ALBERT

Description: Introduction: The autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-cel) improved long-term survival of patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL). Long-term analysis of the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial indicates a 2-year PFS of ~40% (Locke, Lancet Oncology 2018). Early identification of patients with increased relapse risk may allow for early intervention and improved outcomes. In a pilot study of 6 ZUMA-1 patients, minimal residual disease (MRD) evaluation via a next-generation sequencing MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) to assess for circulating tumor (ct)DNA, mirrored clinical outcome as assessed by PET-CT (Hossain et. al. Leukemia & Lymphoma 2019). Based on these promising results, a multi-institutional prospective study utilizing cell-free MRD assessments to predict outcomes in r/r DLBCL patients after Axi-cel therapy was initiated. Methods: To identify tumor clonotype(s), tumor DNA extracted from archival paraffin-embedded tissue underwent PCR amplification of IgH-VDJ, IgH-DJ and IgKappa/Lambda regions using universal consensus primers. CtDNA levels were measured pre-LD, 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56, 90, 180, 270, and 365 days following Axi-cel infusion. PET-CT scans were obtained at baseline, Day 28, Month 3, 6, and 12 with response assessed per Lugano criteria. Deauville 1-3 was considered PET-negative. The protocol prespecified that patients with less than Day 28 follow-up be excluded from analysis. Any detectable ctDNA was considered MRD positive. Results: Here we report on the pre-planned analysis of the first 50 study patients with at least a Day 28 MRD assessment and 3 months of follow up. An additional 4 patients with at least 3 months of follow-up but who did not have a Day 28 MRD assessment were also included. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients were similar to ZUMA-1 and a real-world analysis of 295 patient who received Axi-cel (Nastoupil et al ASH 2018). The median age was 61 years old (range 19-76) (53.7% male, 46.3% female) and 59% of patients received 3 or more prior lines of therapy (range 1-6). After a median follow-up of 7.5 months, the best overall response rate was 87% (47 of 54) and complete response rate was 57% (31 of 54). The median OS was not reached and median PFS was 4.6 months (panel A). At Day 28, 56% (28 of 50) of patients were MRD negative (MRD-neg) and 44% (22 of 50) were MRD positive (MRD-pos). As compared to MRD-pos, MRD-neg correlated with improved median PFS (not reached vs. 2.96 months, p

Description: Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is an FDA-approved therapy for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). A common side effect of CAR-T therapy is cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and its severity ranges from mild to severe, and occasionally resulting in death. Patients at particularly high risk for severe CRS may benefit from earlier supportive care and rescue therapies, such as tocilizumab. Although the median onset of CRS has been reported as two days, no existing prognostic tools adequately assist the bedside clinician with triaging which patients will decompensate and warrant escalation of care. For example, biomarkers such as CRP and ferritin are ineffective in predicting CRS severity. Evaluation of the sublingual microcirculation of patients receiving CAR-T therapy may serve as a valuable surveillance tool. The sublingual microcirculation (defined as blood vessels 2.6, POEM=5) and normal or near-normal microcirculation at the end of the study period. No patients developed severe CRS (grade 3 and above). Three patients developed grade 2 CRS that required tocilizumab. Patients #1 and #2 both had significant microcirculatory impairments ≥12 hours prior to developing symptoms severe enough to warrant tocilizumab. Patient #3 had normal microcirculation through the first four days of therapy and developed hypotension on day six. We captured a subtle change from a normal MFI and POEM score to mild impairment with both scoring algorithms on day five, one day prior to clinical manifestations of decompensation. For logistical reasons, subsequent data were unable to be obtained. MFI and POEM scores for all patients are listed below in Table 1. The remaining four patients developed grade 1 CRS with associated mild microcirculatory changes. Conclusions: In this pilot study, POC microcirculatory assessments were successfully used to monitor patients undergoing CAR-T therapy. Patients with more severe CRS manifested lower MFI and POEM scores and maintained their nadir longer than those with milder CRS. Our data suggest that CAR-T patients developing CRS manifest early signs of sublingual microcirculatory dysfunction. Moreover, these microcirculatory defects present prior to the development of standard clinical abnormalities, such as macrocirculatory derangements. While further investigation is ongoing, this tool could be used for earlier identification of patients at risk for CRS in order to deliver earlier appropriate therapies, and ultimately to improve patient outcomes. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: Background: The use of social media is expanding in medicine. More and more healthcare professionals, patients and advocates are using social media as a common platform to enhance communication. Methods: Each year American Society of Hematology (ASH) creates a hashtag (#) followed by year of the annual meeting (e.g. ASH 2014 had this hashtag: #ASH14) on Twitter. We conducted a retrospective study of annual meeting's hashtag use on Twitter for past 4 annual meetings using data from Symplur, LLC. Symplur is an online forum offering analytics of the global Twitter based conversations. Following hashtags were used for analysis, #ASH11, #ASH12, #ASH13 and #ASH14. Results: Overall there is an increasing trend for use of annual meeting's hashtag (see table 1). Last year's meeting generated over 72 million impressions. Number of tweets being sent out is doubling every year. More twitter users are engaging in conversations than the year before using annual meeting's hashtag. Last year almost 4000 individual twitter accounts were used during the annual meeting. Number of tweets per participant has stayed relatively constant over past four years. @ash_hematology remains the most commonly mentioned twitter handle every year since 2011. In 2014 itself, @ash_hematology was mentioned over 2000 times. Conclusion: Twitter is a very powerful tool that amplifies the content of scientific meetings. Use of twitter using meeting's hashtag is increasing every year at annual ASH meetings. This analysis provides a snapshot of twitter activity at the conference. Avenues for further research are: trend identification, "influencer" identification, and qualitative analysis. Interdisciplinary research should focus on evaluation methods that can assess the quality, value, and impact of tweeting. Table 1. Year Impressions Tweets Participants Average tweet per participant 2011 12,255,646 3123 606 5 2012 18,153,786 5,094 870 6 2013 30,018,580 12,233 1942 6 2014 72,433,270 24,185 3977 6 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: History of prior cancer is a widespread exclusion criterion in cancer trials. Up to 80% of NCI-sponsored and 80% of industry-sponsored lung cancer trials exclude patients with a prior cancer. We suspect this exclusion is commonly applied in other cancer trials, although no definitive data exist. Prior cancer is especially common among older patients and those with certain cancer types. Among patients 〉65 years, 15.1% overall have prior cancer. In Multiple Myeloma, the most common plasma cell disorder (PCD), prevalence of prior cancer is as high as 17.4%. Examining the prior cancer exclusion criterion is important because the number of US cancer survivors is large and rapidly growing. Arbitrarily excluding cancer survivors from trials is not evidence-based and exclusion presumably arises from assumptions that higher mortality of patients with prior cancer could hinder study conduct and bias trial outcomes. However, few data exist to support this assumption of higher mortality. In fact, we demonstrated that lung cancer patients with a prior cancer have similar or lower mortality risk, compared to those without prior cancer. In this abstract, we reviewed prior cancer related eligibility criteria in three of the most common PCD (Multiple Myeloma, Amyloidosis and Waldenström Macroglobulinemia) clinical trials sponsored or endorsed by 5 major Co-Operative groups in North America (Table 1). We use descriptive statistics (n, %) and Fisher's exact tests to describe characteristics of trials with and without exclusion criteria. Of 33 trials, 26 (79%) excluded patients with prior cancer as follows - active cancer (12%), within 2-3 years of PCD diagnosis (9%), or within 5 years of PCD diagnosis (55%). Many trials had exceptions to prior cancer exclusion. Specifically, 67% of trials allowed non-melanoma skin cancer, 58% allowed in-situ cervical cancer, 12% allowed early stage prostate cancer. Table 2 shows the association between clinical trial characteristics and prior cancer exclusion. There was no association between prior cancer exclusion and phase of study, transplant studies, or survival end point. Exclusion criteria varied across year of activation (p=0.01); for example, 75% of studies activated 1990-1999 excluded prior cancer, compared to 100% of studies activated after 2010. Type of PCD was marginally associated with exclusion criteria (p=0.08); 74% of Multiple Myeloma trials excluded patients with prior cancer compared to 100% of the Amyloidosis and Waldenström Macroglobulinemia trials. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of potential participants may be excluded from PCD clinical trials because of a history of prior cancer. This practice impacts accrual, generalizability, and fair access to cutting-edge treatments and the highest level of clinical care. As treatment outcomes for other cancers continue to improve, it is likely that the prevalence of multiple primary cancers will increase. This exclusion criterion is applied widely across studies, including more than two-thirds of those with non-survival endpoints. Our study is the first to examine the prevalence and potential impact of prior cancer exclusion in PCD clinical trials. Using population-based cancer registry data, we plan to undertake further research to understand the appropriateness and ramifications of this standard exclusion policy in PCD cancer trials. Disclosures Collins: Agios: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Devine:Kiadis Pharma: Consultancy. Usmani:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Anderson:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Description: Introduction Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy approved by the US FDA 10/18/2017, for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), transformed lymphoma (tFL), and high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who have failed at least two prior systemic lines of therapy. In the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial, 108 patients (pts) with r/r DLBCL were treated with axi-cel: the best overall response rate (ORR) was 82% and complete response (CR) rate was 58%. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of the pts had ongoing remission (Neelapu and Locke et al. NEJM 2017). Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) by Lee criteria and neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 13% and 31% of the pts, respectively. Here, we evaluated the real world outcomes of pts treated with standard of care axi-cel under the commercial FDA label. Methods and Results Seventeen US academic centers contributed data to this effort independently of the manufacturer. As of 6/30/2018, 211 pts were leukapheresed with intention to manufacture commercial axi-cel. Of these, 165 (78%) pts completed axi-cel infusion as of 6/30/18 and a further 23 (11%) pts are scheduled for axi-cel infusion in July 2018. Of the 23 remaining pts, 7 (3%) received axi-cel therapy on ZUMA-9 expanded access trial (NCT03153462) due to non-conforming cell therapy product, 15 (7%) pts died before axi-cel infusion (14 from lymphoma progression and 1 from sepsis) and 1 (1%) patient attained CR from bridging therapy and was not infused. Safety was evaluable in 163 pts receiving axi-cel. Grade ³3 CRS and NEs occurred in 7% and 31% of pts. Tocilizumab was administered in 62% of pts and 57% received corticosteroids. Outside of lymphoma progression, 3 deaths occurred post-axi-cel; 1 due to HLH, 1 due to systemic candidiasis, and a third due to septic shock. There were no grade 5 NEs observed. Response assessment was done for pts infused with axi-cel and who were re-staged at day 30 and/or day 100, or were deemed to have clinical progression. Of 112 pts evaluable at day 30, ORR was 79% with 50% CR, 29% PR, 6% SD and 14% with PD. Of 39 pts evaluable at day 100, 59% of pts had ongoing response (CR 49%, PR 10%). At the time of abstract submission, more detailed patient characteristics and treatment course data were available in 134/165 pts infused. Median age was 59 (range 21-82) with 57% male. Performance status (PS) was ECOG 0-1 (81%), ECOG 2 (16%) and ECOG 3 (3%). By histology, 61% of pts had DLBCL including HGBCL, 31% had tFL and 8% PMBCL. Thirty-one percent had a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Bridging therapy between apheresis and infusion was given in 56% of patients, the majority of which consisted of chemotherapy. Sixty-six of 134 (49%) would not have met eligibility criteria for ZUMA-1 at the time of leukapheresis. Common criteria that would have made these patients ineligible for ZUMA-1 included ECOG PS 〉1 (n = 22), platelets

Description: Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a common hemoglobinopathy, characterized by vaso-occlusive crises and affects over 100,000 people in United States. It afflicts long-lasting organ damage with a spectrum of clinical severity. Median survival for SCD is shortened to the 6th decade of life despite advances in medical care (Elmariah et al Am J Hematol 2014). Allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) is a potentially curative option and is increasingly considered in patients with severe symptomatic SCD. The use of SCT is limited by donor availability and treatment related complications. Several advancements in conditioning regimen and use of alternate donor source have favorably impacted the feasibility of this approach. We identified SCT performed for sickle cell disease in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) from 2002-2014 in an attempt to identify hospitalization outcomes, factors affecting length of stay and healthcare utilization. Methods: HCUP-NIS is a 20% stratified sample of all discharges from hospitals across 46 states in the United States and incorporates weighting algorithms to predict nationwide estimates. We used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes to identify HCT hospitalizations {Bone marrow (BM):41.02, 41.03, Peripheral blood (PB): 41.05, 41.08 and Cord blood (CB): 41.06} for sickle cell disease (282.5,282.6X -282.6X). We excluded patients who underwent SCT for indications other than SCD. Surveyfreq was used to calculate proportions and surveymeans was used to calculate median length of stay and hospital charges. Kruskal-Wallis test was used for non-parametric data. Chi-square for categorical data frequency, P value of 〈 0.05 was statistically significant. All analysis was performed using SAS 9.4. Results: Outcomes were analyzed from a total of 742 hospitalizations for SCT from 2002-2014 (table 1). Median age for stem cell transplant was 9 years. GVHD occurred in 14% of stem cell transplants. Overall, in-hospital mortality was low at 2.6% while mortality in patients who developed GVHD was 14%. Bacterial infections (including C.difficile) occurred more commonly than viral or fungal infections (table 2). Patients who developed graft vs host disease (GVHD) were also more likely to have bacterial, viral and fungal infections than those without. Pain crisis was noted in 9% of total admissions while stroke occurred in 6%. Median length of stay (LOS) was 35 days and median charges were $359,646. If GVHD developed, median LOS increased to 54 days while median charges increased to $712,324. Similarly, bacterial sepsis was associated with a longer median LOS of 63 days while median charges increased to $626,986 (table 3). Conclusions: The rate of inpatient mortality with SCT in sickle cell disease is lower than the overall inpatient mortality rate for allogeneic SCT (7%; Godara et al bbmt 2018), indicating a favorable outcome for these patients. Infections do occur commonly during the course of hospitalization, especially in association with GVHD. Length of stay is adversely impacted by occurrence of GVHD, bacterial sepsis, C.difficile infection and viral infections. While we are limited by duration of follow up in our study, these patterns suggest some essential modifiers for inpatient morbidity and mortality, therefore require validation in a large prospective study. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: Abstract 5083 In this retrospective study, we sought to describe the demographics, diagnoses, management, and outcomes of elderly patients with primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) at a single institution. Patients and Methods After obtaining IRB approval, the Cleveland Clinic Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center's database was used to identify patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL who were older than 60 years between 1986 and 2010. We excluded patients who were HIV positive or had systemic lymphoma. During individual chart review, we confirmed the diagnosis and collected information of patients' demographics, disease presentation, diagnostic procedures, initial and salvage therapy, and clinical outcome. Results A total of 84 patients were older than 60 years of age when they were diagnosed with PCNSL at our institution from 1986 to 2010. The median age was 67. 9 years (range: 60. 3–89. 2 years). The median Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of these patients at the diagnosis was 70 (range: 20–90), which stayed the same at the subsequent disease relapses. The median duration of symptoms was 1. 5 months (range: 0. 1–13 months). The initial treatment regimens included whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), chemotherapy with or without consolidation WBRT. Five patients (6%) received WBRT alone. 43 patients (51%) received chemotherapy alone. Six patients (7%) received chemotherapy followed by consolidation WBRT. Among the patients who received chemotherapy with or without WBRT, 40 of them (48%) received methotrexate-based therapy; 9 patients (11%) received non-methotrexate-based therapy. Among the patients who received initial treatment, 20 of them (37%) achieved complete response (CR), while 19 patients (35%) had disease progression during the treatment. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 8. 0 months (95% CI 2. 7–22 months). The median overall survival (OS) was 15. 5 months (95% CI 6. 6–38. 5 months). We also compared the benefit of individual initial treatment regimens although the reason of their allocation was not determined. It turned out that patients with chemotherapy followed by consolidation WBRT had significantly higher response rate and longer survival than patients with WBRT alone (Figure 1). Unfortunately, no patient who received WBRT alone achieved CR. In addition, the methotrexate-based chemotherapy offered significantly longer PFS than non-methotrexate-based chemotherapy (P = 0. 0008). In univariate analysis, we evaluated potential prognostic factors such as gender, age, KPS, symptom duration, prior malignancy, year of diagnosis, symptoms, and multiple site involvement for response rate, PFS, and OS. Recursive partitioning analysis identified 70 years as the cutoff point for age and 70 as the cutoff point for KPS. We found that no factors can predict response to therapy. However, younger age, higher KPS, more recent diagnosis, and the presence of ocular symptoms were favorable factors for longer OS. Age is the only favorable prognostic factor for PFS, although higher KPS has a trend (P = 0. 08) toward longer PFS. When these factors were subjected to multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years and KPS less than 70 were the only poor prognostic factors for both OS and PFS. With this information in hand, we divided the patients into three prognostic groups based on the number of poor prognostic factors (Table 1). The median OS and PFS for the group with no poor prognostic factors were 65 months and 24 months, respectively. The median OS and PFS for the group with all poor prognostic factors were 1. 0 month and 0. 6 month, respectively. Conclusions Chemotherapy followed by consolidation WBRT had significantly higher response rate and longer survival than patients with WBRT alone. Age and performance status were the only independent predictor of either PFS or OS. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: M.T.J. and M.D.J. contributed equally; A.G. and F.L.L. contributed equally. Introduction Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy that is approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who have failed at least two prior systemic lines of therapy. In the ZUMA-1 trial that led to axi-cel approval, 93% of patients developed cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (Neelapu, Locke et al. NEJM 2018). CRS is a non-antigen-specific toxicity that occurs as a result of CAR T and bystander immune cell activation. Whether lack of development of CRS after treatment with axi-cel is associated with inferior lymphoma outcomes is unknown. Here we evaluate the outcomes of patients that did not develop CRS after receiving axi-cel in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results The US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium includes seventeen US academic centers that contribute data independently of manufacturers. As of 8/31/2018, 300 patients were apheresed with intent to manufacture standard of care axi-cel for LBCL. In this study, we analyzed the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of 276 patients receiving CAR T infusion with a median follow up of 9 months. In this group, 25 patients (9%) did not develop CRS and 251 patients (91%) developed CRS following axi-cel infusion. CRS was graded according to Lee criteria (Lee et al. Blood 2014) or CARTOX (Neelapu SS et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018). At baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the no CRS group had ECOG score of 0-1 (no CRS group 100% vs. CRS group 82%, p= 0.019) and IPI score of 0-2 (no CRS group 72% vs. CRS group 46%, p = 0.019) After CAR T cell infusion, patients who did not develop CRS had a lower chance of developing grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity (no CRS group 4% vs. CRS group 35%, p=0.001), lower rates of ICU admission (no CRS group 8% vs. CRS group 35%, p = 0.006), and shorter length of hospital stay (median 10 days for no CRS group vs 14 days for CRS group, p 〈 0.001). Of the 25 patients who had grade 0 CRS, 23 (92%%) also had grade 0 neurotoxicity. In univariate analysis, no CRS was associated with lower complete response (CR) rate (no CRS group 40% vs. CRS group 66%, p=0.015) but no statistically significant difference in overall response rate (ORR) (no CRS group 72% vs. CRS group 84%, p= 0.158). In relation to CRS there was no difference in treatment related mortality among the two groups (CRS group 4% vs. no CRS group 4.4%, p = 0.85). In multivariate analysis correcting for confounding features, no CRS was associated with statistically significant lower complete response rate (p = 0.002), but there was no significant difference in ORR (p = 0.13), overall survival (P=0.15), progression free survival (P=0.16), and time to progression (P= 0.14) between the two groups (figure 1.). Conclusions In this large cohort of LBCL patients receiving axi-cel with median follow up of 9 months, patients that did not develop CRS, compared with those that developed CRS, achieved lower rates of complete response but there was no difference in overall response rate, progression free survival, time to progression, overall survival, and treatment related mortality between the two groups. Disclosures Jain: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lunning:Spectrum: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; OncLive: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; DAVA: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MiRagen: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; VANIUM: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. McGuirk:Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Deol:Agios: Other: Advisory board; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Goy:Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding. Hill:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Andreadis:Juno: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Equity Ownership; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Munoz:Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bennani:Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Miklos:Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Neelapu:Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding. Ghobadi:Wugen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Kite Pharma a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor.

Description: Background and objective: Blood loss associated with total lower-extremity joint arthroplasty (TJA) often results in postoperative anemia and need for red blood cell transfusions (RBCT). We report the results of a quality improvement initiative to improve blood management and decrease transfusions in patients undergoing TJA in one tertiary hospital. Methods: Pre and post analysis after the implementation of a multifaceted intervention which included preoperative assessment for anemia, use of tranexamic acid, discouragement of autologous pre-operative blood collection and institution of more restrictive RBCT protocols. The results were stratified into three periods: I - pre-interventional (01/01/2013 -09/30/2013); II - peri-interventional (10/01/2013 -04/30/2014); and III - post-interventional (05/01/2014 -12/31/2014). We used fractional logistic regression with robust standard errors and regression modeling was configured using a segmented, or "piecewise", approach in which slope coefficients in each period were estimated. Results: During the study period 2511 patients underwent surgery. Compared with the pre-intervention period, the total number of RBC units transfused decreased from a total of 587 in the pre- to 107 in the post-intervention period (81.8% decrease). The percentage of patients receiving transfusion declined from 36.7% in pre-implementation period to 8.8% to post-intervention period. Depending upon the costing methodology used, annualized savings in RBC expenditure between time period 1 and 3 ranged from a low of $108,000 using the acquisition cost per unit (~$225/unit) to $480,000 when using activity based costing (~$1000/unit). Mean length of stay (days) and 30-day readmission rates remained stable during the study period. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary approach with proactive involvement of all the interested parties can be successful and sustainable in reducing RBCT and its associated costs, in patients undergoing TJA. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.