Litzow, Mark R.

Abstract Background We have previously shown an independent adverse prognostic effect of lymphopenia (absolute lymphocyte count <1.2 x 10(9)/L) for survival in MDS (Jacobs et al. Am J Hematol 2010;85:160) whereas others have suggested a similar value from lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR); patients with LMR ≥5 experienced shorter survival with median 67 vs. 126 months (Mushtaq et al. JCO May 20 Supp. 2016:7062). Whether or not "monocytopenia" also carries a prognostic value in MDS is currently unknown and was the main objective for the current study, which also addresses the prognostic value of LMR. Methods We retrospectively recruited 889 consecutive patients with primary MDS who were untreated at the time of referral to our institution and in whom absolute monocyte count (AMC) and absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) at time of referral were documented. The diagnosis of MDS and leukemic transformation (LT) was made according to WHO criteria (Blood. 2009;114:937). Complete follow-up information was updated in January 2015. For the purposes of the current study, monocytopenia was defined as AMC below the lower limit of the institutional normal range, which was 0.3 to 0.9 x 10(9)/L. Comparisons of survival and other clinical parameters were performed between i) patients with and without monocytopenia and ii) patients with and without LMR ≥5. Conventional methods were used for statistical analysis. Results Patient characteristics: Median (range) values for the 889 study patients (69% males) included: age 72 (18-98), hemoglobin 9.6 g/dL (5.4-15.7), leukocyte count 3.4 x 10(9)/L (0.4-35), platelet count 106 x 10(9)/L (2-1804), circulating blasts 0% (0-18), bone marrow blasts 3% (0-19) and absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) 1.2 x 10(9)/L (.02-8.9). Transfusion need was documented in 33% of patients and abnormal cytogenetics in 49%. Risk stratification by the revised international prognostic scoring system (IPSS-R) was very high in 11%, high in 16%, intermediate in 21%, low in 36% and very low in 16%. The median (range) AMC for the entire study population of 889 patients was 0.22 x 10(9)/L (0.0-1.8).The number of patients with subnormal AMC was 539 (61%). After a median follow-up of 27 months, 712 (80%) deaths and 116 (13%) leukemic transformations were documented. Comparison of patients stratified by absolute monocyte count and LMR Compared to patients with AMC >0.3 x 10(9)/L, MDS patients with monocytopenia displayed younger age (p<0.0001), lower hemoglobin (p=0.005), higher red blood cell transfusion need (p=0.03), lower leukocyte count (p<0.0001), lower platelet count (p<0.0001), lower absolute neutrophil count (p<0.0001), higher circulating (p=0.03) and bone marrow (p<0.0001) blasts, higher incidence of abnormal karyotype (p=0.03), and higher risk distribution in terms of both IPSS-R (p<0.0001) and cytogenetic risk stratification by IPSS-R (p=0.03). In univariate analysis, lower AMC was associated with inferior survival (p=0.002); significance was even more apparent when comparing patients with and without monocytopenia (p=0.0003; HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5). Similarly, there was significant association between LMR and survival (p<0.0001) with patients with LMR ≥5 experiencing inferior survival (p=0.03; HR 1.2; 95% CI 1.02-1.4). In multivariable analysis, the adverse effect of monocytopenia was shown to be independent of age (p<0.0001), gender (p=0.0001), anemia (Hemoglobin <10 g/dL; p=0.002), thrombocytopenia (platelets <100 x 10(9)/L; p=0.01), neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <0.8 x 10 (9)/L; p=0.005), subnormal ALC (p=0.0008), circulating blast percentage (p=0.002), cytogenetic risk stratification by IPSS-R (p=0.006) and LMR (p=0.02) or LMR ≥5 (p=0.002); however, significance was lost when risk stratification by IPSS-R was added to the multivariable analysis (p=0.7). In regards to LMR, it retained its significance (p=0.009) during multivariable analysis that included monocytopenia or subnormal ALC, as covariates; however, significance was lost in the context of IPSS-R (p=0.24 for LMR and 0.8 for LMR ≥5) Conclusions Monocytopenia in MDS clusters with adverse disease features and both monocytopenia and higher LMR were associated with poor survival. Despite the display of prognostic independence from each other and other risk factors considered individually, the survival impact of neither monocytopenia nor LMR was found to be independent of IPSS-R. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

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

Abstract 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: A majority of younger pts with AML receive initial therapy with a 7+3 scheme. Escalated doses of daunorubicin (dauno) in combination with standard doses of ara-C may lead to improved outcomes (Fernandez; NEJM 2009). A phase II trial of idarubicin and high-dose ara-C (IA) in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (IA+V) resulted in historically high response rates compared to IA or 7+3 (Garcia-Manero; JCO 2011). SWOG 1203 tested whether a high-dose ara-C induction with or without vorinostat could result in improved outcomes for younger AML pts compared to 7+3. Methods: The primary endpoints were comparison of event-free survival (EFS) of 7+3 vs IA vs IA+V and evaluating the frequency of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, remission rate, relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) according to treatment arm, and by cytogenetic and molecular subgroups. Because of the historical trend of cured pts in S0106, EFS was modeled with an exponential cure model, and it was assumed IA or IA+vorinostat increased the proportion of pts cured from 35% to 45% and increased median EFS among those not cured from 4.7 months to 7.1 months. Main inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of previously untreated non-APL AML by WHO criteria, age 15 to 60 years, and preserved cardiac function but no severe comorbidities. Pts with known CBF rearranged or FLT3 mutant leukemias were eligible if no other alternative clinical trials existed. Treatment was as follows: Induction: 7+3 arm: dauno 90 mg/m2 IV QD x 3 on days 1-3 with ara-C CI 100 mg/m2 QD x 7 days on days 1 to 7. IA arm: ida 12 mg/m2 QD x 3 on days 1 to 3 with 24 hours CI ara-C 1.5 gm/m2 QD for 4 days on days 1 to 4. IA+vorinostat was as IA but with vorinostat 500 mg orally TID for 3 days on days 1 to 3. Consolidation: 7+3 arm: standard high-dose ara-c at 3 gm/m2 over 3 hrs q12 hours x 6 doses for 1 to 4 cycles depending on transplant availability. IA arm: idarubicin 8 mg/m2 IV QD x 2 days on days 1 to 2 with ara-C 0.75 gm/m2 CI for 3 days on days 1 to 3 for 4 cycles. The number of consolidation cycles depended on transplant indication; a secondary aim of the study was to transplant all cytogenetically-determined high risk pts (presented in a different abstract). Results: Of 754 pts randomized, 738 were eligible (261 to 7+3, 261 to IA, and 216 to IA+V). Baseline characteristics were well balanced among all three groups. Most (75%) pts were between 40 and 60 years, 51% were male, median (range) WBC and platelets were 10.8 (0.3-800) and 49 (3-3900), respectively; marrow blast percentage was 60% (0%-100%); cytogenetics were favorable in 13% of pts, intermediate in 63%, and high-risk in 22%; FLT-3 was mutated in 21% and unknown in 31%; NPM1 was mutated in 20% and was unknown in 37%. Complete remission (CR) rates were 75% for 7+3, 79% for IA, and 77% for IA+V (p=0.58). Significantly more pts received reinduction with 7+3 (24%) versus 11% with IA and 9% with IA+V (p=0.001). 48% of intermediate and unfavorable risk pts received transplant in CR1, with no significant differences among arms (p=0.44). There were no significant differences in EFS, RFS or OS among all three arms (Figure 1, all p>0.5). By cytogenetic or molecular group, there were no differences in outcome for any standard risk subset (FLT-3, NPM1, or CEBPα or cytogenetic subset), although pts with favorable cytogenetics had significantly better EFS, RFS and OS with 7+3 therapy compared to IA or IA+V (Figure 2, all p≤0.015). 30% of pts received 1 consolidation cycle, 18% 2, 16% 3, and 37% 4 cycles. Grade 5 induction toxicity rates were 4% (7+3), 8% (IA), and 9% (IA+V) by arm (p=0.07), and for toxicities related to therapy, 2%, 7%, 8%, respectively (p=0.01). Grade 4 induction toxicity rates were similar across arms (p=0.38). Conclusion: Treatment with IA is not more effective than 7+3 in younger pts with AML. Outcomes with IA or IA plus vorinostat are similar. In pts with favorable cytogenetics, outcomes were inferior with IA or IA+V when compared to 7+3, perhaps related to use of lower doses of ara-C during consolidation. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT #0180233 Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819, CA18020, CA180821, CA180863, CA077202; CCSRI grant #021039 Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Radich:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Strickland:Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Savoie:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Lundbeck: Consultancy. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone:Amgen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Jansen: Consultancy; Xenetic Biosciences: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Erba:Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Ariad: Consultancy; Astellas: Research Funding; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, DSMB, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celator: Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gylcomimetics: Other: DSMB.

Abstract Background:The 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) developed a new classification system for Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS). The well-defined categories are refractory anaemia with excess blasts (type 1 or 2 based on the marrow blast count being below or above 10%), refractory anaemia with or without ringed sideroblasts, refractory cytopenias with multilineage dysplasia and myelodysplastic syndromes with isolated deleted 5q. MDS cases that do not meet the diagnostic criteria of the above categories are classified myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-U). However, few reports in the literature exist in terms of natural progression and clinical outcome of patients with MDS-U. Aim: To study the clinical outcome of patients with MDS-U. Method: A retrospective, IRB-approved, single-institution study through chart review of cases with MDS at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 1993 and 2014 was performed. Patients diagnosed with MDS based on WHO classification were included. MDS classification was based on routine Mayo Clinic pathology reports. Central independent hematopathology review for bone marrow biopsy was performed for cases diagnosed with MDS-U or simply generic MDS. Comparison between groups’ medians was done using Wilcoxon test, while survival estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves using JMP V10. Result: A total of 802 patients, who met WHO criteria for MDS, were studied. Median age was 71 years (range, 18-99), 69% were males. Median white blood cell (WBC) 3.6 x109, hemoglobin (Hbg) 9.6 g/dl, platelets (PLT) 105 x109, peripheral blood (PB) blasts 0% and bone marrow (BM) blasts 2%. Median overall survival (OS) was 28 months. One hundred nine (14%) cases transformed to AML. Out of the 802 patients, 90 (11%) patients were initially classified as MDS-U according to 2008 WHO criteria, 69% were males with median age 71 years. Upon pathology review, only 42/90 cases (47%) were confirmed to be MDS-U (group 1). Among 47 cases not meeting MDS-U, 40% were best classified as RARS, 17% refractory anemia, and 9% as 5Q del Syndrome, while 2 cases did not have any myeloid neoplasm. Group 1 had median WBC 3 x109, Hbg 9.9g/dL, PLT 71 x109, PB blasts 0% and BM blasts 0%. IPSS grouping was low, intermediate-1, intermediate-2 and high in 27%, 52%, 21% and 0%, respectively. R-IPSS grouping was very low, low, intermediate, high and very high in 15%, 42%, 15%, 21% and 6%, respectively. Median OS in group 1 was 68, 37, 13 and 0 months per IPSS (p=0.04), and 101, 44, 14, 11, 13 months per IPSS-R (p=0.005), respectively. Of the 43 patients with MDS-U, 39 had follow-up; 21 patients (54%) of which progressed. MDS-U became 42% RAEB, 24% RCMD, 14% CMML, 5% RARS, 10% MDS/MPN, and 5% atypical. Group 2 (MDS other than MDS-U) 759 patients had median age 71 years, 69% were males. They had WBC 3.6 x109, Hbg 9.6g/dL, PLT 107 x109(p=0.01), PB blasts 0% and BM blasts 0%. IPSS grouping was low, intermediate-1, intermediate-2 and high in 29%, 44%, 22% and 5% respectively. R-IPSS grouping was very low, low, intermediate, high and very high in 17%, 32%, 20%, 17% and 14% respectively. On comparison between Group 1 vs 2, mOS was 27 vs 29 months (p=0.7), and percentage transformed to AML 14% in both groups. On multivariate analysis for mOS only age, IPSS-R and IPSS but not MDS-U nor gender were statistically significant. Conclusion: MDS-Uis a small subset of MDS. With independent pathology review, half of the MDS-U cases were subclassified into other MDS groups. In follow-up more than half of the cases were subclassified into other MDS groups and some were non-MDS. IPSS and IPSS-R are helpful tools for survival assessment in MDS-U. High risk MDS was infrequent in MDS-U per IPSS. We found no significant difference in mOS nor AML transformation when comparing MDS-U to other groups. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Nearly a third of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (MM) have a preceding diagnosis of plasma cell proliferative disorder (PCPD), mostly monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) or plasmacytoma. While high dose therapy improves survival in patients with myeloma, it is not clear if patients with preceding PCPD have a different outcome. Methods and Results: We identified 151 patients with preceding PCPD from among 804 patients undergoing high dose therapy at our institution. These included 59 patients (7.3%) who had a preexisting diagnosis of MGUS, 88 (11%) patients, in whom the diagnosis of MM was preceded by SMM, including 23 patients who also had a preceding MGUS or plasmacytoma. In addition, 27 (3.4%) patients gave a preceding history of plasmacytoma. The median duration from the first diagnosis of a PCPD to that of myeloma was 32.4 months (range, 6.1 to 31 years), and was longer for patients with an initial diagnosis of MGUS compared to those with out preceding MGUS. While response rates including complete responses were generally similar between the two groups of patients, those with any preceding PCPD had a median TTP of 24.2 months (95% CI; 20, 28.3) compared to 17.3 (95% CI; 15.7, 18.8) months for those with no previous history (De novo Myeloma); p = 0.01 (Figure 1). The median OS from transplant for patients with previous history was 63.7 months (95% CI; 50.2, 77.4) compared to 48.3 months (95% CI; 39.7, 56.9) for the de novo group, p = 0.01 (Figure 2). These differences were most striking for those with a preceding diagnosis of MGUS; who had a longer time to progression (27.6 months vs. 17.7 months; p = 0.02), and longer OS from transplant (80.2 months vs. 49.3 months, p = 0.046) compared to those without any preceding MGUS. In a multivariate analysis, transplant within 12 months of diagnosis, lower serum M-protein at transplant, PCLI <1%, absence of cytogenetic abnormalities, achievement of CR, and presence of any preexisting monoclonal disorder prior to diagnosis of myeloma were independently prognostic for risk of post transplant relapse. Conclusion: Patients with preexisting PCPD at the time of myeloma diagnosis undergoing HDT has a better outcome reflecting more indolent disease and a favorable biology than those presenting with de novo myeloma and no antecedent plasma cell dyscrasia. Figure Figure Figure Figure

Abstract Introduction: Hypocellular myelodysplastic syndrome (h-MDS) represents only a small portion of MDS, of which, the clinical significance and outcomes are not well understood. Both laboratory and clinical evidence suggests that h-MDS shares immune-mediated pathogenic mechanisms similar to acquired aplastic anemia. As a result, immunosuppressive therapy (IST) has been the mainstay treatment. Since h-MDS is poorly understood and reported response rates to IST vary, we retrospectively reviewed the outcome of our patients with hypocellular MDS and identified the effectiveness of alternative therapy using hypomethylating agents (HMA). Methods: AllMDS patients over a 13-year period (June 1997 to May 2010) were captured after an IRB approval was obtained. Patients' demographics, labs, bone marrow aspirates and biopsies as well as cytogenetic data were collected. We used the currently accepted age-adjusted criteria to define hypocellularity as ≤ 30% in patients <70 years old, and ≤20% in >70 years old. Only patients with available response data were included in the final analysis. Survival estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: We identified 65 (8%) h-MDS patients from a cohort of 827 adult MDS. Median age was 68 years (range, 20-90), with 69% males. The largest group of patients were RAEB-1 at 9 (14%) and RAEB-2 at 14 (22%) along with RCMD at 18 (28%) and 15 (23%) MDS-U, 2 (3%) MDS 5q, 4 (6%) RARS and 2 (3%) were considered atypical. Cytogenetic analysis was normal in 17 (26%) with 7 (11%) having trisomy 8, and 11 (16%) and 14 (22%) having abnormalities of chromosome 7 and 5, respectively. IPSS-R were very low, low, intermediate, high, and very high in 4%, 30%, 28%, 21% and 17%, respectively. Leukemic transformation (LT) occurred in 6 (9%). The 4 year overall survival and progression free survival was 35% and 34%, respectively. Median overall survival and progression free survival was 30.2 and 29.7 months, respectively. Nine out 65 h-MDS patients were treated with a HMA, azacitidine (4) or decitabine (5). The median age of patients was 71 years (range, 66-85) with 6 (66%) being males. The median cellularity of the diagnostic bone marrow was 15% with the majority of patients presenting with RAEB-1 (11%) and RAEB-2 (55%) classification and 2 (22%) cases of RCMD as well as 1 (11%) case of MDS with isolated 5q. Cytogenetic analysis was normal in 3 (33%). IPSS-R were low in 1 (11%), intermediate in 4 (44%), high in 1 (11%) and very high risk in 3 (33%). The median time to initiation of a HMA from diagnosis was 5 months with response assessed at a median of 4.2 months. Two patients had received prior therapy including lenalidomide (for MDS 5q) and one had 1 cycle of trial therapy. Two patients (22%) achieved a marrow complete remission at a median time of 2.95 months; with one case of relapse at 9.8 months using HMA. Three patients (33%) had LT at a median time of 7.9 months post initiation of HMA. Median overall survival of patients with LT was 20 days. A total of 4 (44%) patients remain alive with a leukemia free survival of 67% at 2 years. In comparing to h-MDS patients without HMA treatment versus HMA treated, median OS was 28.2 vs 50.9 months (p=0.41) and PFS was 28.1 vs 40.6 months (p=0.69), respectively. Conclusions: The results from our clinical experience confirm that hypocellular MDS is a rare variant and that it is distinct from normocellular/hypercellular MDS. Two thirds of h-MDS received HMA for the treatment of higher risk disease (RAEB1-2). HMA has some efficacy in h-MDS. Further studies are warranted to better understand the clinical significance and outcomes of hypocellular MDS. Disclosures Binder: American Society of Hematology: Research Funding. Al-Kali:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Adult T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia / lymphoma (T-ALL) is a rare and aggressive hematological malignancy. Unlike B-cell ALL, apart from age and presenting WBC, additional prognostic factors remain largely unknown. Additionally, the prognostic impact of a monosomal karyotype, which has a negative impact on survival in myeloid neoplasms, remains to be determined in T-ALL (Kenderian et al, BCJ 2013) Aim: To study predictors of survival including the role of a monosomal karyotype in T-ALL. Methods: After due IRB approval, adults diagnosed with T-ALL from 1990-2014 at Mayo Clinic Rochester were identified. All clinical and pathologic data including FISH studies and cytogenetics were retrospectively reviewed. Chi-square test was used to compare variables. Survival was estimated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier Method and log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox regression model. Results: Between 1990 and 2014, a total of 92 consecutive patients (pts) with T-ALL were identified, 41 had acute lymphoblastic lymphoma (LBL), and 51 (55%) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Median age at diagnosis was 33 years (range; 18-88 years) with 72%males. Median follow up of our cohort was 25 months (range; 0.9-260 months) during which time 42 deaths (45%) were documented. A. Baseline characteristics: Fifty six (67%) had constitutional symptoms, and 63 (77%) had lymphadenopathy at diagnosis. Mediastinal mass was identified in 49 (55%) pts with palpable splenomegaly in 16 (20%) pts. Fifty one (58%) pts had extranodal disease, and 17 (19%) pts had CNS involvement. Pleural and pericardial effusion were evident in 16 (19%), and 6 (7%) pts, respectively. Median laboratory values included; LDH 288 U/L (115-6590), hemoglobin (Hb) 12.8 g/dl (4.5-18.2), WBC 8.65 x109 (1.4-406), platelets 169 x109 (8-485), bone marrow blasts 29% (0-99). B. Treatments: Induction therapies were variable and included; 11 (12%) CHOP like regimens, 7 (8%) modified NHL regimens (Asparginase+CHOP), 54 (58%) ALL like regimens (CALGB 9111, E2993, or HyperCVAD), 13 (14%) Pediatric regimens (ALL 10403, CCG 1961, BFM, Augmented BFM, GRAALL 2003, or Hoelzer regimen), with 7 (8%) patients' receiving palliative care only. Seventy-one (77%) pts achieved complete remission (CR1) during induction therapy while eight pts had refractory disease (8%). Thirty-three (35%) pts underwent stem cell transplant; 7 (21%) autologous and 26 (79%) allogeneic. Forty one (44%) pts had disease relapse and median time to relapse was 10.8 months (range; 8.2-16 months) C. Predictors of survival: In univariate analysis, that included age > 60 years, leukocyte count Hb, Plt, Blast percentage, mediastinal mass, LDH and CNS involvement, only age >60 and CNS involvement were predictors of inferior survival and both retained significance in the multivariable analysis with HR 3.9 (CI 1.5 - 9; p=0.0055) and 2.8 (1.3 - 5.7; p =0.0085), respectively (Figure 1 and 2). In this cohort age >60 was a better stratification that the conventionally used age above 40 (p = 0.1). Among 56 pts with evaluable cytogenetics data, 7 (13%) pts had MK which did not have an impact on survival with HR 1.9 (CI 0.4-5.6; p=0.33). Conclusion: In this large cohort of adult T-ALL patients, we observed that age >60 years and CNS involvement were independent predictors of inferior survival. MK was infrequent, but unlike in myeloid neoplasms, does not seem to impact overall survival. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Al-Kali: Celgene: Research Funding. Thompson:Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Witzig:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Spectrum: Research Funding; Valeant Pharma: Equity Ownership.

Abstract On behalf of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in 2-12% of patients with acute leukemia (AL) despite disease and therapy-associated thrombocytopenia, and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Due to limited high-quality studies, there are no evidence-based guidelines for VTE prophylaxis in this patient population. Based on our experience and the lack of consensus guidelines, we hypothesized that there would be a wide range in provider practice regarding methods of VTE prevention in patients with AL. To determine the current individual practices in North America, we devised a web-based survey of VTE prophylaxis practice among clinicians caring for patients with AL. Methods: An anonymous 19 question web-based survey, approved by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board, was distributed by email to members of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group on 10/22/14. Four reminders were sent at two-week intervals with the survey closing on 12/8/14. Results: Of the total 215 respondents, 64 were excluded for the following reasons: 52 did not directly manage medical care of AL patients, 3 referred AL patients to other centers, 5 left blank responses to all questions regarding VTE prophylaxis, 1 was a duplicate entry, and 3 described their position as support or office staff. One hundred fifty-one responses were eligible for analysis, with a response rate of 20.9% among physicians who treated leukemias. One hundred forty-seven were from the United States and 4 from Canada, representing 88 different institutions and 37 states or provinces. Overall, 47% and 45% of providers reported using pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis during induction and consolidation phases, respectively. Among the providers using pharmacologic prophylaxis, 60% designated 50,000/μL as the platelet count threshold below which they would hold prophylaxis and 26% used a platelet count of 30,000/μL. Fewer providers chose a platelet count of 20,000/μL (4%), 75,000/μL (4%), and 100,000/μL (2%). Lastly, 2% held prophylactic anticoagulation only in the setting of an active bleed and 2% reported variable thresholds. Approximately 15% of providers did not utilize any VTE prophylaxis while 36% used mechanical methods and ambulation. Among providers who did not recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis, the most commonly cited reasons were the perceived high risk of bleeding (51%), absence of data supporting use (38%), and perceived low risk of VTE (11%). Conclusions: These results demonstrate wide variation in clinician practice regarding VTE prevention in hospitalized AL patients during induction and consolidation therapy. Our findings emphasize the need to develop standardized, evidence-based guidelines in this at-risk population. VTE: venous thromboembolism, AL: acute leukemia, SC: subcutaneous, TED: thromboembolic deterrant stockings, SCD: sequential compression device Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Disclosures Barbarotta: Celgene, BMS, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Prebet:CELGENE: Research Funding. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Background The impact of JAK inhibitor (JAKi) therapy on the natural history of myelofibrosis remains unclear. While a Phase 3 study showed that overall survival of ruxolitinib-treated intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis patients was superior as compared to placebo-treated patients, it remains unclear whether such an advantage would persist in patients receiving standard therapy, and whether this result is generalizable to other JAK inhibitors. We conducted a sponsor-independent, single-center retrospective analysis of overall and leukemia-free survival after long-term follow up in patients receiving JAKi treatment with comparison to two control populations: (i) a contemporaneously diagnosed (2005 onwards) primary myelofibrosis (PMF) patient cohort receiving standard therapy (JAKi and pomalidomide naïve); and (ii) a pomalidomide treated patient cohort (JAKi-naïve). Methods Baseline clinical, cytogenetic and molecular data were collected at the onset of study treatment with the first JAKi or pomalidomide, or at the time of first referral for patients receiving standard therapy. Information regarding bone marrow karyotype and DIPSS-plus risk status was available for all patients. Information on survival and leukemic transformation was updated in July 2013. Results The 3 patient groups were: (i) JAKi-treated: n=157, median age 65 years, range 34-89. DIPSS-plus risk: Low/Int-1 20 (13%), Int-2 66 (42%), and High 71 (45%). Median follow up from first JAKi treatment was 30 months (range 1-67 months); during this period, 72 deaths (46%) and 14 (9%) leukemic transformations were documented. The first JAKi was ruxolitinib in 51 patients (33%), momelotinib (CYT387) in 79 (50%), and fedratinib (SAR302503) in 27 (17%). The proportion of patient deaths and leukemic transformation (median follow up, range) per specific JAKi was: ruxolitinib 57% and 12% (40 months, 2-67), momelotinib 43% and 9% (29 months, 1-42), and fedratinib 33% and 4% (21 months, 2-53), respectively. (ii) Control#1 (Pomalidomide-treated): n=69, median age 67 years, range 36-87. DIPSS-plus risk: Low/Int-1 0 (0%), Int-2 28 (41%), and High 41 (59%). Median follow up was 25 months (range 2-70 months); during this period, 47 deaths (68%) and 7 (10%) leukemic transformations were documented. (iii) Control# 2 (Standard therapy): n=319, median age 66 years, range 22-90. DIPSS-plus risk: Low/Int-1 98 (31%), Int-2 122 (38%), and High 99 (31%). Median follow up from time of referral was 18 months (range 1-92 months); during this period, 101 deaths (32%) and 18 (6%) leukemic transformations were documented. For patients with Int-2 or high-risk disease (n=221), 92 deaths (42%) and 13 (6%) leukemic transformations were recorded (median follow up 16 months, range 1-92). The survival analysis focused on DIPSS-plus Int-2 and high-risk patients for all groups, reflecting the population predominantly selected for treatment on JAKi clinical trials. There was no significant difference in the median overall survival of myelofibrosis patients treated with JAKi (39 months) versus standard therapy (35 months) versus pomalidomide (26 months) (p=0.12) (Figure). The 5-year survival rates were 31%, 33% and 26%, respectively. Similarly, the median overall survival of patients treated with ruxolitinib (35 months), momelotinib (37 months) or fedratinib (42 months) was not significantly different (p=0.4). Baseline DIPSS-plus status (ie, Int-2 vs. high-risk) effectively stratified JAKi treated patients in terms of overall survival (median survival 31 vs. 60 months; p=0.0002). There was no significant difference in leukemia-free survival when comparing JAKi-treated patients versus standard therapy verus pomalidomide-treated patients (p=0.6) (Figure). The estimated 5-year risk of leukemic transformation was 17%, 12% and 13%, respectively. Conclusions With long-term follow up, myelofibrosis patients receiving JAKi therapy exhibited similar overall and leukemia-free survival as compared to two control populations (DIPSS-plus matched standard therapy and pomalidomide-treated patients). Baseline DIPSS-plus status was a powerful predictor of overall survival in JAKi treated patients. While underscoring the limitation of a non-head-to-head retrospective comparison, there was no significant difference in overall or leukemia-free survival when comparing individual JAKi drugs. Disclosures: Pardanani: Bristol Myers Squibb: Clinical trial support Other; Sanofi: Clinical trial support, Publication support services, Clinical trial support, Publication support services Other; PharmaMar: Clinical trial support, Clinical trial support Other; JW Pharmaceutical Corp.: Clinical trial support, Clinical trial support Other. Off Label Use: Use of Ruxolitinib, Momelotinib, Fedratinib and Pomalidomide for treatment of Myelofibrosis in Clinical Trial setting.