving Bu/Cy or Bu/Flu but a dramatic difference in patients receiving Cy/TBI conditioning (OS, 88% vs 48% p =0.006 and PFS, 75 vs 29%, p=0.007 in placebo and ATLG arms, respectively). 91 patients (44 ATLG, 47 placebo) participated in the immune reconstitution study. ATLG treatment was associated with lower CD3, CD4, and CD8 counts at Days 30, 100, and 360, respectively. In turn lower CD3, CD4, and CD8 counts assessed as time dependent variables were all associated with inferior OS and PFS as well as higher NRM (data not shown). Conclusion: In this first ever prospective, randomized, double blind trial of ATLG added to tacrolimus /methotrexate in recipients of matched unrelated donor grafts after myeloablative conditioning, there was no significant difference in 2 year moderate/severe cGVHD free survival or GRFS. ATLG did significantly reduce grades 2-4 acute and moderate/severe chronic GVHD. However, overall survival was higher in the placebo arm, driven mainly by patients who received Cy/TBI conditioning. Further analyses are needed to understand the proper role for ATLG in HCT. Disclosures Soiffer: Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kiadis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Porter:Genentech: Employment; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Szer:Alnylam: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ra Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ritz:Kiadis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Glavin:Neovii Biotech: Employment. Chen:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract No laboratory test can predict non-relapse mortality (NRM) after hematopoietic cellular transplantation (HCT) prior to the onset graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Recently, we have shown that a signature of three GVHD plasma biomarkers (TNFR1, ST2, and REG3α) can predict response to GVHD therapy and NRM at the onset of clinical GVHD (Levine, Lancet Haem, 2015). Our goal in the current study was to identify a blood biomarker signature that could predict lethal GVHD and six-month NRM well in advance of the onset of GVHD symptoms. Patient samples on day +7 after HCT were obtained from 1,287 patients from 11 HCT centers in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC). Samples from two large centers (n = 929) were combined and randomly assigned to a training set (n = 620) and test set (n = 309). 358 patients from nine others centers constituted an independent validation set. The overall cumulative incidences of 6-month NRM were 11%, 12%, and 13% for the training, test, and validation sets respectively. The incidence of lethal GVHD, defined as death without preceding relapse while under steroid treatment for acute GVHD, were 18%, 24%, and 14% in the same groups, respectively. The median day of GVHD onset was 28 days in the training set and 29 days in the test and validation sets. We measured four GVHD related biomarkers [ST2, REG3α, TNFR1, and IL2Rα] in all samples and used the training set alone to develop competing risks regression models that used all 13 possible combinations of one to four biomarkers to predict 6-month NRM. The best algorithm, which we rigorously confirmed through Monte Carlo cross-validation of 75 different combinations of training sets, included ST2 and REG3α. No combination of one, three, or four biomarkers was superior to the combination of these two biomarkers. The day 7 algorithm identified high risk (HR) and low risk (LR) groups with 6-month NRMs of 28% and 7%, respectively (p<0.001) (Fig 1A). The relapse rates did not differ between risk groups so that overall survival (OS) was 60% for HR and 84% for LR (p<0.001) (Fig 1B). When applied to the test set (Fig 1C/D), the algorithm identified 54/309 (17%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 33% vs 7% for LR patients (p<0.001) and 6-month OS of 57% and 81% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). In the independent validation set (Fig 1 E/F), the algorithm identified 72/358 (20%) of the patients as HR with an NRM of 26% vs 10% for LR patients (p<0.001) and OS of 68% and 85% for HR and LR patients, respectively (p<0.001). High risk patients were three times more likely to die from GVHD than LR patients in each cohort (p<0.001) (Fig 2). The GI tract is the GVHD target organ that is most resistant to treatment and represents a major cause of NRM, and we observed twice as much severe GI GVHD (stage 3 or 4) in HR patients as in LR patients (p<0.001, data not shown). The algorithm successfully separated HR and LR strata for 6 month NRM in several groups with differing risks for GVHD and NRM, including donor type, degree. of HLA-match, age group, and conditioning regimen intensity (Fig 3). In conclusion, we have developed a blood biomarker algorithm that predicts the development of lethal GVHD seven days after HCT, which performed successfully in large multicenter validation sets. The GVH reaction is already in progress by day +7, even though clinical symptoms may not occur until days or weeks later. We speculate that the blood biomarker concentrations at this early time point reflect subclinical GI pathology, a notion that is reinforced by the fact that ST2 and REG3α, the two biomarkers in the algorithm, are closely associated with GI GVHD. The algorithm identified HR and LR strata in several patient groups with different overall risk for lethal GVHD (donor, HLA match, conditioning regimen intensity, age). This day +7 algorithm should prove useful in clinical BMT research by identifying patients at high risk for lethal GVHD who might benefit from aggressive preemptive treatment strategies. Disclosures Chen: Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Jagasia:Therakos: Consultancy. Kitko:Therakos: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kroeger:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Levine:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent. Ferrara:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarkers patent.

Abstract The optimal source of donor hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) is controversial. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized peripheral blood (G-PB) has replaced bone marrow (BM) as the most common allograft source in adults but is associated with donor morbidity and higher rates of chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) compared to BM. The CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor (Px) mobilizes HSC into the PB (Px-PB) faster than G-CSF and preliminary data suggest both quantitative and qualitative differences in allograft content that may impact clinical outcomes. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of transplanted allografts collected following mobilization with Px alone in HLA-identical sibling transplantation. This was a Phase II, two-strata, multi-center prospective trial (NCT01696461) to evaluate Px-PB allografts prior to reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) and myeloablative conditioning (MAC) based hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Patients aged 18-65 years with an HLA-ID sibling donor and a hematological malignancy suitable for HCT were eligible. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of donors whose cells could be successfully mobilized and collected with a sufficient CD34+ cell dose using Px as the sole mobilizing agent. Px mobilization was considered successful if ≥ 2.0x10^6 CD34+ cells/kg recipient weight were collected in no more than two leukapheresis (LP) collections. All donors receiving Px were included in the analysis of the primary objective based on the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary objectives included the incidence of acute and chronic adverse events in donors, rates of hematopoietic engraftment, donor chimerism, rates of acute and chronic GVHD, non-relapse mortality (NRM), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the recipients. From July 2013 to December 2014, 64 donor/recipient pairs were enrolled at 12 centers. Donors received Px at 240μg/kg subcutaneously 4 hours prior to LP. LP was performed processing at least 4X blood volume for up to two consecutive days (a third day was allowed for low CD34+ cell yields after 2 LP procedures) to achieve a target CD34+ cell dose of ≥ 4.0 x 10^6/kg recipient weight with a minimum goal of ≥ 2.0 x 10^6/kg. All allografts were cryopreserved. GVHD prophylaxis included cyclosporine or tacrolimus in combination with methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, or sirolimus. G-CSF was given routinely post HCT only to MAC recipients. Patient demographics are provided in Table 1. The median donor age was 56 years (18-65). 64% of the donors were male. Donors underwent one (23%), two (72%), or three (5%) LP procedures. 63 of 64 (98%) donors achieved the primary objective. The median total CD34+ cell dose/kg recipient weight collected within 2 days was 4.6 (0.9-9.6). Maximal donor toxicity following Px injection and LP was grades 0 (30%), 1 (52%), 2 (17%), and 3 (2%). Bloating, flatulence, abdominal pain, headache, paresthesisas, injection site reaction, and dizziness were the most commonly observed toxicities. Bone pain was not observed. The one grade 3 toxicity was a vasovagal episode felt related to LP and unlikely to Px. Toxicities typically resolved within a week of LP. The median follow up is 6.3 months. Median days to ANC (>0.5 x10^9/L) and Platelet count (>20 x 10^9/L) recovery were 13.5 (10-148) and 19 (1-76) after MAC and 14.5 (0-25) and 18 (0-141) after RIC, respectively. The cumulative incidence of acute GVHD grades 2-4 and 3-4 at day 100 were 47% (95% CI: 30-64) and 9% (95% CI: 2-22) after MAC and 19% (95% CI: 6-38) and 5% (95% CI: 0-18) after RIC. Probability of NRM at day 100 was 4% (95% CI: 0-13) and 0% after MAC and RIC, respectively. The probability of OS at day 100 was 97% (95% CI: 88-100) and 90% (95% CI: 78-98) after MAC and RIC, respectively. In conclusion, this is the first multi-center trial to demonstrate that as an alternative to G-CSF, Plerixafor rapidly, safely, and effectively mobilizes sufficient numbers of CD34+ cells from HLA-ID sibling donors for HCT following both RIC and MAC regimens. Engraftment was generally prompt and early results of secondary endpoints in recipients are encouraging. Longer follow-up and more extensive analysis of donor allografts and recipient outcomes will be presented at the time of the meeting. Research support was provided in part by Genzyme, a Sanofi Company. Table 1. Characteristics of recipients Table 1. Characteristics of recipients Disclosures Chen: Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Devine:Genzyme: Research Funding.

Abstract Clinical GVHD staging varies between centers and is not agreed upon by independent reviewers (Weisdorf, BBMT 2003). These inconsistencies help explain why promising GVHD treatments from single center studies have not reproduced in multicenter trials. To address this issue, our international GVHD research consortium has developed guidance that has been refined through consensus following case discussions, resulting in uniform and reproducible GVHD clinical symptom reporting. We record all raw target organ symptom data and apply staging based upon this data (Table 1). Only areas of erythema, bullae and desquamation are quantified because other skin changes are not typical of active GVHD rash. Upper GI symptoms must meet thresholds to diagnose GVHD: anorexia with associated weight loss, nausea and/or 2+ vomiting episodes/day lasting 3+ days. For lower GI GVHD we collect stool volumes excluding formed/mostly-formed stools. Unquantified episodes are counted at 200 ml per episode (3 ml/kg for children <50kg) based upon a chart review of 300 patients with post-BMT diarrhea from any cause. Non-GVHD rectal bleeding that results in flecks or streaks of blood in the stool are ignored for staging. We use the highest daily stool output in the 3 days prior to the diagnosis of lower GI GVHD to determine onset stage and, when available, a 3-day average stool volume for subsequent staging to smooth daily variability. We classify biopsy report interpretation into four standardized categories: Positive (unequivocal presence of GVHD), Equivocal (findings suggestive of GVHD, but the pathologist cannot confirm the diagnosis), Non-diagnostic (no abnormalities or subtle findings insufficient to determine etiology), and Non-GVHD etiology (definitive evidence of another diagnosis without concomitant features suggestive of GVHD). We then combine the biopsy interpretation with clinical decision making to assign an overall confidence level to the diagnosis of GVHD in each target organ (Table 2): Confirmed (positive biopsy, regardless of clinician treatment decision), Probable (GVHD diagnosis is sufficiently favored that treatment is given without a positive biopsy), Possible (symptoms present without a positive biopsy; not treated as GVHD), Negative (no symptoms or symptoms are present but a GVHD diagnosis is not entertained and a non-GVHD etiology is identified). Uniform clinical data collection is essential for future GVHD trials and requires application of clear guidance. While still subject to refinement, these guidelines, in use for 2 years by an international research consortium, are designed to be clear, easy to apply, and for clinical trial use. Table 1. GVHD Target Organ Staging Stage Skin (active erythema only) Liver (bilirubin) Upper GI Lower GI (stool output/day) 0 No active (erythematous) GVHD rash < 2 mg/dl No or intermittent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: < 500 ml/day or <3 episodes/day Child: < 10 ml/kg/day or <4 episodes/day 1 Rash < 25% BSA 2-3 mg/dl Persistent nausea, vomiting or anorexia Adult: 500-999 ml/day or 3-4 episodes/day Child: 10 -19.9 ml/kg/day or 4-6 episodes/day 2 Rash 25 - 50% BSA 3.1-6 mg/dl - Adult: 1000-1500 ml/day or 5-7 episodes/day Child: 20 - 30 ml/kg/day or 7-10 episodes/day 3 Rash > 50% BSA 6.1-15 mg/dl - Adult: >1500 ml/day or >7 episodes/day Child: > 30 ml/kg/day or >10 episodes/day 4 Generalized rash (>50% BSA) and bullous formation or desquamation > 5% BSA >15 mg/dl - Severe abdominal pain with or without ileus, or grossly bloody stool (volume independent) Table 2. Confidence Levels Pathologic evidence Clinician assessment Treatment for acute GVHD Comments Confirmed Unequivocal evidence of GVHD GVHD is the etiology for symptoms Not required GVHD is clearly present even if other etiologies co-exist simultaneously Probable Not required (includes equivocal and non-diagnostic biopsies) GVHD most likely etiology for symptoms Yes GVHD is most likely present but other etiologies may also explain the symptoms and there insufficient evidence to make a confirmed diagnosis Possible GVHD in differential diagnosis (but no treatment is being provided) No GVHD may be present, but other etiologies are favored Negative Unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD (e.g., drug rash) GVHD is not considered as an explanation for the symptoms No and the symptoms resolve without GVHD treatment A "negative" biopsy (e.g., normal skin) is not unequivocal evidence of a diagnosis other than GVHD Disclosures Devine: Genzyme: Research Funding. Chen:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy.

Abstract Plerixafor, a direct antagonist of CXCR4/stromal-derived factor 1, can safely and rapidly mobilize allografts without the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). We conducted a phase 2, multicenter, prospective study of plerixafor-mobilized HLA-identical sibling allografts for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in recipients with hematological malignancies. Donors (n = 64) were treated with subcutaneous plerixafor (240 µg/kg) and started leukapheresis (LP) 4 hours later. The primary objective was to determine the proportion of donors who were successfully mobilized: defined as collection of ≥2.0 × 106 CD34+ cells per kilogram recipient weight in ≤2 LP sessions. Recipients subsequently received reduced intensity (RIC; n = 33) or myeloablative (MAC; n = 30) conditioning. Sixty-three of 64 (98%) donors achieved the primary objective. The median CD34+ cell dose per kilogram recipient weight collected within 2 days was 4.7 (0.9-9.6). Plerixafor was well tolerated with only grade 1 or 2 drug-related adverse events noted. Bone pain was not observed. Plerixafor-mobilized grafts engrafted promptly. One-year progression-free and overall survivals were 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36% to 71%) and 63% (95% CI, 46% to 79%) for MAC and 64% (95% CI, 47% to 79%) and 70% (95% CI, 53% to 84%) for RIC recipients, respectively. Donor toxicity was reduced relative to G-CSF mobilized related donors. This is the first multicenter trial to demonstrate that, as an alternative to G-CSF, plerixafor rapidly and safely mobilizes sufficient numbers of CD34+ cells from matched sibling donors for HCT. Engraftment was prompt, and outcomes in recipients were encouraging. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01696461.