Search

INTRODUCTION Acute leukemia relapsing after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (AlloSCT) is usually associated with dismal prognosis. Treatment options in this population remain limited. We evaluated the outcomes of second AlloSCT in patients with acute leukemia relapsed after previous AlloSCT in centers from Grupo Argentino de Trasplante de Médula Ósea (GATMO) METHODS AND RESULTS We carried out a retrospective analysis in 21 adult patients who received a second transplant as a salvage treatment for relapsed acute leukemia. Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and leukemia free survival (LFS). Variables evaluated were re-induction chemotherapy regimen, conditioning regimen, donor type, early immunosuppression tapering, and the use of maintenance treatment. Mean age was 28 years old (range 16-53). Thirteen were under 30 years, 11 were women, 16 were acute myeloid leukemia. Median time from the first transplant to the relapse was 16,3 months (range 2 to 91 moths). Fourteen patients were MRD negative at the time of second AlloSCT (4 of them in aplasia) and 7 were either positive MRD or refractory disease. Almost all patients received a different re-induction chemotherapy regimen as well as a different conditioning compared to the first transplant. Sixteen out of 21 patients were transplanted with a different donor. Patients without graft versus host disease (GVHD) at day 100 started immunosuppression tapering. Considering the 16 patients alive/relapse free at day 100, half of them received maintenance therapy (6 azacitidine, one sorafenib and one dasatinib). With a median follow up of 24 months, 1-year OS and LFS was 62% and 38%. Age was a strong predictor of survival. There were no patients ≥30 years alive or relapse free beyond 6 months of the procedure, while LFS at 2 years was 58% (8/13) in patients younger than 30 years (p=0.0007). One year LFS was 60% for patients receiving any type of maintenance, compared to 33% of patients who did not receive maintenance (p=0.2). There were no differences in changing the donor or the pre-transplant status. CONCLUSION Second AlloSCT for relapsed acute leukemia is a potential curative option. Younger patients showed better outcomes. Patients relapsing after 6 months could have better prognosis. Maintenance treatment after second transplant should be evaluated, however prospective studies are needed in this scenario to draw better conclusions. Figure. Figure. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Early reduction of BCR-ABL transcript level has been associated with improved outcomes in CML treatment. Inability to achieve early molecular response(MR) at 3 months (M3>10%) is considered a predictor factor for unfavourable outcome. However, the kinetics of BCR-ABL transcript level reduction measured at early time points have shown to be an independent predictor of response.The aim of this analysis was to determine whether the "M3-M6" status is critical to categorize CML patients (pts) focusing in high-risk group. Method: Molecular monitoring was performed in all pts prior treatment (M0), at months 3 (M3), 6 (M6), 12 (M12) and every 6 months thereafter, applying Q-PCR method according international recommendations. Results of BCR-ABL1 transcript level were reported on the international scale as IS-BCR-ABL %. Optimal responses: M3≤10%, M6≤1%, M12≤0,1%. Deep responses (MR4.0): ≤0,01% or undetectable/10.000 ABL copies. Results: A total of 70 CML pts were included, median age 49 (19-82), female 39%. First line treatment: sustained branded 81% and generic 19% TKIs. Imatinib 59%, Dasatinib and Nilotinib 41%. Sokal risk score: low (L) 51%, intermediate (In) and high (H) 49%. Optimal responses at molecular milestones: 75% at M3, 72% at M6, 61% at M12 and 53% pts achieved MR4.0. Event-free survival (EFS) was evaluated according to time point M3: M3≤10% group had significantly better EFS compared with the M3>10% (96% vs 70%; P=0.028). M3-M6 status defined 4 groups of pts: M3≤10%-M6≤1%, M3≤10%-M6>1%, M3>10%-M6≤1%, M3>10%-M6>1%. Molecular response evolution by M3-M6 status is described in Table 1. EFS stratified by groups according to combined M3-M6 responses showed significant differences: 92% for group 1, 87% for group 2, 68% for group 3, 54% for group 4. (P=0.002). M6 time point was shown to be critical in 32 high-risk pts (H+In): 17 pts with M6 ≤1% showed significant differences in MR4.0 achievement compared to 15 pts with M6 >1% (82% vs 27% P=0.02). Better EFS was observed in this high-risk group under branded vs generic TKIs treatment (97% vs 54% P=0.04). Statistical differences in deep responses and MMR at M12 were observed between branded and generic TKIs independently of Sokal risk (P=0.06, P=0.02). Conclusions: M3≤10% pts showed a favourable evolution with better EFS than M3>10% group. However not all patients with M31%. In pts with M3 >10% and optimal response at M6 also showed higher MR4.0 rate. Our study supports that M6 is a crucial endpoint to predict MMR at M12 and deep responses in CML pts.Pts with M3≤10% without optimal response at M6 (>1%) had a worse evolution than those slow responders who showed M3>10% and M6≤1%.High-risk pts are still a challenge, observing better outcomes in those under branded TKIs treatment. The M3-M6 status would be a prognostic marker of responses and EFS in chronic phase CML pts treated with TKIs. Our data support the critical role of M6 response in non-optimal M3>10% pts and intermediate and high risk Sokal score. Treatment adherence is mandatory for achieving and sustaining optimal responses. This multicentric Argentine study, reinforces the importance of clinical follow-up and molecular monitoring under IS standardization at early time points. Education on early molecular monitoring with adequate resources must continue to be an objective in our region. Table 1 Table 1. Disclosures Pavlovsky: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Moiraghi:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Bristol: Speakers Bureau. Varela:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Bristol: Speakers Bureau. Enrico:Novartis: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties; Bristol Myers squib: Speakers Bureau. Brodsky:International PNH Registry: Other: -; Alexion Pharma Argentina: Speakers Bureau. Pavlovsky:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib: Speakers Bureau.

Different treatment guidelines suggest that advanced follicular lymphoma (AFL) subjects should be treated only when meeting criteria treatment, such as GELF, are present. Conversely, when absent the watch and wait (W&W) approach is recommended. However, in our country, we had the impression that in real life, a high percentage of patients without the above-mentioned criteria were treated. With the purpose of unravelling the medical approach of AFL patients at diagnosis and subsequent evolution, the Lymphoma Subcommittee of the Argentinian Society of Haematology undertook this retrospective survey. Results: From years 2006 to 2014 305 patients from 23 institutions were included. GELF criteria were encountered in 62% of patients at diagnosis and all of them were treated with immunochemotherapy (ICT). Among the 116 (38%) patients without meeting GELF criteria (GELF negative group), in only 30 (26%) W&W was the approach chosen, while the rest received ICT. The survey questionnaire revealed that own assessment of the treating physician was the main reason for treating the GELF negative group. In the W&W group, 60% required ICT at a mean of 17 months, being 15% of them transformed to DLBCL at time of treatment. The 89% of cases (271/305) received ICT at some time; 66% R-CHOP, 29% R-CVP, and 5% other regimes. Patient median age receiving R-CHOP and R-CVP was 57 and 62 years (p Conclusion: 1) When comparing with international reports, the percentage (62%) of patients with positive GELF criteria was higher at diagnosis. This fact may be due to delay in access to health care; 2) we found a remarkable discrepancy among guidelines recommendations and real life medical behaviour. Three out of four patients received treatment at diagnosis, when W&W ought to have been the guideline-recommended approach; 3) R-CHOP was the most used ICT scheme, while R-CVP was mostly reserved for the elderly. RM was indicated in the majority of patients, particularly after year 2011; 4) despite acknowledging the methodological limitations of this retrospective analysis, a high tumor mass (GELF positive) picture conferred a worse prognosis in term of PFS, while a W&W approach did not affect the OS for the GELF negative group. Disclosures Riveros: Roche: Speakers Bureau.

The FLIPI prognosis score for follicular lymphoma (FL) was developed based on cases diagnosed between 1985 and 1992, and treated with different schemes that did not include rituximab (R). In the present study, we report the evolution of all FL treated in a single institution through the last decade and analize whether FLIPI mantains its effectiveness to identify different risk groups within patients treated with the new therapeutic alternatives available. Material and Methods: We identified sixty two patients with diagnosis of grade I-II-IIIa FL. Patients characteristics: median age 57.5 yr (r, 30–80); 36 males; 63% stages III–IV, and 37% with bone marrow infiltration at the time of diagnosis. Thirty eight percent had a low risk by FLIPI, 34% had an intermediate risk and 27.4% had a high risk. In 19 pts (30.6%) the initial decision was “watch and wait” but 82% received a form of treatment at some point. R was used in 36 pts (58%) with some of the following regimes: chemotherapy (chemo) + R and/or R as consolidation therapy and/or R as monotherapy and/or R as maintenance therapy. Of all prescribed treatments (excluding R as monotherapy and/or maintenance treatment), 52.8% were chemo alone, 20.2% chemo + R, 21.3% radiotherapy and 5.6% received a bone marrow transplant. Results: we considered the analysis of overall survival (OS) the most appropiate approach, since most treatments were seeking the control of the FL, and not the complete remission or cure. The follow up median time was 53.2 months ± 34.8 1SD. The 5-yr OS for the 62 pts was 81.8% ± 11.3 CI 95%. The 5-yr OS for those with a low, intermediate and high risk FLIPI was 100% −5, 84.2% ± 21 and 52% ±26.2, respectively. The difference in 5-yr OS was statistically significant between low and high risk, intermediate and high risk, but failed to prove a significant difference between low and intermediate risk. Among the different risk factors tested in a univariate analysis only age ≥ < 60 yr old demonstrated a significant difference, 60.7% vs 90%, respectively. Conclusions: The 5-yr OS in our series is higher than the one described in the original FLIPI study (Blood2004; 104:1258–65) which was 81.8% vs 71% for the whole group; 90% vs 78.1% for pts