1.
Allogeneic Transplantation after Myeloablative Rituximab/BEAM +/- Bortezomib for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Lymphoid Malignancies: 5-Year Follow-up Results
Chamoun, K., Milton, D. R., Ledesma, C., Young, K. H., Jabbour, E. J., Alatrash, G., Anderlini, P., Bashir, Q., Ciurea, S. O., Marin, D., et al
Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2019
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Although bortezomib and rituximab have synergistic activity in patients with lymphoma, and can both attenuate graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), the drugs have not been used together in patients undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (alloSCT). In this phase 1/2 trial, we assessed the safety and activity of bortezomib added to the rituximab (R) plus BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) regimen in patients with relapsed lymphoma undergoing alloSCT. Primary GVHD prophylaxis consisted of tacrolimus and methotrexate. Bortezomib (1 - 1.3 mg/m(2) per dose) was administered intravenously on days -13, -6, -1, and +2. We performed inverse probability weighting analysis to compare GVHD and survival results to a historical control group that received R-BEAM without bortezomib. Thirty-nine patients were assessable for toxic effects and response. The median age was 54 years. The most common diagnosis was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (41%). Twenty-two patients (56%) and 17 patients (44%) received their transplants from matched related and unrelated matched donors, respectively. The maximum tolerated bortezomib dose was 1 mg/m(2). The weighted cumulative incidences of grade II-IV and grade III or IV acute GVHD were 50% and 34%, respectively; these incidences and survival rates were not significantly different from those of the control group. Median survival has not been reached in patients age ≤50 years and who had a long follow-up time of 60.7 months. The R-BEAM regimen has a survival benefit in lymphoma patients age ≤50 years undergoing alloSCT. The addition of bortezomib has no impact on survival or incidence of GVHD.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with relapsed lymphoma undergoing allo-SCT
Intervention
Bortezomib added to the rituximab plus BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) regimen (n=39)
Comparison
Historical control group that received R-BEAM without bortezomib.
Outcome
The R-BEAM regimen has a survival benefit in lymphoma patients age </=50 years undergoing alloSCT. The addition of bortezomib has no impact on survival or incidence of GVHD.
2.
Clofarabine Plus Busulfan is an Effective Conditioning Regimen for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Long-Term Study Results
Kebriaei, P., Bassett, R., Lyons, G., Valdez, B., Ledesma, C., Rondon, G., Oran, B., Ciurea, S., Alousi, A., Popat, U., et al
Biology of Blood & Marrow Transplantation. 2017;23(2):285-292
Abstract
We investigated the long-term safety and disease control data obtained with i.v. busulfan (Bu) combined with clofarabine (Clo) in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). A total of 107 patients, median age 38 years (range, 19 to 64 years) received a matched sibling donor (n=52) or matched unrelated donor (n=55) transplant for ALL in first complete remission (n=62), second complete remission (n=28), or more advanced disease (n=17). Nearly one-half of the patients had a high-risk cytogenetic profile as defined by the presence of t(9;22) (n=34), t(4;11) (n=4), or complex cytogenetics (n=7). Clo 40mg/m2 was given once daily, with each dose followed by pharmacokinetically dosed Bu infused over 3 hours daily for 4 days, followed by hematopoietic cell infusion after 2 days of rest. The Bu dose was based on the drug clearance as determined by a test Bu dose of 32mg/m2. The target daily area under the curve was 5500 micro mol/min for patients aged <60 years and 4000 micro mol/min for patients aged >59 years. With a median follow-up of 3.3 years among surviving patients (range, 1 to 5.8 years), the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) for patients undergoing HSCT in first complete remission (CR1), second complete remission (CR2), or more advanced disease was 62%, 34%, and 35%, respectively. The regimen was well tolerated, with nonrelapse mortality (NRM) of 10% at 100 days and 31% at 2 years post-HSCT. The incidence of grade II-IV and III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was 35% and 10%, respectively; 18% patients developed extensive chronic GVHD. The 2-year overall survival (OS) for patients undergoing HSCT in CR1, CR2, or more advanced disease was 70%, 57%, and 35%, respectively. Among 11 patients aged >59 years treated with reduced-dose Bu in CR1 (n=7) or CR2 (n=4), 4 remain alive and disease-free, with a median follow-up of 2.6 years (range, 2 to 4.7 years). Only the presence of minimal residual disease at the time of transplantation was associated with significantly worse PFS and OS in multivariate analysis. Our data indicate that the Clo-Bu combination provides effective disease control while maintaining a favorable safety profile. OS and NRM rates compare favorably with those for traditional myeloablative total body irradiation-based conditioning regimens. Copyright © 2017 The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
3.
Fludarabine with pharmacokinetically guided IV busulfan is superior to fixed-dose delivery in pretransplant conditioning of AML/MDS patients
Andersson, B. S., Thall, P. F., Valdez, B. C., Milton, D. R., Al-Atrash, G., Chen, J., Gulbis, A., Chu, D., Martinez, C., Parmar, S., et al
Bone Marrow Transplantation. 2017;52(4):580-587
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
We hypothesized that IV busulfan (Bu) dosing could be safely intensified through pharmacokinetic (PK-) dose guidance to minimize the inter-patient variability in systemic exposure (SE) associated with body-sized dosing, and that this should improve outcome of AML/MDS patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. To test this hypothesis, we treated 218 patients (median age 50.7 years, male/female 50/50%) with fludarabine 40mg/m2 once daily x4, each dose followed by IV Bu, randomized to 130mg/m2 (N=107) or PK-guided to average daily SE, AUC of 6000muMmin (N=111), stratified for remission status and allo-grafting from HLA-matched donors. Toxicity and GvHD rates in the groups were similar; the risk of relapse or treatment-related mortality remained higher in the fixed-dose group throughout the 80-month observation period. Further, PK-guidance yielded safer disease control, leading to improved overall and PFS, most prominently in MDS patients and in AML patients not in remission at allogeneic stem cell transplantation. We conclude that AML/MDS patients receiving pretransplant conditioning treatment with our 4-day regimen may benefit significantly from PK-guided Bu dosing. This could be considered an alternative to fixed-dose delivery since it provides the benefit of precise dose delivery to a predetermined SE without increasing risk(s) of serious toxicity and/or GvHD.
4.
High-dose gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan for autologous stem-cell transplant in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma: a phase 2 trial and matched-pair comparison with melphalan
Nieto, Y., Valdez, B. C., Pingali, S. R., Bassett, R., Delgado, R., Nguyen, J., Shah, N., Popat, U., Jones, R. B., Andersson, B. S., et al
The Lancet Haematology. 2017;4(6):e283-e292
Abstract
BACKGROUND High-dose melphalan is of little benefit as a regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma undergoing an autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT). The poor performance of single-agent melphalan in this setting prompted us to study a new high-dose combination of infused gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan. METHODS We did a phase 2 trial at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). We enrolled patients with primary refractory or relapsed myeloma who had received treatment with bortezomib, an immunomodulatory drug, or both, or who were receiving a salvage ASCT. Gemcitabine was infused at 1875 mg/m2 for 3 h for 2 days, followed by busulfan (target area under the curve 4000 mumol/L per min per day for 4 days) and melphalan (60 mg/m2 per day for 2 days). The primary endpoint of this trial was to establish the proportion of patients with measurable disease at ASCT receiving gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan who achieved stringent complete remission in accordance with the International Myeloma Working Group criteria. We then retrospectively compared the patients in this study with all other concurrent patients at the MD Anderson Cancer Center who were eligible for this trial but declined to participate or had no financial coverage for ASCT in a clinical trial and instead received melphalan at 200 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 min on 1 day, followed by ASCT (control group). To compare survival outcomes, we used a statistical algorithm to select a subset of patients from this control cohort who were matched in a 1-2:1 ratio with the patients in the gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan group by sex, age, disease status, refractory to both proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory imide drugs, time from diagnosis to ASCT, and cytogenetic risk. All analyses were per protocol. This is the final analysis of the clinical trial, which is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01237951. FINDINGS Between Nov 30, 2010, and Dec 11, 2013, we enrolled 74 patients into the gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan trial. In these patients, median age was 58 years (IQR 51-62), median number of previous lines of therapy was two (2-5), 38 patients had high-risk cytogenetics, 17 were unresponsive to all previous treatments, and 32 were receiving a salvage ASCT. We identified 184 patients for the concurrent control cohort. The study patients and the concurrent controls received similar post-ASCT maintenance. Among patients with measurable disease at ASCT, 16 of 65 patients (24.6%, 95% CI 14.2-35.0) in the gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan group had stringent complete remission compared with 22 of 174 patients (12.6%, 10.1-15.1) in the concurrent control group (p=0.040). Median follow-up time was 36 months (IQR 30-46) in the patients receiving gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan and 34 months (25-53) in the matched control subset (n=111). With respect to the secondary survival endpoints, the gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan cohort had significantly longer median progression-free survival than the matched control cohort (15.1 months [95% CI 8.7-22.1] vs 9.3 months [8.0-10.7]) with a significantly reduced risk of progression or death (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81, log-rank p=0.030), as well as significantly longer median overall survival (37.5 months [26-not reached] vs 23.0 months [16.6-30.5]) and a lower risk of death (HR 0.60, 0.34-0.84, log-rank p=0.0092). For only the patients treated with gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan, grade 3 or worse adverse events included grade 3 mucositis (12 patients), grade 3 dermatitis (five patients), grade 3 aminotransferase elevation (seven patients), grade 3 diarrhoea (two patients), and three treatment-related deaths. One death was cardiac sudden death and two were due to sepsis. INTERPRETATION Gemcitabine, busulfan, and melphalan is a comparatively safe and active regimen for ASCT in patients with refractory or relapsed myeloma. Better outcomes were achieved in patients who received this regimen than in a concurrent matched cohort receiving melphalan, although this will need to be confirmed in a prospective, randomised trial. FUNDING Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and US National Cancer Institute.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.