-
1.
Umbilical cord blood or HLA-haploidentical transplantation: Real world outcomes vs randomized trial outcomes
O'Donnell, P. V., Brunstein, C. G., Fuchs, E. J., Zhang, M. J., Allbee-Johnson, M., Antin, J. H., Leifer, E. S., Elmariah, H., Grunwald, M. R., Hashmi, H., et al
Transplantation and cellular therapy. 2021
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Randomized clinical trials offer the highest quality data for modifying clinical practice. Results of a phase III randomized trial of non-myeloablative transplantation for adults with high- risk hematologic malignancies with two umbilical cord blood (UCB) units (n=183) or HLA-haploidentical relative bone marrow (Haplo-BM) (n=154) revealed 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 41% and 35% after Haplo-BM and two-unit UCB transplantation, respectively (p=0.41); overall survival was 57% and 46%, respectively (p=0.04), BMT CTN 1101; NCT01597778. OBJECTIVES We sought to examine the generalizability of BMT CTN 1101 to a contemporaneous cohort beyond the trial's pre-specified 2-year outcomes. All transplantation occurred between June 2012 and June 2018 in the United States. We hypothesized that the results of a rigorous phase III randomized trial will be generalizable. Changes in graft selection for HLA-haploidentical relative transplantation during the trial period allowed comparison of outcomes after transplantation with Haplo-BM to those after haploidentical peripheral blood (Haplo-PB). STUDY DESIGN The trial's broad eligibility criteria were applied to the data source of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research to select non-trial subjects. Extended follow up of trial subjects was obtained from this data source. Three separate analyses were performed: 1) trial subjects beyond the trial's 2-year endpoint 2) comparison of trial subjects to a contemporaneous cohort of non-trial subjects (195 two-unit UCB, 358 Haplo-BM, 403 Haplo-PB) and 3) comparison of non-trial subjects by donor and graft type. Multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models for comparison of outcomes by treatment groups. RESULTS With longer follow up of the trial cohorts, 5-year PFS (37% versus 29%, p=0.08) and overall survival (42% versus 36%, p=0.06) were not significantly different between treatment groups. We then compared the trial results to comparable real-world transplantations. Five-year overall survival after trial and non-trial two-unit UCB (36% versus 41%, p=0.48) and trial and non-trial Haplo-BM (42% versus 47%, p=0.80) transplantation were not different confirming generalizability. The randomized trial did not accrue as planned and therefore lacked the statistical power to detect a 15% difference in progression-free survival. With substantially larger numbers of non-trial Haplo-BM transplantations, 5-year survival was higher after non-trial Haplo-BM compared to trial two-unit UCB (47% versus 36%, p=0.012). Non-trial patients who received Haplo-PB transplantation had higher 5-year survival (54%) compared to trial (HR 0.76, p=0.044) and non-trial (HR 0.78, p=0.026) Haplo-BM. Similarly, survival was higher after Haplo-PB compared to trial (HR 0.57, p<0.0001) and non-trial UCB (HR 0.63, p=0.0002). CONCLUSION When considering alternative donor low intensity conditioning regimen transplantation, a haploidentical relative is preferred. Further, PB is the preferred graft.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients enrolled on the BMT CTN 1101 trial (n=337), and non-trial patients identified from the CIBMTR database (n=956), who met the criteria for BMT CTN 11001 but were not enrolled (total n=1293)
Intervention
two umbilical cord blood (UCB) units (trial: n=183, non-trial: n=195; total n=378)
Comparison
HLA-haploidentical relative bone marrow (Haplo-BM, trial: n=154, non-trial: n=358; total n=512); Non-trial cohort undergoing peripheral blood haploidentical transplant (Haplo-PB, n=403)
Outcome
With longer follow up of the trial cohorts, 5-year PFS (37% versus 29%, p=0.08) and overall survival (42% versus 36%) were not significantly different between treatment groups. We then compared the trial results to comparable real-world transplantations. Five-year overall survival after trial and non-trial two-unit UCB (36% versus 41%) and trial and non-trial Haplo-BM (42% versus 47%) transplantation were not different confirming generalizability. The randomized trial did not accrue as planned and therefore lacked the statistical power to detect a 15% difference in progression-free survival. With substantially larger numbers of non-trial Haplo-BM transplantations, 5-year survival was higher after non-trial Haplo-BM compared to trial two-unit UCB (47% versus 36%). Non-trial patients who received Haplo-PB transplantation had higher 5-year survival (54%) compared to trial (HR 0.76) and non-trial (HR 0.78) Haplo-BM. Similarly, survival was higher after Haplo-PB compared to trial (HR 0.57) and non-trial UCB (HR 0.63).
-
2.
Double unrelated umbilical cord blood vs HLA-haploidentical bone marrow transplantation: the BMT CTN 1101 trial
Fuchs, E. J., O'Donnell, P. V., Eapen, M., Logan, B., Antin, J. H., Dawson, P., Devine, S., Horowitz, M. M., Horwitz, M. E., Karanes, C., et al
Blood. 2021;137(3):420-428
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Results of 2 parallel phase 2 trials of transplantation of unrelated umbilical cord blood (UCB) or bone marrow (BM) from HLA-haploidentical relatives provided equipoise for direct comparison of these donor sources. Between June 2012 and June 2018, 368 patients aged 18 to 70 years with chemotherapy-sensitive lymphoma or acute leukemia in remission were randomly assigned to undergo UCB (n = 186) or haploidentical (n = 182) transplant. Reduced-intensity conditioning comprised total-body irradiation with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine for both donor types. Graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis for UCB transplantation was cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and for haploidentical transplantation, posttransplant cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, and MMF. The primary end point was 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Treatment groups had similar age, sex, self-reported ethnic origin, performance status, disease, and disease status at randomization. Two-year PFS was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28% to 42%) compared with 41% (95% CI, 34% to 48%) after UCB and haploidentical transplants, respectively (P = .41). Prespecified analysis of secondary end points recorded higher 2-year nonrelapse mortality after UCB, 18% (95% CI, 13% to 24%), compared with haploidentical transplantation, 11% (95% CI, 6% to 16%), P = .04. This led to lower 2-year overall survival (OS) after UCB compared with haploidentical transplantation, 46% (95% CI, 38-53) and 57% (95% CI 49% to 64%), respectively (P = .04). The trial did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the primary end point, 2-year PFS, between the donor sources. Although both donor sources extend access to reduced-intensity transplantation, analyses of secondary end points, including OS, favor haploidentical BM donors. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01597778.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients aged 18 to 70 years with chemotherapy-sensitive lymphoma or acute leukaemia in remission (n=368)
Intervention
Cord blood transplantation (UCB, n=186)
Comparison
Haploidentical transplantation (n=182)
Outcome
Two-year PFS was 35% after UCB compared with 41% haploidentical transplant. Prespecified analysis of secondary end points recorded higher 2-year nonrelapse mortality after UCB: 18%, compared with 11% for haploidentical transplantation. This led to lower 2-year overall survival (OS) after UCB compared with haploidentical transplantation, 46% and 57%, respectively. The trial did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the primary end point, 2-year PFS, between the donor sources.
-
3.
Randomized Phase III BMT CTN Trial of Calcineurin Inhibitor-Free Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease Interventions in Myeloablative Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Hematologic Malignancies
Luznik, L., Pasquini, M. C., Logan, B., Soiffer, R. J., Wu, J., Devine, S. M., Geller, N., Giralt, S., Heslop, H. E., Horowitz, M. M., et al
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2021;:Jco2102293
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
PURPOSE Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) are standard components of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Prior data suggested that CNI-free approaches using donor T-cell depletion, either by ex vivo CD34 selection or in vivo post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as a single agent, are associated with lower rates of chronic GVHD (cGVHD). METHODS This multicenter phase III trial randomly assigned patients with acute leukemia or myelodysplasia and an HLA-matched donor to receive CD34-selected peripheral blood stem cell, PTCy after a bone marrow (BM) graft, or tacrolimus and methotrexate after BM graft (control). The primary end point was cGVHD (moderate or severe) or relapse-free survival (CRFS). RESULTS Among 346 patients enrolled, 327 received HCT, 300 per protocol. Intent-to-treat rates of 2-year CRFS were 50.6% for CD34 selection (hazard ratio [HR] compared with control, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.15; P = .24), 48.1% for PTCy (HR, 0.86; 0.61 to 1.23; P = .41), and 41.0% for control. Corresponding rates of overall survival were 60.1% (HR, 1.74; 1.09 to 2.80; P = .02), 76.2% (HR, 1.02; 0.60 to 1.72; P = .95), and 76.1%. CD34 selection was associated with lower moderate to severe cGVHD (HR, 0.25; 0.12 to 0.52; P = .02) but higher transplant-related mortality (HR, 2.76; 1.26 to 6.06; P = .01). PTCy was associated with comparable cGVHD and survival outcomes to control, and a trend toward lower disease relapse (HR, 0.52; 0.28 to 0.96; P = .037). CONCLUSION CNI-free interventions as performed herein did not result in superior CRFS compared with tacrolimus and methotrexate with BM. Lower rates of moderate and severe cGVHD did not translate into improved survival.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients 65 years and under with acute leukaemia or myelodysplasia undergoing matched donor allogeneic HSCT at 26 centres in the USA (n=346)
Intervention
CD34 selected graft (n=114) or Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy, n=114)
Comparison
Tacrolimus and methotrexate (Control, n=118)
Outcome
Among 346 patients enrolled, 327 received HCT, 300 per protocol. Intent-to-treat rates of 2-year CRFS were 50.6% for CD34 selection (hazard ratio [HR] compared with control, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.15), 48.1% for PTCy (HR, 0.86; 0.61 to 1.23), and 41.0% for control. Corresponding rates of overall survival were 60.1% (HR, 1.74; 1.09 to 2.80), 76.2% (HR, 1.02; 0.60 to 1.72), and 76.1%. CD34 selection was associated with lower moderate to severe cGVHD (HR, 0.25; 0.12 to 0.52) but higher transplant-related mortality (HR, 2.76; 1.26 to 6.06). PTCy was associated with comparable cGVHD and survival outcomes to control, and a trend toward lower disease relapse (HR, 0.52; 0.28 to 0.96)
-
4.
Double unrelated umbilical cord blood versus HLA-haploidentical bone marrow transplantation (BMT CTN 1101)
Fuchs, E. J., O'Donnell, P. V., Eapen, M., Logan, B. R., Antin, J. H., Dawson, P., Devine, S. M., Horowitz, M. M., Horwitz, M. E., Karanes, C., et al
Blood. 2020
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Results of two parallel phase II trials of transplantation of unrelated umbilical cord blood or bone marrow from HLA-haploidentical relatives provided equipoise for direct comparison of these donor sources. Between June 2012 and June 2018, 368 patients aged 18-70 years with chemotherapy-sensitive lymphoma or acute leukemia in remission were randomly assigned to undergo cord blood (n=186) or haploidentical (n=182) transplant. Reduced intensity conditioning comprised total body irradiation with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine for both donor types. Graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis for cord blood transplantation was cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil and for haploidentical transplantation, post-transplant cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. The primary endpoint was 2-year progression-free survival. Treatment groups had similar age, sex, self-reported ethnic origin, performance status, disease and disease status at randomization. Two-year progression-free survival was 35% (95% CI, 28-42%) compared to 41% (95% CI, 34-48%) after cord blood and haploidentical transplants, respectively (p=0.41). Pre-specified analysis of secondary endpoints recorded higher 2-year non-relapse mortality after cord blood, 18% (95% CI, 13-24%) compared to haploidentical transplantation, 11% (95% CI, 6-16%), p=0.04. This led to lower 2-year overall survival after cord blood compared to haploidentical transplantation, 46% (95% CI, 38-53) and 57% (95% CI 49-64%), respectively (p=0.04). The trial did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, 2-year progression-free survival, between the donor sources. While both donor sources extend access to reduced intensity transplantation, analyses of secondary endpoints, including overall survival, favor haploidentical bone marrow donors. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597778).
Clinical Commentary
Dr. Julia Wolf, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
What is known?
Allogeneic stem cell transplant is a potentially curative treatment option for patients with poor risk or relapsed acute leukaemia or lymphoma. Transplant outcomes are, amongst other factors, dependent on optimal donor selection; despite recent advances, donor availability remains an area of unmet need for many patients. Fully HLA matched sibling donors are the preferred choice but are available in <30% of patients, while fully matched unrelated donor (MUD) transplants are available in <20% of non-Caucasian patients. For patients who lack a HLA matched donor, alternative stem cell sources include double umbilical cord transplant (DUCT) and haploidentical haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HaploSCT). DUCT is associated with low immunogenicity and non-invasive harvesting, but utility is limited by lack of further cell availability, e.g. for donor lymphocyte infusions, as well as cost. A small (n = 45) randomised trial (Sanz, J. et al, 2020) comparing DUCT and HaploSCT in the myeloablative setting showed increased non-relapse mortality in the DUCT group but no significant difference in terms of relapse rates or overall survival (OS). While other data is extensive it is often registry based and retrospective. Prospective data in the reduced intensity setting is limited.
What did this paper set out to examine?
This randomised multi-centre phase III trial set in the United States is the first randomised trial to compare DUCT and HaploSCT for the treatment of leukaemia and lymphoma in adults in the setting of reduced intensity conditioning. It aims to compare the two donor sources in terms of 2-year progression free survival (PFS) as primary endpoint and engraftment, acute and chronic Graft versus Host Disease (GvHD), non-relapse mortality, relapse/progression and OS as secondary endpoints.
What did they show?
The authors compared data from 368 patients (DUCT = 186 vs HaploSCT = 182) enrolled from 33 centres over a 6-year period from 2012 to 2016. The cohort represents 90% of the planned accrual of 410 patients – the trial closed early due to slow accrual. Patients aged 18-70 years with high risk acute leukaemia and lymphoma with good performance score, adequate organ function and available haploidentical donor or double umbilical cord unit were included. Exclusion criteria were fairly selected. Patients were well matched in terms of age, sex, self-reported ethnic origin, performance status, disease and disease status at randomisation. Reduced intensity conditioning comprised cyclophosphamide and fludarabine with total body irradiation for both donor types. GvHD prophylaxis for cord blood transplantation was cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and PtCy, tacrolimus and MMF for HaploSCT.
RESULTS: DUCT and HaploSCT were comparable for the primary endpoint of 2-year PFS (35% vs 41%; p=0.41). Analysis of secondary endpoints reached statistical significance for some of the chosen parameters: DUCT was associated with higher 2-year non-relapse mortality (18% vs 11%; p=0.04) and lower OS (46% vs 57%; p=0.04). Death was most commonly attributed to recurrent disease and relapse rates were comparable in both groups (47% in DUCT vs 48% in HaploSCT; p=0.968). HaploSCT showed higher cumulative incidence of neutrophil recovery at day 56 while no difference was seen in platelet recovery. Similar rates of acute and chronic GvHD were observed.
What are the implications for practice and for future work?
While this study didn’t demonstrate a significant difference in its’ primary end point, it showed an OS benefit and lower non-relapse mortality in the HaploSCT arm. Higher non-relapse mortality associated with DUCT may be explained by lack of immunologic memory and associated higher rates of infection, especially in the early post-transplant period. A recent meta-analysis (Poonsombudlert, et al. 2019) concurs that HaploSCT is associated with improved OS but also demonstrated lower relapse rates, lower rates of acute GvHD and higher rates of chronic GvHD in HaploSCT compared with DUCT. These findings were not replicated in this study. Lower non-relapse mortality and improved OS were also reported in a retrospective study of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (Kosuri, S. et al, 2017) which also demonstrated improved 4-year PFS in HaploSCT compared with DUCT.
While both donor sources improve access to reduced intensity transplantation, improved overall survival and lower non-relapse mortality with comparable GvHD rates shown in this study make HaploSCT an increasingly attractive option for patients without matched sibling transplant.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients aged 18-70 years with chemotherapy-sensitive lymphoma or acute leukaemia in remission (n=368)
Intervention
Cord blood transplantation (n=186)
Comparison
Haploidentical transplantation (n=182)
Outcome
Two-year progression-free survival was 35% compared to 41% after cord blood and haploidentical transplants, respectively. Pre-specified analysis of secondary endpoints recorded higher 2-year non-relapse mortality after cord blood, 18% compared to haploidentical transplantation, 11%. This led to lower 2-year overall survival after cord blood compared to haploidentical transplantation, 46% and 57%, respectively. The trial did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, 2-year progression-free survival, between the donor sources.
-
5.
Three prophylaxis regimens (tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide; tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; or tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc) versus tacrolimus and methotrexate for prevention of graft-versus-host disease with haemopoietic cell transplantation with reduced-intensity conditioning: a randomised phase 2 trial with a non-randomised contemporaneous control group (BMT CTN 1203)
Bolanos-Meade, J., Reshef, R., Fraser, R., Fei, M., Abhyankar, S., Al-Kadhimi, Z., Alousi, A. M., Antin, J. H., Arai, S., Bickett, K., et al
The Lancet. Haematology. 2019;6(3):e132-e143
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prevention of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) without malignant relapse is the overall goal of allogeneic haemopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We aimed to evaluate regimens using either maraviroc, bortezomib, or post-transplantation cyclophosphamide for GvHD prophylaxis compared with controls receiving the combination of tacrolimus and methotrexate using a novel composite primary endpoint to identify the most promising intervention to be further tested in a phase 3 trial. METHODS In this prospective multicentre phase 2 trial, adult patients aged 18-75 years who received reduced-intensity conditioning HCT were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by random block sizes to tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg on days 3 and 4, followed by tacrolimus starting on day 5 and mycophenolate mofetil starting on day 5 at 15 mg/kg three times daily not to exceed 1 g from day 5 to day 35); tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 4, and 7 after HCT); or tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc (maraviroc 300 mg orally twice daily from day -3 to day 30 after HCT). Methotrexate was administered as a 15 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus on day 1 and 10 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus on days 3, 6, and 11 after HCT; tacrolimus was given intravenously at a dose of 0.05 mg/kg twice daily (or oral equivalent) starting on day -3 (except the post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, as indicated), with a target level of 5-15 ng/mL. Tacrolimus was continued at least until day 90 and was tapered off by day 180. Each study group was compared separately to a contemporary non-randomised prospective cohort of patients (control group) who fulfilled the same eligibility criteria as the trial, but who were treated with tacrolimus and methotrexate at centres not participating in the trial. The primary endpoint (GvHD-free, relapse-free survival [GRFS]) was defined as the time from HCT to onset of grade 3-4 acute GvHD, chronic GvHD requiring systemic immunosuppression, disease relapse, or death. The study was analysed by modified intention to treat. The study is closed to accrual and this is the planned analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02208037. FINDINGS Between Nov 17, 2014, and May 18, 2016, 273 patients from 31 US centres were randomly assigned to the three study arms: 89 to tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; 92 to tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc; 92 to tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; and six were excluded. Between Aug 1, 2014, and Sept 14, 2016, 224 controls received tacrolimus and methotrexate. Controls were generally well matched except for more frequent comorbidities than the intervention groups and a different distribution of types of conditioning regimens used. Compared with controls, the hazard ratio for GRFS was 0.72 (90% CI 0.54-0.94; p=0.044) for tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, 0.98 (0.76-1.27; p=0.92) for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib, and 1.10 (0.86-1.41; p=0.49) for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc. 238 patients experienced grade 3 or 4 toxicities: 12 (13%) had grade 3 and 67 (73%) grade 4 events with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; ten (11%) had grade 3 and 68 (76%) had grade 4 events with tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; and 18 (20%) had grade 3 and 63 (68%) had grade 4 events with tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc. The most common toxicities were haematological (77 [84%] for tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; 73 [82%] for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; and 78 [85%] for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc) and cardiac (43 [47%], 44 [49%], and 43 [47%], respectively). INTERPRETATION Tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide was the most promising intervention, yielding the best GRFS; this regimen is thus being prospectively compared with tacrolimus and methotrexate in a phase 3 randomised trial. FUNDING US National Health, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Cancer Institute; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.
PICO Summary
Population
Adults aged 18-75 who received reduced-intensity conditioning HCT
Intervention
3 arms, assigned randomly: 1) tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; 2) tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; or 3) tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc.
Comparison
Control group who fulfilled the same eligibility criteria as the trial, but who were treated with tacrolimus and methotrexate at centres not participating in the trial.
Outcome
Tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide was the most promising intervention, yielding the best GRFS. Compared with controls, the hazard ratio for GRFS was 0.72 for tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, 0.98 for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib, and 1.10 for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc.