ALBERT

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

Description: Key Points Infiltrating FLT3-ITD neutrophils identified in skin confirms terminal differentiation of FLT3-ITD blasts after FLT3 inhibitor therapy. Neutrophilic dermatosis after FLT3 inhibition may be a manifestation of a differentiation syndrome associated with this treatment.

Description: Only 30% of patients who require an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant will have an HLA-matched sibling donor. A search for an unrelated donor will be undertaken for patients without a matched family donor. However, many patients, particularly patients of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, may not be able to rapidly identify a suitably matched unrelated donor. Three alternative graft sources, umbilical cord blood (UCB), haploidentical (haplo)–related donor, and mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) are available. UCB is associated with decreased GVHD, but hematologic recovery and immune reconstitution are slow. Haplo-HCT is characterized by donor availability for transplantation and after transplantation adoptive cellular immunotherapy but may be complicated by a high risk of graft failure and relapse. A MMUD transplant may also be an option, but GVHD may be of greater concern. Phase 2 studies have documented advances in HLA typing, GVHD prophylaxis, and infection prevention, which have improved survival. The same patient evaluated in different transplant centers may be offered MMUD, UCB, or haplo-HCT depending on center preference. In this review, we discuss the rationale for donor choice and the need of phase 3 studies to help answer this important question.

Description: Background: Many older adults (≥60) with AML have a poor prognosis and spend a high portion of their life from diagnosis until death in the hospital. Using a large cohort, we examined the reasons for hospitalizations and identified those which are potentially avoidable. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 329 consecutive patients (≥60) diagnosed with AML between 5/1/2005 and 12/31/2011 at two major tertiary care hospitals to examine the reasons for hospitalizations during treatment. Practicing physicians used a consensus-driven medical record review process to identify primary reason for each hospitalization and categorize it as "potentially avoidable" or "not avoidable" based on a novel adaptation of the Graham's criteria for potentially avoidable hospital admissions. We compared the rate of potentially avoidable hospitalizations between older patients receiving intensive chemotherapy (n=197) versus non-intensive chemotherapy (n=132) using multivariate logistic regression analysis controlling for age, gender, marital status, disease risk, comorbidities, and the receipt of stem cell transplantation. Results: We evaluated 1040 hospitalizations after the diagnosis of AML in 329 unique patients. The median age was 69.9 years [range 60-90] and the median number of hospitalizations was 4.2 [range 0-18]. 33.1% (109/329) of patients underwent stem cell transplantation. The most common primary reasons for hospitalizations were: fever/infection (38.0%), planned hospitalizations for chemotherapy or transplantation (37.7%), and uncontrolled symptoms (9.8%). We identified 180/1040 hospitalizations (17.4%) as potentially avoidable; among these, 47.8% were due to premature hospital discharge, 18.9% could have been managed in the outpatient setting, and 16.1% were due to failure of timely outpatient follow-up. Potentially avoidable hospitalizations represented 12.9% (76/589) and 23.1% (10/451) of hospitalizations among patients who received intensive chemotherapy and non-intensive chemotherapy, respectively. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the receipt of non-intensive chemotherapy was associated with higher risk of potentially avoidable hospitalization [OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.27-3.20, P = 0.003]. Conclusions: Although many hospitalizations in older patients with AML are unavoidable and driven by the illness course and its treatment, a substantial proportion are potentially avoidable. Patients with AML undergoing non-intensive chemotherapy are at higher risk of having potentially avoidable hospitalization. Future interventions to reduce health care utilization in this population are needed, especially among those who are treated with non-intensive chemotherapy. Disclosures Steensma: Incyte: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy. LeBlanc:Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epi-Q: Consultancy; Flatiron: Consultancy; Helsinn Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fathi:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board participation; Merck: Other: Advisory Board participation; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory Board participation, Research Funding. DeAngelo:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB for clinical trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Roche/Genetech: Consultancy; AROG: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy. Chen:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Description: Abstract 4552 Background: Myeloablative total body irradiation (TBI) may be incorporated in the condition regimen prior to hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) for a variety of hematologic malignancies. Recent studies suggest improved patient tolerance and similar overall outcomes when TBI is administered prior to chemotherapy versus after systemic therapy. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of adult patients (〉18yrs old) who received myeloablative TBI as part of their conditioning regimen at the Massachusetts General Hospital between 1993 and 2012. All patients received TBI prior to chemotherapy; a median dose 13 Gy (range 12–16 Gy) was delivered. Patient characteristics including presenting disease, treatment course, treatment outcome and late-effects of therapy were analyzed. Results: The study cohort consisted of 116 patients; 55 patients received TBI for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), 25 for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), 16 for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), 5 for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), 9 for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and 6 for other hematologic disease including MDS, MM, and CLL. Ten patients died of transplant-related mortality. Sixty-three patients underwent allogeneic HCT with a matched-related donor, 53 patients underwent autologous HCT, 5 patients had a tandem HCT, and the remaining patients were divided evenly among umbilical cord, haploidentical, and matched unrelated donor HCT. Twice daily TBI was administered for most patients; 56 cases received TBI three times daily. Cyclophosphamide + TBI (Cy/TBI) was the most commonly used regimen (n=100). At the time of this report, 56 patients were still alive, with a median followup of 84.7 months (range 0.5–220 months). Median survival for all 116 cases was 67 months; stratified by diagnosis: 112 months NHL, 50 months HL, 69 months ALL, 20 months AML, 17 months CML, and 36 months for other malignancies. Overall survival for the entire cohort was 53% (95% CI = 43 to 62%) and 43% (95% CI = 32 to 53%) at 5- and 10-years, respectively. Progression free or relapse-free survival (P/RFS) was 44% (95% CI = 34 to 54%) and 33% (95% CI = 23 to 43%) at 5- and 10-years, respectively. Patients with ALL had the longest P/RFS (69 months) followed by NHL (42 months). Thirteen patients developed second malignancies; 9 patients developed skin cancer, 2 were diagnosed with other solid tumors, and 2 patients had both skin cancer and another malignancy. Endocrine dysfunction such as hypothyroidism and hypogonadism was documented in 11 patients, 23 patients developed late ocular toxicity. Other late toxicities include pulmonary (14 patients), cardiac (4 patients), and 11 cases of neuropathy. None of these late toxicities were seen in patients with less than 2.5 years of survivorship after transplant. Conclusion: Similar to other reports, our results show that conditioning regimens that include the use of TBI prior to high-dose chemotherapy have OS and P/RFS that are comparable to other conditioning regimens. Appropriate screening for late toxicities of therapy should begin in the 3rd year of survivorship. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can be curative for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) who are sensitive to salvage therapy, particularly for pts who achieve a complete metabolic response (CMR) before ASCT. Pts who fail multiple salvage regimens have inferior outcomes and are generally considered poor candidates for ASCT. Recent studies suggest that anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) may restore sensitivity to cytotoxic therapy in HL pts with previously chemorefractory disease. We hypothesized that PD-(L)1 mAb-based salvage therapy may therefore also improve ASCT outcomes for HL pts who had failed salvage therapy. Methods: Medical records were reviewed at 13 US transplant centers to identify pts with a diagnosis of classic HL who failed at least 2 systemic therapies, were treated with a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb (either alone or in combination) as 3rd line or later therapy, and subsequently underwent ASCT. Results: 44 eligible pts were identified. The median age was 33 (range 19-68). Pts received ABVD (39), AVD (2), brentuximab vedotin (BV) + AVD (1), Stanford V (1), or eBEACOPP (1) as 1st line therapy. 26 pts (59%) were refractory to 1st line treatment and 8 additional pts (18%) relapsed within 12 months. High-risk clinical features were observed frequently at 1st relapse including extranodal involvement (47%), B symptoms (27%), and advanced stage (64%). Pts received PD-(L)1 based treatment after failing 2 lines (32%), 3 lines (57%), or ≥4 lines (11%) of therapy. 32 pts (73%) were refractory to the line of therapy before PD-(L)1, 25 pts (57%) to 2 consecutive lines before PD-(L)1, and 10 pts (22%) to 3 consecutive lines before PD-(L)1. 16 pts (36%) were refractory to ≥2 salvage therapies immediately before PD-(L)1 therapy and 17 (39%) were refractory to all prior treatments. 39 pts (89%) received BV or a BV-based combination before ASCT. 67% were BV-refractory, including 86% of those receiving BV monotherapy. Pts received a median of 6 doses of a PD-(L)1 mAb (range 2-26) either as monotherapy (75%) or as part of a PD-1 based combination (25%). The median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to ASCT was 54 days (range 12-386). Best response to PD-(L)1-based therapy was CR (53%), PR (33%), SD (12%), or PD (2%). The median number of systemic therapies (including PD-(L)1) before ASCT was 4 (range 3-7) and 12 pts (27%) received intervening salvage therapy between PD-(L)1 treatment and ASCT. Pre-ASCT PET status was CR in 31 pts (70%), PR in 9 (18%), SD in 4 (9%), and PD in 1 (2%). There were no ASCT-related deaths. 2 pts developed BCNU pneumonitis and 1 developed engraftment syndrome. All 3 pts responded to steroids. 14 pts (32%) have received maintenance therapy with BV (4), a PD-1 mAb (8), or BV + PD-1 mAb (2). 4 pts (9%) received consolidative radiation. With a median post-ASCT follow-up of 12.2 months, progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 yr was 91% [95CI 75-97]. Notably, resistance to chemotherapy before PD-(L)1 therapy did not predict worse post-ASCT outcomes (see Table). 1-yr PFS was 90% for pts who were refractory to the 3 lines of therapy before PD-(L)1, 93% for pts refractory to ≥2 salvage therapies immediately before PD-(L)1, and 90% for pts refractory to all prior treatments. Favorable 1-yr PFS was also seen among pts who received PD-(L)1 as 4th or later line therapy (88% vs 100% for pts receiving PD-[L]1 as 3rd line, p=0.17) and among pts who failed to achieve a CMR on pre-ASCT PET (1-yr PFS 81% vs 96% for CMR pts, p=0.34). Lack of response to PD-(L)1 therapy (1-yr PFS 67% vs 96%, p=0.04), receipt of intervening salvage therapy (1-yr PFS 72% vs 100%, p=0.026), and increasing age (HR 1.11, p=0.015) were all significant predictors of inferior PFS. 1-yr overall survival was 100%. Conclusions: This high-risk cohort is heterogenous in terms of number of prior therapies and degree of chemoresistance, but excellent post-ASCT outcomes were observed among even the most heavily pre-treated, chemorefractory subgroups. Outcomes for PD-(L)1 responders were particularly favorable with a 1-yr PFS of 96%, suggesting that response to PD-(L)1 rather than prior chemotherapy may be the more important predictor of post-ASCT outcomes in this pt population. While longer follow-up is required to confirm the durability of these remissions, ASCT can be considered for HL pts responding to PD-(L)1 based salvage therapy, even if they have previously demonstrated a high degree of chemoresistance. Table Disclosures Nieto: Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Maddocks:BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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; Merck: Research Funding. Svoboda:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. McGuirk:Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Advani:Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Agensys: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cohen:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Frigault:Xenetic: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Nkarta: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy. Chen:Magenta: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Lynch:Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding. Smith:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Armand:Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Herrera:Merck: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; KiTE/Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.