Citations

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

Acute leukemia is a constellation of rapidly progressing diseases that affect a wide range of patients regardless of age or gender. Traditional treatment options for patients with acute leukemia include chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation. The advent of cancer immunotherapy has had a significant impact on acute leukemia treatment. Novel immunotherapeutic agents including antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific T cell engagers, and chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies have efficacy and have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of patients with acute leukemia. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline composed of consensus recommendations on immunotherapy for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia.

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) involves the infusion of hematopoietic progenitor cells into patients with hematologic disorders with the goal of re-establishing normal hematopoietic and immune function. HCT is classified as autologous or allogeneic based on the origin of hematopoietic cells. Autologous HCT uses the patient’s own cells while allogeneic HCT uses hematopoietic cells from a human leukocyte antigen-compatible donor. Allogeneic HCT is a potentially curative treatment option for patients with certain types of hematologic malignancies, and autologous HCT is primarily used to support patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy. Advances in HCT methods and supportive care in recent decades have led to improved survival after HCT; however, disease relapse and posttransplant complications still commonly occur in both autologous and allogeneic HCT recipients. Allogeneic HCT recipients may also develop acute and/or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which results in immune-mediated cellular injury of several organs. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation focus on recommendations for pretransplant recipient evaluation and the management of GVHD in adult patients with malignant disease.

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

Patients who develop therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes (t-MDSs) or acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) following prior chemotherapy or an autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), have a poor prognosis. An earlier analysis of allogeneic HCT (n=868, 1990-2004) showed 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) were 22% and 21% (reference). Furthermore, older age, graft source other than a HLA-matched sibling or HLA well matched unrelated donor (URD), t-AML not in remission or advanced t-MDS, and poor risk cytogenetics were associated with worse outcomes. Modern supportive care and conditioning regimens including reduced intensity (RIC) regimens may have improved outcomes. Therefore we analyzed 1531 HCT for t-AML (n = 772) or t-MDS (n = 759) performed from 2000 to 2014. The median age at transplant was 52 (18-77) for t-AML and 59 (18-74) for t-MDS. Eleven percent of patient with t-AML and 24% of patient with t-MDS had a prior autologous transplant. A myeloablative regimen was used for conditioning in 61% of patients with t-AML and 49% of patients with t-MDS (Table 1). For t-AML, the 5-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse rates (RR) were 33% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30-36) and 43% (40-47), respectively. For t-MDS, the 5 year TRM and RR were 32% (29-36) and 46% (43-50), respectively. Five year DFS and OS were 24% (21-27) and 25% (22-28), respectively, for patients with t-AML. Five year DFS and OS were 21% (18-24) and 27% (23-31), respectively, for patients with t-MDS. In multivariate analysis, t-AML OS and DFS was worse for: previous autologous transplant, relapsed disease at HCT, intermediate or adverse cytogenetics, partially matched and cord blood grafts, and RIC. For t-MDS: age greater than 60, previous autologous transplant, very high IPSS score, and use of HLA-partially matched unrelated grafts. A significant minority of patients with t-AML and t-MDS can achieve long-term remission with allogeneic HCT, yet risks of both NRM and relapse are still excessive. Relapse is the major cause of treatment failure. Disclosures Metheny: Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Weisdorf:Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Kebriaei:Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria.

Introduction: AML patients with intermediate or high-risk features often undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) during first complete remission (CR). The 2017 European LeukemiaNet guidelines for AML specify categories of CR: both with and without count recovery (CR vs. CRi) and with and without measurable residual disease (MRD). Previous smaller retrospective studies have suggested poorer survival outcomes after alloHCT for patients with responses less than CR. Methods: Eligible cases were determined using the CIBMTR registry. Each had AML in CR1, was ≥ 18 years, and underwent alloHCT between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2015. MRD was defined based on the answers to qualitative questions on standard clinical reporting forms that ask if the patient is in either molecular or cytogenetic remission and if disease is detected in marrow by flow cytometry at time of HCT. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes were non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse and disease-free survival (DFS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival and cumulative incidence function was used to estimate relapse and NRM. Multivariable analysis (MVA) was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model to adjust for patient-, disease-, and transplant-related factors. Adjusted probabilities of DFS and OS, adjusted cumulative incidence curves of NRM and relapse were generated from final Cox regression models stratified on CR vs. CRi and weighted averages of covariate values using pooled sample proportion as weight function. Results: We identified 2492 cases (CR, n=1799; CRi, n=693). The main effect variable (CR vs. CRi) was missing in 262 additional patients; these patients were excluded when univariate analysis confirmed no significant associations, suggesting a random distribution of missing data. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Compared with patients with CR, patients with CRi were more likely to have a Karnofsky score <90 (38% vs. 31%) and an HCT-CI score 3+ (47% vs. 40%). Other variables were well matched between the groups. MVA demonstrated significantly increased likelihood of mortality in patients with CRi compared to those with CR with hazard ratio (HR) 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.13-1.43) (Figure 1A). Other covariates significantly associated with shorter OS included older age, poor-risk cytogenetics, lower Karnofsky score, higher HCT-CI score, and higher white blood cell count at diagnosis. The adjusted OS probabilities at 5 year post-HCT accounted for factors from MVA model are 50% (95%CI 47-52) for patients with CR and 43% (95%CI 39-47) for patients with CRi. CRi was also associated with significantly increased NRM [HR 1.33, 95%CI(1.11-1.59)] with only a trend in increased relapse [HR 1.15, 95% CI(0.99-1.34), p=0.07] resulting in inferior DFS [HR 1.20, 95%CI(1.07-1.35)]. MRD status was available in a subset of 2297 patients, and pairwise comparison demonstrated that presence of MRD was associated with shorter OS, shorter DFS, higher NRM, and increased relapse compared to absence of MRD (Figure 1B). Pairwise interaction between the main effects (CR vs. CRi) and MRD status were tested with no significant findings at a level of 0.01, demonstrating that the effects of incomplete count recovery and MRD are independent of each other. Conclusions: Analysis of this large CIBMTR cohort demonstrates that survival outcomes differ among AML patients nominally in CR at the time of alloHCT. Patients with CRi and/or MRD have significantly shorter OS after alloHCT compared to those in CR, as well as shorter DFS and higher NRM. Further studies should focus on limiting NRM and reducing relapse to optimize post-alloHCT outcomes for patients with responses less than CR. Disclosures Percival: Pfizer Inc.: Research Funding; Nohla Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kebriaei:Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria. Weisdorf:Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: There is limited data comparing the outcomes of the two most common (FM or FB) RIC regimens in AML. Previous smaller retrospective studies suggest increased non-relapse mortality (NRM) but decreased relapse with FM based RIC with a variable effect on overall survival as compared to FB. Methods: AML patients aged ≥18 years who had their 1st allo HCT using FM or FB (iv Bu only) RIC between 2001-2015 who had data reported to CIBMTR were studied. Patients with cord blood or identical twin donors, TBI as a part of conditioning, GVHD prophylaxis with T cell depletion/CD34 selection or post HCT Cyclophosphamide were excluded. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, leukemia free survival (LFS) and acute and chronic GVHD. Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression was used to compare the two RIC regimens while adjusting for significant patient, disease and transplant related factors. Major subgroup analysis included patients in CR pre-HCT. Results: 622 patients received FB and 791 had FM RIC. Median age of the FM group was 59 years, range (18 to 76) and median age of FB group was 61 years, range (18- 77). Compared to FB RIC regimen, FM group had more patients with active disease (36% vs 18%), with mismatched donors (24% vs 15%), with bone marrow grafts (19% vs 9%), HCT before 2005 (29% vs 12%) and without ATG/alemtuzumab (58 % vs 48%); but fewer patients in CR1 (46% vs 62%) and matched sibling donor grafts (21% vs 30%). There was significantly increased NRM in the FM vs FB within 3 mo post HCT (hazard ratio (HR)=3.85 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 2.46-6.03), but not beyond 3 mo FM vs FB , HR= 1.14 (95% CI 0.88-1.47). There was significantly decreased relapse for FM vs FB, (HR=0.65 (0.55-0.76), p<0.001) and a marginally superior LFS for FM vs FB, (HR=0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.00), p=0.05). There was a lower OS FM vs FB within 3 mo post HCT (HR=1.82 (95% CI 1.36-2.45), p<0.001) but similar OS for FM vs FB beyond 3 mo post HCT (HR=0.87 (95% CI 0.76-1.00), p=0.05). Analysis restricted to only patients in CR pre-HCT showed similar results: equivalent survival, higher early NRM and lower relapse with FM. Conclusion: The current study of this large CIBMTR AML transplant cohort has showed that in these two most common RIC regimens for allogeneic HCT, long-term survival with FM was similar to FB. While the FM regimen showed higher early NRM, it was associated with lower risks of relapse. Further analysis to evaluate FB and FM regimens in relationship to comorbidities, comprehensive geriatric assessments, and presence of minimal residual disease is warranted to better define the relative efficacy of these two RIC regimens in AML. Disclosures Weisdorf: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients (pts) with AML remains uncertain. We compared outcomes for older AML pts in CR1 receiving HCT reported to the CIBMTR to older AML pts achieving CR1 on National Clinical Trials Network induction and non-HCT consolidation therapy (CT) trials. Methods: This study focused on pts 60-75 years of age treated between 2004 to 2013. CT pts (n=211) underwent induction and consolidation on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN or SWOG clinical trials for initial therapy for newly diagnosed AML; the CIBMTR provided data for HCT pts (n=431). CT patients received at least one cycle of CT on study and were excluded if HCT occurred at any time. Time to event started at CR1 and pts entered at CT or HCT, respectively, using left-truncation to account for differential entry times. Results: For the CT cohort, first consolidation included standard therapy (e.g., cytarabine or a hypomethylating agent) and additional study drug (e.g., bortezomib, dasatinib, sorafenib, and Zosuquidar, gemtuzumab) or tipifarnib alone. Among HCT pts, the donor was a HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor (URD) in 66% and the others were partially HLA-matched/mismatched URD (10%) or cord blood (24%). HCT pts were younger and more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML and unfavorable cytogenetics) (Table). The median time from CR1 to HCT and CT was 3.2 and 0.5 months, respectively. Allogeneic HCT showed worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.52, p=0.02) prior to 9 months and better OS thereafter (HR= 0.53, p <0.0001) relative to CT (figure 1A). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was worse after HCT in the first 9 months (HR=2.8, CI: 1.5 -5.2, p=.0009), while relapse was less frequent beyond 9 months after treatment (HR = 0.42, CI: 0.29 to 0.61, p<.0001). Despite higher early TRM, HCT recipients went on to manifest superior OS [5 year OS: HCT 29% (24-34%), CT 13.8% (9 -22%)] (Figure 1A). The benefit of HCT for survival after 9 months was more prominent in those with unfavorable cytogenetics (Figure 1B). Multivariate analysis for OS showed no statistically significant effect of age or performance status, while unfavorable cytogenetics were detrimental (HR=1.74, p<.0001). Conclusions. Allogeneic HCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, but resulted in superior long-term survival in older AML pts receiving HCT relative to CT by reducing relapse. Efforts to attenuate early TRM after allogeneic HCT may further improve HCT outcomes for older pts. Disclosures Ustun: novartis: Speakers Bureau. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Stone:Fujifilm: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Weisdorf:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

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.