Citations

7552 Background: Axi-cel is approved in the US for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy. Post-market long term follow up study of commercial Axi-cel recipients using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research was recently completed. Methods: From October 2017 to August 2020, 1,500 Axi-cel recipients from 79 centers were enrolled. Of these, 1001 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up were included in this analysis. Outcomes include complete and overall responses rates (CR and ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (Lee D 2014 and American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy [ASTCT]), immune effector cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), hematologic recovery and subsequent neoplasm (SN). Subgroup analysis by sensitivity to therapy, defined as responsive to the last line of therapy prior to Axi-cel. Median follow-up was 12 months (range, 6-28 months). Results: The median age overall was 62 years, 37% were ≥ 65 years, 83% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score 0-1, 28% with transformed lymphoma, 14% with high grade lymphoma, 29% with prior autologous transplant, and 66% with chemotherapy-resistant disease prior to Axi-cel. The median time from diagnosis to Axi-cel infusion was 15 months. Best ORR was 70% (CR 53%). Landmark analysis of patients in CR at 6 months post Axi-cel demonstrates a low number of subsequent progression/death events. With respect to outcomes for chemotherapy-sensitive disease versus resistant disease, the ORR, CR, 12-month PFS and OS were 78% vs. 66%, 60% vs. 48%, 55% (95% CI, 48-62%) vs. 40% (95% CI, 37-44%), and 70% (95% CI, 63-76%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 50-58%), respectively. CRS of any grade was reported in 83% of patients. Incidence of Grades ≥ 3 CRS was 10% according to Lee et al 2014, and 13% according to ASTCT Consensus Grading. Median time to any grade CRS was 4 days (range, 1-28 days), and 93% of CRS cases resolved with a median duration of 7 days (range, 1-121 days). ICANS were reported in 576 (57%) patients, grade >3 was 26%. The median time to onset of ICANS was 7 days (range, 1-82 days), and 86% resolved with a median duration of 9 days (range, 1 to 115 days). Twenty-nine patients (2.9%) reported SN: hematologic (N = 17), solid tumors (N = 12). Conclusions: This is the largest report on Axi-cel in the real-world setting and demonstrates consistent efficacy outcomes and further characterizes safety outcomes. Patients in CR at 6 months have sustained disease control with low number of relapse events. Although patients with therapy-sensitive disease experience better outcomes than patients with therapy-resistant, the overall outcomes on both groups of patients are favorable.

5017 Background: HDCT/ASCT represents a curative salvage treatment for patients with GCT but is rarely used for other solid tumors. Patients undergoing HDCT/ASCT for hematologic neoplasms require revaccination for their childhood immunizations. Whether this is necessary in patients with GCT is unknown. Methods: In this prospective longitudinal study, patients with GCT undergoing HDCT-ASCT from 11/2010 to 5/2018 had serologies for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, and Varicella Zoster measured before HDCT and at 3, 6, and in a subset, 12+ months after the last HDCT with results at these timepoints compared using descriptive statistics. In addition, titer levels at ≥6 months post-transplant were matched 1:1 for age and gender with HL patients who underwent HDCT/ASCT during the same time period. Immunity was compared between cohorts using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Results: Of 80 patients with GCT (median age 30, 84% nonseminoma), 91% received 3 sequential transplants and 68 had repeat titers at ≥6 months. Immunity at baseline was >95% for Diphtheria, Tetanus and Polio and 89% for Varicella Zoster but lower for Measles (74%), Mumps (85%), and Rubella (83%) (Table). Compared to baseline, proportional immunity for all infections was similar at 3, 6, and 12 months post-transplant in the GCT population (≥6 months shown in Table). Matching resulted in 58 GCT-HL pairs. One-year immunity was numerically lower for most infections in the HL vs. GCT patients and significantly decreased for Measles and Rubella (Table). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess vaccine titers following HDCT/ASCT for GCT. We demonstrate that HDCT/ASCT does not result in loss of immunity to childhood vaccines and that GCT patients retain protective titers more frequently than those with HL. However, 15-31% of GCT patients lack MMR immunity at baseline and at 1-year post-ASCT. Therefore, we recommend checking MMR titers at 1-year post-ASCT with revaccination of those lacking immunity. Titer evaluation and revaccination is not necessary for other childhood immunizations.[Table: see text]

Abstract Patients with core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), caused by either t(8;21)(q22;q22) or inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), have higher complete remission rates and longer survival than patients with other subtypes of AML. However, ∼40% of patients relapse, and the literature suggests that patients with inv(16) fare differently from those with t(8;21). We retrospectively analyzed 537 patients with CBF-AML, focusing on additional cytogenetic aberrations to examine their impact on clinical outcomes. Trisomies of chromosomes 8, 21, or 22 were significantly more common in patients with inv(16)/t(16;16): 16% vs 7%, 6% vs 0%, and 17% vs 0%, respectively. In contrast, del(9q) and loss of a sex chromosome were more frequent in patients with t(8;21): 15% vs 0.4% for del(9q), 37% vs 0% for loss of X in females, and 44% vs 5% for loss of Y in males. Hyperdiploidy was more frequent in patients with inv(16) (25% vs 9%, whereas hypodiploidy was more frequent in patients with t(8;21) (37% vs 3%. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for age, white blood counts at diagnosis, and KIT mutation status), trisomy 8 was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in inv(16), whereas the presence of other chromosomal abnormalities (not trisomy 8) was associated with decreased OS. In patients with t(8;21), hypodiploidy was associated with improved disease-free survival; hyperdiploidy and del(9q) were associated with improved OS. KIT mutation (either positive or not tested, compared with negative) conferred poor prognoses in univariate analysis only in patients with t(8;21).

Background: Axi-cel, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, is approved for treatment of adult pts with R/R LBCL after ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapy. In the pivotal ZUMA-1 study, axi-cel demonstrated durable responses and a largely manageable safety profile (Locke FL, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). ZUMA-9 (NCT03153462), a multicenter, open-label study, provided pts with R/R LBCL with expanded access to axi-cel until commercial availability (Cohort 1 [C1]) and later, if commercially manufactured product did not meet commercial release specification(s) (Cohort 2 [C2]). Safety and efficacy of axi-cel (C1 and C2) and translational analyses (C2) are presented. Methods: Eligible adults had histologically confirmed R/R LBCL, ECOG ≤ 1, and received prior CD20-targeting and an anthracycline-containing regimen. C2 pts must have had commercial OOS product. Pts underwent leukaphersis and conditioning chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2/day and fludarabine 30 mg/m2/day) for 3 days followed by a single axi-cel infusion (target dose, 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg). C1 and C2 pts with high disease burden could receive bridging therapy before conditioning at investigator's discretion. Endpoints included frequency of adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR) per standard-of-care imaging assessment, overall survival (OS) for C1 and C2, and blood CAR T cells levels and serum cytokines for C2 only. Outcomes were contextualized with the primary analysis of ZUMA-1 C1+2 (n = 101; ≥ 6 mo of follow-up; Neelapu SS, et al. NEJM. 2017). Results: As of 11/29/2019 (C1) and 3/15/2020 (C2), 25 C1 pts and 36 C2 pts received axi-cel with a median follow-up of 27.1 mo (range, 23.6 - 29.6) and 13.2 mo (range, 0.4 - 25.7), respectively. In C1, median age was 56 y (range, 28 - 76), 60% were male, 80% had DLBCL, 48%/0% had ECOG1/≥2, 44% had IPI ≥3, and 64% had ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy. In C2, median age was 61 y (range, 24 - 81), 75% were male, 78% had DLBCL, 58%/17% had ECOG 1/≥2, 56% had IPI ≥3, and 69% had ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy. In C2, 50% of pts had OOS product with low viability, 28% had high IFN-γ, 14% had low IFN-γ, 14% received a low dose, and 6% had high transduction ratio. The ORR was 76% (64% complete response [CR]) for C1, 53% (36% CR) for C2, and 82% (54% CR) for ZUMA-1 C1+2. Median OS was 23.8 mo (95% CI, 13.5 - NE) for C1 and not reached (95% CI, 3.4 - NE) for C2, respectively. ORR and OS were consistent in C2 OOS subgroups (Table). Grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported in 88% and 89% of C1 and C2 pts, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 CRS (Lee et al, Blood. 2014) was not observed in C1 but was reported in 3% of C2 pts (13% in ZUMA-1 C1+2). Grade ≥ 3 neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 36% and 19% of pts in C1 and C2, respectively, and 28% of pts in ZUMA-1 C1+2. No Grade 5 CRS or NEs occurred in C1 or C2. All CRS and NEs resolved in C1, and most CRS (29/30) and NEs (19/24) resolved in C2 as of the data cutoff. Of 3 Grade 5 AEs in C1, 2 were unrelated to axi-cel (clostridial sepsis [on Day (D) 6] and respiratory failure [on D212]) and 1 was related to conditioning (myelodysplastic syndrome [on D563]). Of 3 Grade 5 AEs in C2, 2 were unrelated to axi-cel (multiple organ dysfunction syndrome [on D6] and cardiac arrest [on D482]) and 1 was related to axi-cel (systemic mycosis [on D30]). Median peak CAR T cell levels and median CAR T cell expansion (area under the curve in the first 28 days) were lower in ZUMA-9 C2 (n = 32/36; 12 cells/µL [range, 0 - 442] and 112 cells/µL × days [range, 0 - 3413]) vs ZUMA-1 C1+2 (n = 96/101; 42 cells/µL [range, 1 - 1514] and 462 cells/µL × days [range, 5 - 14,329]). Serum IFN-γ levels peaked within 8 days after axi-cel infusion (median, 170 pg/mL [range, 8 - 1876]) and were lower vs ZUMA-1 C1+2 (median, 477 pg/mL [range, 8 - 8209]). Axi-cel in ZUMA-9 C2 contained fewer, less differentiated CCR7+ naïve and central memory T cells, and a greater proportion of more differentiated CCR7- effector memory and effector T cells vs ZUMA-1 C1+2. No cases of replication-competent retroviruses were reported in C1 or C2. Conclusion: Axi-cel treatment demonstrated a manageable safety profile and meaningful clinical benefit in this expanded access and OOS product study. While CAR T cell therapy showed clinical benefit in C2 (OOS product), the lower CR rate was corroborated by lower CAR T cell expansion and a more differentiated product vs ZUMA-1 C1+2, warranting further investigation. ZUMA-9 C2 is enrolling pts and evaluation is ongoing. Disclosures Jacobson: Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; AXIS: Speakers Bureau; Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Locke:Calibr: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Wugen: Consultancy; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Other: Consultancy with grant options; Allogene: Consultancy. Miklos:Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Allogene Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Vose:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Allogene: Honoraria; Loxo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Wugen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche/Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other. Lin:Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Budde:Roche: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Mustang Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Maloney:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; A2 Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Patents are pending, but not issued, licensed, no royalties, no licensees., Research Funding; Bioline Rx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jaglowski:Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; CRISPR: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riedell:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Perales:Celgene: Honoraria; MolMed: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bellicum: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cidara Therapeutics: Other; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Medigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; NexImmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kim:Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Kawashima:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership . Yang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Rossi:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Goyal:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Neelapu:Legend Biotech: Other; Allogene Therapeutics: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Cell Medica/Kuur: Other: personal fees; Incyte: Other: personal fees; Unum Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other; Novartis: Other: personal fees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Calibr: Other; Acerta: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: personal fees; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; N/A: Other.

PURPOSETo compare the outcomes of patients with Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma undergoing nonmyeloablative haploidentical or unrelated cord blood (UCB) hematopoietic cell transplantation.PATIENTS AND METHODSWe retrospectively studied 740 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 283, 38%) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 457, 62%) age 18-75 years who received transplantations from 2009 to 2016. Data were reported to the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Eurocord, or Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Of the 526 patients who received haploidentical transplantation, 68% received bone marrow and 32% received peripheral blood. All patients received a uniform transplantation conditioning regimen (2 Gy of total-body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine) and graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis (calcineurin inhibitor and mycophenolate). In addition, patients who received a haploidentical transplantation received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide.RESULTSCompared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantations and adjusted for age, lymphoma subtype, and disease status, survival was lower after UCB transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; P = .001; and HR, 1.59; P = .005, respectively). Similarly, progression-free survival was lower after UCB transplantations compared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantations (HR, 1.44; P = .002; and HR, 1.86; P < .0001), respectively. The 4-year overall and progression-free survival rates after UCB transplantation were 49% and 36%, respectively, compared with 58% and 46% after haploidentical bone marrow transplantation and 59% and 52% after peripheral-blood transplantation, respectively. Lower survival was attributed to higher transplantation-related mortality after UCB transplantation compared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantation (HR, 1.91; P = .0001; and HR, 2.27; P = .0002, respectively).CONCLUSIONWhen considering HLA-mismatched transplantation for Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the data support haploidentical related donor transplantation over UCB transplantation.

Abstract Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a rare hematologic neoplasm characterized by abnormal growth and accumulation of tissue mast cells (MC) in various organ systems, including bone marrow (BM). Indolent and advanced forms of SM have been described. Whereas patients with ISM have a normal or near normal life-expectancy, patients with advanced SM, including those suffering from mast cell leukemia (MCL) have a poor prognosis. In these patients, neoplastic MC are usually resistant against conventional drugs and various targeted drugs. In rapidly progressive aggressive SM (ASM) and MCL, polychemotherapy followed by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) has been proposed. However, outcome of alloHCT in advanced SM is unknown, and it also remains uncertain whether clinically relevant graft-versus-SM (GVSM) effects may occur in these patients, as only sporadic case reports have been published. We performed a retrospective multi-center analysis to evaluate the outcome of alloHCT in patients with advanced SM. Fifty-four advanced SM patients receiving SCT in 32 transplantation centers in Europe and America were identified between 1990 and 2013. The median patient age was 45 years. Donors were: HLA identical siblings (31), unrelated donors (URD) (15), umbilical cord blood donors (UCB) (2), and haploidentical donors (1). In 5 patients, stem cell source was not defined (5). Thirty-four patients received myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and 18 received reduced intensity conditioning regimens (RIC). In 2 patients, conditioning regimen was not specified. Indications for alloHCT were SM with an associated clonal hematologic non-mast cell lineage disease (SM-AHNMD) (n=32), MCL (n=13, including one with MCL-AHNMD), 8 with ASM and 1 with myelomastocytic leukemia (MML). The most prevalent AHNMD was acute myeloid leukemia (AML, n=16). With follow-up of 35-6180 (median 365) days, SM responses (defined as ≥50% decrease in BM mast cells ± decrease in serum tryptase ± regression of other organ manifestations) were observed in 39 patients (72%), including complete responses (CR) documented in 12 patients (22%). Eleven patients had stable disease, whereas 4 patients (7%) progressed immediately after alloHCT (primary resistance). In addition, 10 patients progressed (5 of them within 100 days) after an initial response. Progression was most frequently seen in MCL patients (n=6, 50%). In the AHNMD group, only 8 patients relapsed/progressed (25%). The overall survival (OS) and SM progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 year were 63% and 50% for all patients, 77% and 68% for SM-AHNMD, 63% and 50% for ASM, and 25% and 17% for MCL, respectively. The strongest predictive variable associated with inferior survival was a diagnosis of MCL. Other factors associated with poor outcome were: Karnofsky performance status ≤70%, ≥2 SM regimens given before alloHCT (e.g., steroids, cladribine, chemotherapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitor), donor source (alternative donors-UCB and haploidentical compared to sibling or URD), SM progression within the first 100 days, normal cytogenetics (compared to t(8;21) (q22;q22), and RIC (compared to MAC). The following variables were not associated with poor outcome: patient and donor age, recipient-donor sex match status, graft source (BM vs. peripheral stem cells), BM mast cell percentage at time of alloHCT, and CR status of AML or SM response at time of alloHCT. This largest multi-center analysis of results in advanced SM provides evidence for clinical efficacy of alloHCT, presumably because of a GVSM effect of alloHCT (achieving CR, and response to donor-lymphocyte infusions and RIC alloHCT). However, responses varied among different SM categories: while patients with SM-AHNMD enjoyed excellent outcomes, the OS for MCL patients in general, was poor. Nevertheless it is remarkable that 3 of 13 patients with MCL – an otherwise fatal disease with a median survival of &lt;12 months – became long-term survivors after alloHCT. In summary, our results support development of a prospective alloHCT study, with the aim to optimize therapy and to improve overall outcome in advanced SM. Based on our pilot study, alloHCT should also be considered in practice for eligible and fit patients with SM-AHNMD (if treatment of AHNMD component needs alloHCT or SM component is aggressive), rapidly progressing ASM, MCL and MML when a suitable HLA-matched sibling donor or URD is available. Disclosures: Vercellotti: Sangart Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Akin:Novartis: Consultancy. Valent:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies have shown promising results in several hematologic malignancies. As a result, these agents are being tested in a growing number of clinical trials across multiple diseases and settings. Many participants in these trials will at some point become candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT); however, the safety and efficacy of HSCT may differ in patients previously exposed to PD-1 inhibitors given their immunomodulatory mechanism and long tissue half-life. Specifically, residual PD-1 inhibition post-HSCT could enhance allogeneic T-cell responses, which could augment the graft-vs-tumor (GVT) effect but also increase the incidence, severity or manifestations of graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) and other immune complications of HSCT. To report our experience in this setting, we retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of patients who had received a PD-1 inhibitor prior to HSCT. Between 2013 and 2015, 19 patients who previously participated in clinical trials with either pembrolizumab or nivolumab (administered in combination with ipilimumab in 1 patient) were transplanted at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Median age at HSCT was 32 (range 22-67). Histologies included HL (n=11), DLBCL (n=2), FL (n=2), PMBCL (n=2), EATL (n=1), and MCL (n=1). Patients had received a median of 4 (2-8) lines of therapy prior to PD-1 blockade. 79% of patients had received a previous autologous stem cell transplant (21% as part of planned tandem procedure). Patients received a median of 8 (3-20) cycles of a PD-1 inhibitor; 74% had intervening salvage therapy between PD-1 blockade and HSCT, and transplant occurred a median of 130 (range 7-260) days after the last dose of PD-1 inhibitor. At HSCT, 63% of the patients were in CR and 16% had refractory disease. All patients received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC). 5 (26%) received marrow grafts from haploidentical sibling donors; the remaining 14 received peripheral blood stem cells, 5 from a matched sibling, 7 from a matched, 1 from a unidirectional host-versus-graft and 1 from a bidirectional mismatched unrelated donor. 3 cases of veno-occlusive disease (VOD) (16% of patients) were observed, one of them fatal. The 180-day cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 and grade 3-4 acute GVHD were 32% and 11%, respectively, and the 1-year cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was 30%. There were 4 treatment-related deaths, (1 from VOD, 3 from severe acute GVHD occurring within 14 days of HSCT). In addition, 6 patients developed a febrile syndrome with elevated transaminases (n=3), rash (n= 4), and arthralgias (n=1) shortly after transplant, which required prolonged courses of steroids. Only 3 patients relapsed. After a median follow-up of 10 (3-23) months for survivors, the 1-year overall (OS) and progression-free survivals (PFS) were 78% (95CI, 52-91) and 67% (95CI, 41-84), respectively (Figure). The 1-year cumulative incidences of relapse and non-relapse mortality (NRM) were 11% (95CI, 2-30) and 22% (95CI, 6-43), respectively. In conclusion, HSCT is feasible in patients previously treated with PD-1 inhibitors, with acceptable PFS and OS. Despite the heterogeneous patient population, small sample size, and limited follow-up to date, our results raise the possibility of important differences in the post-HSCT course of those patients. First, the relapse rate compares favorably to that expected for this cohort (1-year expected relapse rate based on Disease Risk Index mix 28%). Although this finding is at best suggestive given the sample size and follow-up time, it could reflect accentuation of GVT by prior PD-1 blockade. We also observed a high rate of severe complications including fatal early acute GVHD and VOD, with a higher NRM than expected in a RIC HSCT population. Furthermore, we noted the frequent occurrence of a steroid-responsive febrile syndrome. These possible effects of prior PD-1 blockade (including GVHD, VOD, febrile syndrome) did not appear related to the time from PD-1 treatment to HSCT, and were not reduced by intervening treatment before HSCT. As we accumulate experience with HSCT after PD-1 blockade, our early results may be relevant when considering the decision to proceed to HSCT and for the choice of transplantation strategies. We are presently expanding this analysis through a multi-center international collaborative study. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Zinzani: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; J&J: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Perales:Takeda: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; NMDP: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Soiffer:Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Armand:Sequenta, Inc.: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding.

Abstract Presumably, reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC/NMA) for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) results in reduced infections compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimens; however, published evidence is limited. In this Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research study, 1755 patients (aged ≥40 years) with acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission were evaluated for infections occurring within 100 days after T-cell replete alloHCT. Patients receiving RIC/NMA (n = 777) compared with those receiving MAC (n = 978) were older and underwent transplantation more recently; however, the groups were similar regarding Karnofsky performance score, HCT–comorbidity index, and cytogenetic risk. One or more infections occurred in 1045 (59.5%) patients (MAC, 595 [61%]; RIC/NMA, 450 [58%]; P = .21) by day 100. The median time to initial infection after MAC conditioning occurred earlier (MAC, 15 days [range, &lt;1-99 days]; RIC/NMA, 21 days [range, &lt;1-100 days]; P &lt; .001). Patients receiving MAC were more likely to experience at least 1 bacterial infection by day 100 (MAC, 46% [95% confidence interval (CI), 43-49]; RIC/NMA, 37% [95% CI, 34-41]; P = .0004), whereas at least a single viral infection was more prevalent in the RIC/NMA cohort (MAC, 34% [95% CI, 31-37]; RIC/NMA, 39% [95% CI, 36-42]; P = .046). MAC remained a risk factor for bacterial infections in multivariable analysis (relative risk, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.23-1.67; P &lt; .0001). Moreover, the rate of any infection per patient-days at risk in the first 100 days (infection density) after alloHCT was greater for the MAC cohort (1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32; P &lt; .0001). RIC/NMA was associated with reduced infections, especially bacterial infections, in the first 100 days after alloHCT.