For diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients progressing after autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT), allogeneic HCT (alloHCT) is often considered, although limited information is available to guide patient selection. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we identified 503 patients who underwent alloHCT after disease progression/relapse following a prior autoHCT. The 3-year probabilities of non-relapse mortality, progression/relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 30%, 38%, 31% and 37% respectively. Factors associated with inferior PFS on multivariate analysis included Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <80, chemoresistance, autoHCT to alloHCT interval <1-year and myeloablative conditioning. Factors associated with worse OS on multivariate analysis included KPS<80, chemoresistance and myeloablative conditioning. Three adverse prognostic factors were used to construct a prognostic model for PFS, including KPS<80 (4 points), autoHCT to alloHCT interval <1-year (2 points) and chemoresistant disease at alloHCT (5 points). This CIBMTR prognostic model classified patients into four groups: low-risk (0 points), intermediate-risk (2–5 points), high-risk (6–9 points) or very high-risk (11points), predicting 3-year PFS of 40%, 32%, 11% and 6%, respectively, with 3-year OS probabilities of 43%, 39%, 19% and 11% respectively. In conclusion, the CIBMTR prognostic model identifies a subgroup of DLBCL patients experiencing long-term survival with alloHCT after a failed prior autoHCT.

Autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation (AutoHCT) is commonly an inpatient procedure. However, AutoHCT is increasingly being offered on an outpatient basis. To better characterize the safety of outpatient AutoHCT, we compared the outcome of 230 patients who underwent AutoHCT on an inpatient (IP) versus outpatient (OP) basis for myeloma or lymphoma within a single transplant program. All OP transplants occurred in a cancer center day hospital. Hematopoietic recovery occurred earlier in the OP cohort, with median time to neutrophil recovery of 10 vs. 11 days (p<0.001) and median time to platelet recovery of 19 vs. 20 days (p=0.053). 51% of the OP cohort never required admission, with this percentage increasing in later years. Grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicities occurred in 29% of both cohorts. Non-relapse mortality at one year was 0% in the OP cohort and 1.5% in the IP cohort (p=0.327). Two year progression-free survival was 62% for OP vs. 54% for IP (p=0.155). One and two year overall survival was 97% and 83% for OP vs. 91% and 80% for IP, respectively (p=0.271). We conclude that, with daily outpatient evaluation and aggressive supportive care, outpatient AutoHCT can result in excellent outcomes for myeloma and lymphoma patients.

Background: DLBCL relapsing after an auto-HCT has a poor prognosis. Unfortunately this is a common clinical dilemma, since ~50% of auto-HCTs for DLBCL ultimately fail. Allo-HCT is often considered following failure of an auto-HCT; however, limited information is available regarding prognostic factors identifying DLBCL patients likely to benefit from a subsequent allo-HCT. Methods: Adult (≥18 years) DLBCL patients undergoing an alloHCT between 2000-2012, after experiencing disease progression/relapse (P/R) following a prior autoHCT and reported to the CIBMTR were included. Patients undergoing tandem auto-allo HCT and those receiving allo-HCT for indications other than relapsed DLBCL were excluded. Primary outcomes were non-relapse mortality (NRM), P/R, PFS, and overall survival (OS). Cox regression method was used to develop a prognostic model of PFS and OS. Results: Characteristics of 503 patients included in this analysis are shown in Table 1. The 3-yr univariate probabilities of NRM, P/R, PFS and OS were 30%, 38%, 31% and 37% respectively. Factors associated with higher NRM on multivariate analysis (MVA) included chemoresistance disease prior to allo-HCT (RR=1.86; p=0.003), myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (RR=1.99; p=0.0006; within 1st 10months following alloHCT) and unrelated donors (URD) grafts (RR=1.44; p=0.03). Factors associated with P/R on MVA included chemoresistance (RR= 2.25, p<0.0001), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <80 (RR 1.81, p=0.006), and interval between auto-HCT and allo-HCT of <1 yr (RR=2.28, p<0.0001). Factors associated with inferior PFS on MVA included KPS <80 (RR=1.79, p=0.0005), chemoresistance (RR=2.04, p<0.0001), auto-HCT to allo-HCT interval <1 yr (RR=1.32, p=0.01), and MAC (RR 1.29, p=0.03). Factors associated with worse OS on MVA included KPS <80 (RR1.86, p=0.0003), chemoresistance (RR=1.94, p<0.0001), MAC (RR=1.39, p=0.008). Three adverse prognostic factors were used to construct a prognostic model for PFS, including; (i) KPS <80 (2 points) (ii) Interval between auto-HCT & allo-HCT of <1yr (1 point) and (iii) chemoresistant disease at allo-HCT (2 points). This CIBMTR prognostic model classified patients into three prognostic groups: low risk (0-1 points), intermediate risk (2-3 points), or high risk (4-5 points), predicting 3-yr PFS probabilities of 38% (95% CI=32-44), 19% (95% CI=11-27) and 10% (95% CI=0-22), respectively (Fig 1). The 3-yr OS probabilities in similar order were 43%, 25% and 14% respectively. Conclusion: The CIBMTR prognostic model identifies a subgroup of DLBCL patients relapsing from an auto-HCT who can experience long-term PFS following an allo-HCT. Reduced-intensity conditioning is preferred in this setting. Table.N=503 (%)Median age at alloHCT, years52 (range 19-72)Male gender305 (61)KPS ≥80393 (78)Stage III-IV at diagnosis54%Rituximab prior to HCT72%Median lines of therapy4 (range 1-7)High LDH at HCT34%Time from auto-HCT to allo-HCT, months15 (range 1-198)Disease status at transplantCR175 (35)PR197 (39)Chemorefractory106 (21)Untreated12 (2)Missing13 (3)Type of donorSibling253 (50)URD250 (50)Myeloablative conditioning127 (25)PB graft456 (91)TBI in conditioning133 (26)Median follow up, months55 (range 1-149) Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Smith: Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Sureda:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.