-Author name in bold denotes the presenting author
-Asterisk * with author name denotes a Non-ASH member
Clinically Relevant Abstract denotes an abstract that is clinically relevant.

PhD Trainee denotes that this is a recommended PHD Trainee Session.

Ticketed Session denotes that this is a ticketed session.

2188 The Impact of Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide (PTCy) with or without MMF in the Prevention of De Novo and Progressive / Relapsing Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease after HLA-Matched Donor Transplant

Program: Oral and Poster Abstracts
Session: 722. Allogeneic Transplantation: Acute and Chronic GVHD, Immune Reconstitution: Poster I
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
Research, epidemiology, Clinical Research
Saturday, December 9, 2023, 5:30 PM-7:30 PM

Rima M. Saliba, PhD1*, Curtis Marcoux, MD, MSc2*, Amin Alousi1*, Gabriela Rondon, MD1, Julianne Chen1*, May Daher, MD1, Richard E. Champlin, MD1, Katy Rezvani, MD1, Elizabeth J. Shpall, MD1 and Rohtesh S. Mehta, MD3

1Department of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
2Division of Hematology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
3Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

Background: We previously showed that PTCy/Tac ± MMF is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) as compared to Tac/MTX after HLA-matched sibling (MSD) but not after HLA-matched unrelated (MUD) donor stem cell transplant (SCT). Notably, ATG was used with Tac/MTX in MUD but not in MSD. [Transplant Cell Ther. 2022;28(10):695] We aimed to further elucidate the epidemiology of cGvHD with the use of PTCy/Tac by comparing the impact of Tac/MTX vs PTCy/Tac ± MMF on de novo and progressive/relapsing cGvHD.

Methods: Recipients of a MSD (Tac/MTX no ATG, or PTCy-based) or MUD (Tac/MTX with ATG, or PTCy-based) peripheral blood SCT between 2015-21 at our institution were eligible. To evaluate the impact of prophylaxis on the incidence of de novo and progressive/relapsing cGvHD, we performed two separate landmark analyses starting 3 months (mo) post-SCT among patients who had not and those who had been diagnosed with acute GvHD (aGvHD) within 3 mo post-SCT, respectively. Patients who died or experienced relapse of malignancy (n=135) or were diagnosed with cGvHD within 3 mo post-SCT (n=13) were excluded from the landmark analyses. There was no difference in the rate of early death/relapse or cGvHD by prophylaxis.

Results: 1040 patients met the eligibility criteria. Median follow-up in survivors was 28 mo (IQRT: 18, 50). The cumulative incidence (CumInc) of cGvHD in the Tac/MTX, PTCy/Tac without MMF, and PTC/Tac with MMF groups was 39% (34-45, reference), 20% (14-29, p<0.001) and 20% (13-30, p=0.003) respectively in MSD; and 23% (18-30, reference), 17% (12-26; p=0.2), and 19% (14-26; p=0.6) respectively in MUD. Consistent with our previous findings, within the PTCy/Tac group, MMF was not associated with the overall rate of cGvHD in MSD (HR=1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.1, p=0.6) or MUD (HR=1.3, 95% CI 0.7-2.2, p=0.4). However, in the current study, stratified analyses performed to evaluate the impact of prophylaxis on the risk of de novo vs progressive/relapsing cGvHD revealed a potential role for MMF in the development of de novo cGvHD. Subsequent results are presented separately for the de novo and progressive/relapsing cGvHD risk cohorts (Table).

The de novo cGvHD risk cohort included patients (N=442) who had not been diagnosed with aGvHD within 3 mo post-SCT. AML / MDS (60%) and CML / MPD (16%) were the most common diagnoses. 124 cases of cGvHD were diagnosed 3 -36 mo post-SCT with a CumInc of 32% (27-37). In multivariate analysis (MVA), compared to Tac/MTX, the use of PTCy/Tac without MMF (HR=0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6, p<0.001) was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of cGvHD. Such reduction was not observed (Figure) with PTCy/Tac with MMF (HR vs Tac/MTX=1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.5, p=0.9). Additional independent predictors were myeloablative conditioning (HR=1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9, p=0.001) and MSD (HR=1.5, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p=0.003). Notably, progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in PTCy/Tac/MMF (univariate HR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.4, p=0.4) vs PTCy/Tac.

The progressive/relapsing cGvHD risk cohort included patients (N=450) who had been diagnosed with grade 1 (27%), 2 (59%) or 3-4 (14%) aGvHD within 3 mo post-SCT. AML / MDS (64%) and CML / MPD (14%) were the most common diagnoses. 109 cases of cGvHD were diagnosed 3 -36 mo post-SCT with a CumInc of 28% (24-33). In MVA analysis, the impact of prophylaxis differed by donor type. As compared with Tac/MTX, PTCy/Tac ± MMF was associated with significantly lower rate of progressive/relapsing cGVHD in MSD (HR=0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.4, p<0.001) but not in MUD (HR=0.6, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p=0.09). This may be related to the use of ATG with Tac/MTX in MUD which was not used in MSD. HCT-CI ≥3 was the only other significant predictor of cGvHD (HR=0.6, 0.4-0.9, p=0.03). PFS was similar in PTCy/Tac ± MMF vs Tac/MTX in MSD (univariate HR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.3, p=0.3) or MUD (univariate HR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.2, p=0.3).

Conclusions: PTCy/Tac ± MMF prophylaxis slows the development of progressive/relapsing cGvHD in MSD vs (Tac/MTX no ATG), but not in MUD (vs Tac/MTX with ATG). The addition of MMF to PTCy/Tac (vs PTCy/Tac) has no significant impact on the risk of progressive/relapsing cGVHD in MSD or MUD; but is associated with a higher risk of de novo cGvHD in MSD and MUD. Our data suggest that multi-center studies are warranted to determine whether MMF should be excluded from cGvHD prevention regimens in the HLA-matched donor setting with PTCy- based GvHD prophylaxis.

Disclosures: Daher: Takeda: Patents & Royalties. Champlin: Arog: Consultancy; Kadmon: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson/Janssen: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Orca Bio: Consultancy; Takeda Corporation: Patents & Royalties; Cell Source: Research Funding. Rezvani: Takeda: Patents & Royalties; Affimed: Other: License agreement. Shpall: Navan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NY Blood Center: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptimmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Affimed: Other: License agreement; Axio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Other: License agreement; Fibrobiologics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celaid Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syena: Other: License agreement. Mehta: Incyte: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding.

*signifies non-member of ASH