Search

The use of Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as Graft Versus Host Disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has resulted in reductions in GVHD and improved outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) using HLA-mismatched related donors. We report the 3-year outcomes of the first multi-center prospective clinical trial using PTCy in the setting of mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) bone marrow HCT. The study enrolled 80 patients (Either myeloablative (MAC) (N=40) or reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (N=40)) with the primary endpoint of 1-year overall survival (OS). The median follow-up for this report is 34 months (range 12-46) in RIC and 36 months (range 18-49) in MAC. Three-year OS and non-relapse mortality (NRM) were 70% and 15%, and 62% and 10% in the RIC and MAC strata, respectively. No GVHD was reported after 1 year. Relapse incidence was 29% and 51% in RIC and MAC strata. OS did not differ based on HLA match grade (63% in the 7/8 strata and 71% in the 4-6/8 strata). These encouraging outcomes, sustained 3 years post-HCT, support the continued exploration of MMUD HCT using a PTCy platform. Important future areas to address include relapse reduction and furthering our understanding of optimal donor selection based on HLA and non-HLA factors.

PURPOSE Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is curative for hematologic disorders, but outcomes are historically inferior when using HLA-mismatched donors. Despite unrelated donor registries listing > 38 million volunteers, 25%-80% of US patients lack an HLA-matched unrelated donor, with significant disparity across ethnic groups. We hypothesized that HCT with a mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) using post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy), a novel strategy successful in overcoming genetic disparity using mismatched related donors, would be feasible and increase access to HCT. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a prospective phase II study of MMUD bone marrow HCT with PTCy for patients with hematologic malignancies. The primary end point was 1-year overall survival (OS), hypothesized to be 65% or better. 80 patients enrolled at 11 US transplant centers (December 2016-March 2019). Following myeloablative or reduced-intensity conditioning–based HCT, patients received PTCy on days +3, +4, with sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil starting on day +5. We compared outcomes to Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research contemporary controls receiving PTCy. RESULTS Notably, 48% of patients enrolled were ethnic minorities. 39% of pairs were matched for 4-6 out of 8 HLA alleles. The primary end point was met, with 1-year OS of 76% (90% CI, 67.3 to 83.3) in the entire cohort, and 72% and 79% in the myeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning strata, respectively. Secondary end points related to engraftment and graft-versus-host-disease were reached. Multivariate analysis comparing the study group with other mismatched HCT controls found no significant differences in OS. CONCLUSION Our prospective study demonstrates the feasibility and effectiveness of HCT with an MMUD in the setting of PTCy. Remarkably, nearly half of the study participants belonged to an ethnic minority population, suggesting this approach may significantly expand access to HCT.

The importance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cellular therapies, including hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is highlighted in this study. Longitudinal collection of PROs in a registry is recommended for several reasons, yet to date, PROs are not routinely collected from HCT patients to augment clinical registry data. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of electronic PRO data collection by a national clinical outcomes registry, by assessing differences between who does and does not report PROs. We conducted a cross-sectional pilot collection of PROs from HCT recipients after treatment using computer-adapted tests from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). We implemented centralized data collection through the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) among patients who underwent HCT for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), were at least 6 months post-HCT, and spoke English or Spanish. The main objective was identifying patient, disease, and transplant-related differences associated with completion of electronic PROs. Patients were excluded from analysis if they were determined to be ineligible (deceased, did not speak English or Spanish, refused to be contacted by the CIBMTR). A total of 163 patients were contacted and potentially eligible to participate; of these, 92 (56%) enrolled and 89 (55%) completed the PRO assessment. The most frequent reason for incomplete surveys was inability to contact patients (n = 88), followed by declining to participate in the study (n = 37). There were no sociodemographic or age differences between those who completed the PRO survey (n = 89) and eligible nonresponders (n = 155). Patient scores were within 3 points of the US average of 50 for all symptoms and areas of function except physical functioning. Responders and nonresponders did not exhibit meaningfully different sociodemographic characteristics. Difficulty contacting patients posed the greatest barrier and also provided the greatest opportunity for improvement. Once enrolled, survey completion was high. These results support standardizing centralized PRO data collection through the CIBMTR registry.

Background Despite international unrelated donor (URD) registries listing >36 million volunteer donors, 25-80% of U.S. patients lack an HLA-matched (8/8 alleles) URD, with greater disparities in access for ethnic minorities. We hypothesized that hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) with a mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) using post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCY), a strategy successful in overcoming genetic disparity in related haplo-identical donor HCT (haplo HCT) would be associated with similar outcomes to haplo HCT and expand access to HCT. Selecting a MMUD may have benefits over a haplo donor, such as removing risk associated with donor specific antibodies, and allowing for preferential selection of other favorable donor factors, such as younger age. Methods The NMDP/BTM performed a prospective phase II study of MMUD bone marrow (BM) HCT with PTCY for patients with hematologic malignancies, with the primary hypothesis that 1-year overall survival (OS) would be 65% or greater. Patients with a suitable HLA matched sibling or URD were excluded. Matching for 4-7/8 at HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1 was permitted. 80 patients enrolled (40 myeloablative conditioning (MAC) - using cyclophosphamide/TBI (n=6), busulfan/cyclophosphamide (n=3) or fludarabine/ busulfan (n=31); 40 reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) - using fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/TBI) at 11 U.S. transplant centers between Dec 2016 and March 2019. Patients received a fresh BM graft, PTCY on days +3, +4, with sirolimus/mycophenolate mofetil starting on day +5. Regimen intensity was at the center's discretion. We compared outcomes to three groups of contemporaneous controls, all receiving PTCY, whose data was collected by CIBMTR: MMUD using peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) (n=143), and haplo using BM (n=398) or PBSC (n=1191). All analyses used standard stepwise Cox regression modeling, performed separately for MAC and RIC cohorts. The main variable of interest was the donor/graft type (all groups compared to the trial cohort of MMUD BM). Statistical significance is p=0.05. Results The study achieved its primary endpoint with 1-year OS of 76% (90% CI: 67.3-83.3) in the entire cohort; survival and GVHD-/relapse-free survival (GRFS, defined in table 1) were 72% and 37% in the MAC cohort and 79% and 53% in the RIC cohort, respectively. Additional study outcomes are shown in Table 1. Median patient age was 49 years old (yo) (range: 18-66, MAC) and 60 yo (range: 23-70, RIC). HCT were performed for acute leukemia (n=58), MDS (n=2), lymphoma (n=17) and CLL (n=3). Disease risk index was low (n=11), intermediate (n=63), high (n=13) or very high (n=4). KPS was Conclusion Our prospective study demonstrated that outcomes using MMUD in the setting of PTCY are similar to those obtained using a haplo donor. Approximately half of the study participants were ethnic minorities, a figure consistent with expectations based on donor availability within registries, but exceeding expectations in accrual to a prospective study. These results support the feasibility of using volunteer MMUDs to expand access to HCT, especially for ethnically diverse patients. Next steps include expanding the MMUD PTCY approach to incorporate PBSC as a graft source and prospectively studying questions related to selection based on donor characteristics and additional GVHD prophylaxis agents. Disclosures Shaw: Orca Bio: Consultancy. Khimani:Bristol Myers Squibb-Moffitt-Alliance: Research Funding. Shah:Cell Vault: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastim: Consultancy; Lily: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Farhadfar:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Incyte pharmaceutical: Other: Member of GVHD advisory forum. Hardy:Kite/Gilead: Other: Advisory Board Member; Incyte Corporation: Other: Advisory Board Member; American Gene Technologies: Other: DSMB Member. Perales: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; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; 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; Takeda: 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; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; MolMed: 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; Omeros: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cidara Therapeutics: Other; Celgene: Honoraria. Komanduri:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Atara: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy. Luznik:Merck: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy; WindMil Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: Patent holder; Genentech: Research Funding. Pidala:Syndax: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Devine:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bolanos-Meade:Incyte: Other: DSMB Fees.

Background Despite increasing donor options for allogeneic transplantation, including matched/mismatched related donors, matched unrelated donors and cord blood units, a proportion of patients do not find a donor. This is especially relevant in patients from racial/ethnic minorities. Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCY) has successfully overcome barriers related to HLA-mismatching in the related donor setting. We hypothesized that transplantation with a mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) using PTCY would be feasible and associated with high engraftment and acceptable GVHD incidence. Methods We performed a prospective Phase II study of MMUD bone marrow (BM) transplantation with PTCY for patients with hematologic malignancies. Patients with a suitable HLA matched related or URD were excluded. Patients received a fresh BM graft, followed by PTCY on days +3, +4, Sirolimus/MMF starting on Day+5. Matching for 4-7/8 at HLA-A, -B, -C, and –DRB1 was permitted. We enrolled 80 patients (40 full intensity conditioning [FIC]; 40 reduced intensity conditioning [RIC]) at 11 transplant centers in the U.S. between Dec 2016 and March 2019. Regimen intensity was at the center's discretion. Results Characteristics are shown in Table 1. Importantly, 48% of patients were non-white/Hispanic, 55% had an HCT-CI >2 and 34% had a KPS of 1 HLA allele, 59% were under 30. Overall survival and non-relapse mortality at 100 days were 92% and 5% in the FIC arm, and 90% and 7.5% in the RIC arm (Table 2). Neutrophil recovery was 98% in both arms, with no primary graft failure in the FIC arm, and 7.5% in the RIC arm. Peripheral blood donor chimerism was >75% at all timepoints. Acute GVHD grade III-IV at day 100 was relatively high at 25% in the FIC arm but very low at 2.6% in the RIC arm. Viral reactivations were high (Table 3). Conclusion These early (day 100) results of our prospective study show high rates of engraftment with acceptable rates of GVHD in recipients of MMUD transplantation with PTCY, despite a high degree of HLA mismatch. An important finding is that ethnic minorities represent almost 50% of the study population, showing that this approach expands access to patients in need of potentially curative therapy. BK and HHV-6 virus reactivation/infection were common, the clinical significance of which requires further study. Understanding the risks for and impact of graft failure and acute GVHD is being studied as follow up continues.

Background CIBMTR previously showed that centralized PRO collection from patients treated at multiple transplant centers (TC) was feasible; however, consenting by sites and the paper mode of collection were logistically challenging. CIBMTR built an electronic system (ePRO), and we report our initial experience. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of patients ≥55 years old with MDS who underwent allogeneic transplant. Additional inclusion criteria were: ≥6 months from transplant, English/Spanish speaking, an active email address. Lists of potentially eligible patients were sent to TCs to confirm eligibility and provide contact details. All further patient contact (email/phone) was then made by the CIBMTR Survey Research Group (SRG). SRG contacted patients by phone to describe the study, then obtained consent electronically. PRO measures were delivered using computerized adaptive testing (CAT). Results TCs provided contact information on 188/273 (69%) potentially eligible patients. The biggest reason for lack of confirmation of eligibility was an inability by the TC to contact the patient (Figure 1). Of the 188, SRG contacted and confirmed eligibility in 164 (87%). 90/164 (55%) enrolled, and 80 (89%) have completed PROs. A median time of 15 minutes (IQR 11.3-20.7) was required for PRO completion. 62 patients did not enroll: 28 lost to follow-up after initial contact and 34 actively declined to participate. Reasons for declining to participate included: lack of interest in research, technology issues, health reasons and study specific concerns. SRG made fewer contact attempts for those who participated (Table 1). Conclusions We show that while the ePRO system is an efficient mechanism to consent patients and collect PRO, many patients do not reach the enrollment stage. The biggest reason for this is lack of initial or subsequent contact, which was noted at every stage (both TC and SRG). It is unknown whether this is due to passive decline by the patient, or to incorrect contact details. Additionally, relying on the TC to provide contact details (engaging TCs as IRB approved-research sites) was time-consuming and inefficient. CIBMTR has moved to central IRB study approval, and begun to collect contact details proactively, achieving a truly centralized mechanism which should allow CIBMTR to establish contact with patients early in the transplant process. Maintaining engagement through the ePRO may help to address ongoing logistic challenges.