Litzow, Mark R.

Abstract Abstract 4931 Background: Autoimmunity, evidenced by positive serology or autoimmune diseases, has been noted to co-exist in pts with MDS. Autoimmune dysfunction has been found in some pts with a variant of MDS called hypocellular MDS, where immune suppressant medications have role in treatment. Clinical implications of AI on survival are not well described. Aim: To study clinical influence of autoimmunity on pts with LR-MDS. Methods: All adult pts diagnosed with LR (RCUD, RARS, and RCMD) MDS at the Mayo Clinic between 1996 to 2000 were studied. Retrospective data collection included pts' demographics, laboratory tests, bone marrow biopsies, treatment modalities and survival information. Autoimmunity (AI) was considered present if pts had evidence of positive serological testing (such as rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)) and/or were diagnosed with autoimmune diseases (such as rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), immune thrombocytopenia (ITP)). IRB approval was obtained in accordance with Helsinki Declaration. Chi-Square, t-test and Anova were used for comparatives between groups, and Kaplan-Meier test was applied for survival estimates using JMP 9. 0 software. Results: A total of 134 adult pts were found to have LR-MDS at the time of their diagnosis. Sixty-six percent (89) were males, 13% (17) had antecedent hematological disease (AHD), and only 7% (9) had prior radio- or chemotherapy. Thirty-nine (29%) had evidence of AI. At the time of diagnosis, pts' median Hgb was 9. 3 g/dL, white blood cells (WBC) 4. 1×109/L, and platelets 151×109/L. On comparison, there was no difference between pts with AI (group 1) to the rest of the sample (group 2) (p = 0. 12, 0. 85 and 0. 23, respectively). Bone marrow cytogenetics were abnormal in 42% (56) pts, with 44 pts have one cytological anomaly, and only 2 have four anomalies. Twenty-four pts (18%) had RCUD, 60 (44%) RARS and 50 (37%) RCMD, as defined by World Health Organization (WHO) classification (Vardiman et al, 2008). Karyotype anomalies within the three WHO classes were found in 12/19 pts (63%), 15/52 pts (29%), and in 29/42 pts (70%), respectively. Of note, among those with karyotype anomalies, the mean number of cytogenetic abnormalities was significantly different across the three categories (F=6. 89, p=. 0014), with means of 0. 5, 0. 3, and 0. 9 respectively. Seven pts (5%) progressed into acute myeloid leukemia. Seventy percent of pts (94) remained as stable disease. Of the 134 pts studied, 39 (29%) were found to have evidence of AI, with 24/48 (50%) had abnormal serological tests, and 29/134 (21%) had an autoimmune disease. When tested, positive RF was found in 7/25 (28%), ANA in 14/42 (33%), anti dsDNA in 1/11 (9%), anti SS-A/-B in 2/3 (66%), ANCA in 1/12 (8%), anti-smooth muscle in 1/2 (50%), and anti-histone in 1 pt. As per autoimmune diseases, rheumatoid arthritis was identified in 6 pts (4%), vasculitides in 9 (7%), AIHA in 4 pts (3%), Sjögren syndrome in 3 (2%), myositis in 2 (1. 4%), ITP in 2 pts (1. 4%). There was no difference in AI frequency based on WHO classification (p 0. 17) or based on cytogenetic grouping (p 0. 37). Overall survival in pts with LR-MDS was found to be lower in group 1 as compared to group 2 but did not reach statistical significance (p=0. 109), with median survival of 40 months and 81 months, respectively. Conclusion: AI is a frequent finding in pts with LR-MDS, seen in up to 29% of pts. On comparison there was no difference in hematological parameters of both groups with or without AI (CBC, cytogenetics, and WHO classification). There was no survival difference in LR-MDS pts with AI compared to pts without AI. Larger size studies are needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 4930 Background: Autoimmune disorders have been observed in pts with myeloid neoplasms but their frequency and impact on the natural history of the myeloid neoplasms remains to be defined. Aim: To describe the frequency and prognostic impact of autoimmunity in pts with CMML. Methods: After IRB approval, a retrospective chart review of all pts diagnosed with CMML at Mayo Clinic between 1994 – 2011. Autoimmunity (AI) was defined as positive serologic tests (Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), rheumatoid factor (RF), anti –cyclic citrullinate peptide (CCP), and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)), diagnosis of connective tissue disease (Rheumatoid arthritis, RA), vasculitis, or auto-immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Survival estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression model for multivariate analysis for via JMP software v. 9. Results: During the study period, 288 pts with CMML were evaluated at Mayo Clinic, 35% (n=100) were female. Median age at diagnosis was 71yr (20–95). Median hemoglobin was 11 g/dL(6–16), median white blood cell (WBC) 12 x109/L (1–302), and median platelet count 86 x109/L (1–1110). Median peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) blasts were 0 and 5 respectively, while median PB and BM monocytes were 20% and 8% respectively. Eight-nine percent of pts had CMML1, while 10% had CMML2 and only 2 pts had CMML transforming into acute myeloid leukemia (-t). Karyotype analysis performed in demonstrated normal (diploid) karyotype in 180 (63%) pts and complex karyotype in 31 pts (11%). JAK2 mutation analysis was performed in 76 pts, 13% (10/76) of which were positive for JAK2V617F mutation. Autoimmunity was found in 46 (16%) of 288 pts. When tested, positive ANA, RF, CCP, and ANCA were found in 28/89 (31%), 8/61 (13%), 1/20 (5%), and 7/25 (28%), respectively. However, RA was reported positive in 6/288 (2%), and vasculitis was reported in only 4 pts. Median overall survival of the 288 patients was 496 days. Pts with evidence of autoimmunity had a median survival of 400 days compared to 527 days to the rest of the group (p 0. 73). On multivariate analysis, autoimmunity was not an independent risk factor for survival (p 0. 15), but age, platelets, WBC and body mass index (BMI) were independent factors. Conclusion: Autoimmunity is a frequent finding in pts with CMML. When tested, autoimmune antibodies were very frequent up to 31% of pts with CMML, but this did not confer into higher frequency of autoimmune diseases. Presence of positive autoimmune antibodies did not affect overall survival adversely. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 788 FLT3 mutations are common in AML and are associated with poor prognosis. Lestaurtinib is a multi-targeted kinase inhibitor with potent activity against FLT3. In an attempt to definitively establish whether or not there is clinical benefit for FLT3 inhibition in the relapse setting, we conducted a randomized trial of chemotherapy followed by lestaurtinib for patients with FLT3 mutant AML in first relapse. Patients were randomized to receive either chemotherapy alone, consisting of mitoxantrone, etoposide, and cytarabine (MEC) or high-dose cytarabine (HiDAc) depending on the duration of CR1) or chemotherapy followed by 80 mg lestaurtinib orally BID. Patients on the chemotherapy only arm were eligible for crossover if they were refractory to therapy. Patients on the lestaurtinib arm received the drug for up to 112 days on study (they could continue to receive the drug through a separate extension protocol). The primary objective was complete remission (CR/CRp). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), safety, and tolerability. From January 2004 through December 2008, 224 patients at 52 different centers were enrolled and randomized, with 220 patients actually receiving therapy. Blood samples from patients on the lestaurtinib arm were obtained at baseline, on Day 15, and on Day 42 for pK studies and for determination of in vivo FLT3 inhibition and measurement of plasma FLT3 ligand (FL) and alpha-1 acid glycoprotein (AGP) levels. The median age for all patients enrolled was 55 years (53.5 in the control arm, 58.5 in the lestaurtinib arm), with 88% having FLT3/ITD mutations, 8% having D835 mutations, and 4% having both. The duration of CR1 was less than 6 months in 47% of patients in each arm. On the lestaurtinib arm, 107 patients received at least 1 week of lestaurtinib (mean 60.1 days, range 8-418), with 17 of these patients receiving drug on the extension protocol. On the chemotherapy only arm, 7 patients crossed over to receive lestaurtinib, and 31 patients went on to receive lestaurtinib on the extension protocol after outcome evaluation. Lestaurtinib was generally well tolerated following chemotherapy, with 104 Grade 3/4 adverse events in the lestaurtinib arm versus 99 in the control arm. There were 61 serious adverse events in the lestaurtinib arm versus 49 in the control arm. Early death (by Day 42) occurred in 22 lestaurtinib patients (2 progressive leukemia, 14 infectious, 6 organ failure) and16 control patients (6 progressive leukemia, 5 infectious, 5 organ failure). By intention to treat analysis, there were 29 CR/CRp in the lestaurtinib arm and 23 in the control arm (26% versus 21%; p = 0.35), with no difference in OS (4.73 months versus 4.57 months) between the two arms. Blood samples from 79 of the 107 lestaurtinib-treated patients obtained on Day 15 were analyzed for FLT3 inhibitory activity (plasma inhibitory activity [PIA] assay), as well as FLT3 ligand (FL), lestaurtinib, and AGP concentrations. Mean lestaurtinib plasma concentration was 12 uM at Day 15 and fell to 7.5 uM on Day 42. Mean lestaurtinib concentration at Day 15 was 13.3 uM in patients achieving CR/CRp and 11.5uM in non-responders. A target of >85% inhibition of FLT3 maintained at trough (pre-dose) was defined from previous studies. Of the 79 patients tested, 46 (58%) achieved this degree of FLT3 inhibition on Day 15. FL concentrations rose from baseline (15.6 pg/mL) to Day 15 (1148 pg/mL), and AGP concentrations rose by an average of 52% over the same period, both of which may have reduced the degree of FLT3 inhibition. Of the 46 patients with target FLT3 inhibition on Day 15, 18 (39%) achieved CR/CRp, while only 3 (9%) of the 32 patients with below target FLT3 inhibition achieved CR/CRp. Thus, in patients with FLT3 mutant AML at first relapse, pharmacokinetic factors and possible physiologic factors (FL and AGP) limit lestaurtinib's ability to effectively inhibit FLT3. FLT3 inhibition by lestaurtinib, when achieved, correlates with better CR rates, but in this trial that benefit was negated by a poor CR rate in those patients for whom the drug did not reach the target level of FLT3 inhibition. Overall, lestaurtinib treatment following re-induction chemotherapy failed to increase response rates or prolong survival of patients with FLT3 mutant AML in first relapse. Disclosures: Levis: Cephalon: Clinical Advisory Board member. Ravandi:Cephalon: Honoraria, Member, clinical advisory board, Research Funding. Erba:Cephalon: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Baccarani:Novartis Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dome, Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Stone:Cephalon: ad hoc consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding, ad hoc consultancy. Advani:Cephalon: Research Funding. Douer:Cephalon: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Litzow:Cephalon: Research Funding. Tremmel:Cephalon: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bensen-Kennedy:cephalon: Employment. Smith:Cephalon: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 169 The Philadelphia positive (Ph+) arm of the international adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) trial UKALL12/ECOG2993 opened in 1993 and is the largest single study of patients with Ph+ ALL, with a total of 441 participants. The first cohort of study patients was treated prior to Imatinib (N=266 “Pre Imatinib“) with 2 phases of induction therapy given over 2 months followed by matched sibling or unrelated donor myeloablative allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) whenever possible. The treatment protocol and outcome for these patients has been published (Fielding et al, Blood 2009). Beginning March 2003, a second cohort of study patients had Imatinib 600mg daily added, as a consolidation block after the second induction chemotherapy, (N=86, “Late Imatinib”). From late 2005, a final cohort within the trial were given Imatinib earlier, in conjunction with the second phase of induction (N=89, “Early Imatinib”). Patients in both Imatinib cohorts resumed the drug for a further 2 years following alloHSCT, if tolerated. If alloHSCT was not possible, Imatinib was permitted for 2 years, with maintenance. The trial closed to recruitment in December 2006 (USA) and October 2008 (UK). All except 8 patients have now completed therapy. An earlier analysis of these data did not indicate a clear long-term advantage to receiving Imatinib. We now report 3-year follow-up, which shows large outcome differences between the 3 groups. There were no pre-existing differences between the 3 cohorts in terms of gender, presenting white blood cell counts and presence of central nervous system disease at diagnosis. However, the Pre-Imatinib cohort was younger than the two Imatinib cohorts, due to an increase in the upper age limit for study entry. Percentage complete remission (CR) rates and survival of induction therapy are shown in table 1. The total CR rate for the imatinib cohorts was significantly higher than for the pre-imatinib cohort (p=0.004). Table 1 Pre-Imatinib With Imatinib N=266 Total With Imatinib N=175 Part 1 Late Imatinib N=86 Part 2 Early Imatinib N=89 Died in induction<d56 5 5 3 7 Survived induction but never achieved remission 13 3 5 1 Total not achieving CR 18 8 8 8 CR on protocol induction 67 77 73 80 Total CR rate (includes those achieving remission later than post induction) 82 92 92 92 Pre- Imatinib, only 28% of patients went on to receive alloHSCT as per protocol. With any Imatinib, 44% of patients received alloHSCT as per protocol. Survival outcomes of patients in the 3 cohorts are shown in the table 2. Overall survival (OS), event free survival (EFS) and relapse free survival (RFS) are all at 3 years with 95% confidence intervals (CI) shown in brackets. The P values are for two comparisons - ** denotes the comparison between patients receiving any Imatinib and patients receiving none and ^ denotes the comparison between the Early and Late Imatinib cohorts. Table 2 Pre-Imatinib With Imatinib Total With Imatinib Part 1 Late Imatinib Part 2 Early Imatinib % OS (95% CI) (see also Figure 1) 25 (20–30) 42 (34–49) 34 (24–44) 48 (36–60) p=0.0001** p=0.05^ % EFS (95% CI) 19 (14–24) 36 (29–44) 29 (19–38) 45 (34–56) p=0.0001** p=0.04^ % RFS (95% CI) 36 (28–43) 54 (45–63) 45 (33–57) 62 (50–75) p=0.0001** p=0.02^ Figure 1 Three-year OS for patients who received per protocol alloHSCT was 59% vs. 28% (with no plateau on the curve) for those who did not receive alloHSCT as per protocol. By comparison, pre-imatinib, 5 year OS was 40% for transplanted- and 19% for non-transplanted patients. Hence, the extent to which Imatinib without subsequent alloHSCT can improve the outcome for adult Ph+ ALL is not yet clear. Figure 1. Three-year OS for patients who received per protocol alloHSCT was 59% vs. 28% (with no plateau on the curve) for those who did not receive alloHSCT as per protocol. By comparison, pre-imatinib, 5 year OS was 40% for transplanted- and 19% for non-transplanted patients. Hence, the extent to which Imatinib without subsequent alloHSCT can improve the outcome for adult Ph+ ALL is not yet clear. In conclusion, receiving any Imatinib during induction for Ph+ ALL significantly enhances CR rate and increase alloHSCT rate. This translates into a highly significant EFS, OS and RFS advantage to receiving Imatinib during therapy. An earlier start to Imatinib is significantly better than a later start. Though comparisons between study cohorts are not randomised, the large differences seen are unlikely to be explained by factors other than treatment. There can be no basis for omitting Imatinib from the initial therapy of adult patients with Ph+ ALL. However, our data show that the best outcome is seen when patients receive Imatinib followed by myeloablative alloHSCT, where nearly 60% of such patients survive 3 years from diagnosis. Disclosures: Goldstone: Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 47 Background In adults with newly diagnosed, poor-risk AML we previously demonstrated that induction therapy with Flavopiridol in combination with Ara-C and Mitoxantrone (FLAM,) in a timed-sequential manner, yields complete remission (CR) rates of 67% and median disease-free survival (DFS) of 13.6 months. These data suggest that FLAM might improve outcomes relative to standard “7+3” in newly diagnosed AML with poor-risk features. Thus, we are conducting a phase II randomized trial comparing the CR rates with FLAM vs. 7+3 induction for all newly diagnosed adult patients with AML with intermediate and poor-risk features. We also previously identified a population of CD34+CD38− cells with intermediate aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) activity that appears to represent a leukemic stem cell (LSC) population. We are examining the effects of FLAM vs. 7+3 in eradicating this LSC population and determining if persistence of LSC's predicts for relapse. Objectives The primary objective is to compare the rate of CR after 1 cycle of FLAM vs. 1 cycle of 7+3. The secondary objectives are to compare toxicities, survival rates, and presence or absence of minimal residual disease (MRD) after both induction regimens. Methods All newly diagnosed adult patients aged 18–70 without favorable risk features were randomized in a 2:1 fashion between FLAM and 7+3 at 90 mg/m2 of Daunorubicin. To achieve balanced randomization, patients were stratified by age, secondary AML and leukocyte count. CD34+ cell subsets were analyzed by flow cytometry for CD38 expression and ALDH activity by Aldefluor. The trial is ongoing. Results To date, 62 patients are evaluable for the primary end point. Demographics and results are depicted in table 1. Patient characteristics were similar in both arms, although there were more patients with poor risk features in the FLAM arm than 7+3. Overall grade > 3 toxicity was similar between both arms. However, there were 3 cases of grade > 3 tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) with FLAM, with 1 death, vs. 0 with 7+3. There were also 3 deaths with FLAM before day 60 vs. 0 with 7+3. CR rate with FLAM was 68% (28/41), with 1 cycle of 7+3 was 48% (10/21) (p = 0.17), and with 2 cycles (7+3 + 5+2) was 52% (11/21). CR rates based on specific risk factors are depicted in table 2. There was a trend toward improved CR rates in patients with adverse genetics with FLAM (p = 0.17). Putative AML LSC's were distinguished from normal hematopoietic stem cells based on ALDH activity. The persistence of putative LSC's in patients after therapy was highly predictive of subsequent clinical relapse. Conclusions Based on the current CR rate of 68%, FLAM holds promise as a therapeutic option for patients with newly diagnosed AML with intermediate and poor risk features. In this preliminary analysis, there is a suggestion that FLAM leads to higher CR rates in patients with adverse genetics than 7+3. Additionally, the detection of MRD consisting of a residual putative LSC population strongly portended subsequent relapse, even in patients without evidence of leukemia. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Flavopiridol (Alvocidib) is an anti-leukemia agent.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is one of the most common lymphoid malignancies, accounting for ~11% of all hematologic neoplasms. Over the last 15 years, a series of phase 3 trials have established that chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) improves both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy alone. FCR is the gold standard for young fit patients with treatment naïve CLL. In parallel with the advances in CIT, a profound increase in the understanding of CLL B-cell biology led to new therapeutic approaches.1 Among these, ibrutinib (an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase [BTK]) has had the largest impact on clinical practice to date. Initial trials of ibrutinib demonstrated robust and durable efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory disease. Subsequent phase 3 trials showed improved PFS and OS with ibrutinib relative to chlorambucil in previously untreated, older CLL patients. Despite these advances, the efficacy of ibrutinib as a first-line treatment for younger CLL patients (i.e. <70) relative to the most efficacious CIT regimens, such as FCR, is unknown. METHODS: Eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL who were age <70 and required therapy. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating given the poor response of these patients to FCR therapy. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2; 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2; 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 ) and cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2) days 1-3 with rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1; 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. The planned accrual was 519 patients. Hematologic toxicity was graded according to the 2008 IWCLL Working Group scale. All other adverse events were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). The primary endpoint was PFS with a secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS). Analysis was by intention to treat. The first planed interim analysis for PFS was scheduled to occur 24-27 months after full accrual with the first interim analysis for OS scheduled to occur if the boundary for PFS was crossed. The primary analysis was a stratified logrank test applied to all patients as randomized. Treatment effect p-values are one-sided. The study was approved by the Central Institutional Review Board for the National Cancer Institute, conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02048813). RESULTS: A total of 529 patients were accrued between January 31, 2014 and June 9, 2016. 354 patients were assigned to ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) and 175 to FCR. Nineteen patients did not start protocol therapy. The first interim analysis was performed September 2018. With median follow-up of 33.4 months, we observed 77 PFS events and 14 deaths. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.352; 95% CI 0.223-0.558; p<0.0001) which crossed the pre specified boundary. The HR for OS also favored the IR arm (HR=0.168, 95% CI 0.053-0.538; p=0.0003, pre-specified boundary for superiority p=0.0005). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS and OS are shown in Figure 1A and 1B. In subgroup analysis for PFS, IR was superior to FCR independent of age, sex, performance status, disease stage or the presence/absence of del11q23. With current follow-up, IR was also superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.262; 95% CI 0.137-0.498; p<0.0001) but not IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.435; 95% CI 0.140-0.1350; p=0.07). Grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 58% of IR and 72% of FCR treated patients (p=0.0042). Specifically, FCR was more frequently associated with grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (FCR: 69 [44%] of 158 vs. IR: 80 [23%] of 352; p<0·0001) and infectious complications (FCR: 28/158 [17.7%] vs. IR: 25/352 [7.1%]; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ibrutinib and rituximab provides superior PFS and OS relative to FCR for patients with previously untreated CLL age <70. These findings have immediate practice changing implications and establish ibrutinib-based therapy as the most efficacious first-line therapy for patients with CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; Celgene: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kay:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Brien:Amgen: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences Inc.: Consultancy; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barrientos:Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Juno: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; FujiFilm: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Ono/Theradex: Consultancy; Otzuka/Astex: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator / Jazz: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cornerstone: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tallman:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; BioSight: Other: Advisory board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board.

Abstract HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (Haplo-HCT) using posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) has improved donor availability. However, a matched sibling donor (MSD) is still considered the optimal donor. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we compared outcomes after Haplo-HCT vs MSD in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1). Data from 1205 adult CR1 AML patients (2008-2015) were analyzed. A total of 336 patients underwent PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT and 869 underwent MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. The Haplo-HCT group included more reduced-intensity conditioning (65% vs 30%) and bone marrow grafts (62% vs 7%), consistent with current practice. In multivariable analysis, Haplo-HCT and MSD groups were not different with regard to overall survival (P = .15), leukemia-free survival (P = .50), nonrelapse mortality (P = .16), relapse (P = .90), or grade II-IV acute GVHD (P = .98). However, the Haplo-HCT group had a significantly lower rate of chronic GVHD (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.48; P &lt; .001). Results of subgroup analyses by conditioning intensity and graft source suggested that the reduced incidence of chronic GVHD in Haplo-HCT is not limited to a specific graft source or conditioning intensity. Center effect and minimal residual disease–donor type interaction were not predictors of outcome. Our results indicate a lower rate of chronic GVHD after PT-Cy–based Haplo-HCT vs MSD using calcineurin inhibitor–based GVHD prophylaxis, but similar other outcomes, in patients with AML in CR1. Haplo-HCT is a viable alternative to MSD in these patients.

Survival outcomes for older adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are poor and optimal management is challenging due to higher-risk leukemia genetics, comorbidities, and lower tolerance to intensive therapy. A critical understanding of these factors guides the selection of frontline therapies and subsequent treatment strategies. In addition, there have been recent developments in minimal/measurable residual disease (MRD) testing and blinatumomab use in the context of MRD-positive disease after therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for ALL regarding upfront therapy in older adults and MRD monitoring/testing in response to ALL treatment.