1.
Maintenance Therapies for Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas After Autologous Transplantation: A Consensus Project of ASBMT, CIBMTR, and the Lymphoma Working Party of EBMT
Kanate, A. S., Kumar, A., Dreger, P., Dreyling, M., Le Gouill, S., Corradini, P., Bredeson, C., Fenske, T. S., Smith, S. M., Sureda, A., et al
JAMA oncology. 2019
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Importance: Maintenance therapies are often considered as a therapeutic strategy in patients with lymphoma following autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) to mitigate the risk of disease relapse. With an evolving therapeutic landscape, where novel drugs are moving earlier in therapy lines, evidence relevant to contemporary practice is increasingly limited. The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT), Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), and European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) jointly convened an expert panel with diverse expertise and geographical representation to formulate consensus recommendations regarding the use of maintenance and/or consolidation therapies after auto-HCT in patients with lymphoma. Observations: The RAND-modified Delphi method was used to generate consensus statements where at least 75% vote in favor of a recommendation was considered as consensus. The process included 3 online surveys moderated by an independent methodological expert to ensure anonymity and an in-person meeting. The panel recommended restricting the histologic categories covered in this project to Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and follicular lymphoma. On completion of the voting process, the panel generated 22 consensus statements regarding post auto-HCT maintenance and/or consolidation therapies. The grade A recommendations included endorsement of: (1) brentuximab vedotin (BV) maintenance and/or consolidation in BV-naive high-risk HL, (2) rituximab maintenance in MCL undergoing auto-HCT after first-line therapy, (3) rituximab maintenance in rituximab-naive FL, and (4) No post auto-HCT maintenance was recommended in DLBCL. The panel also developed consensus statements for important real-world clinical scenarios, where randomized data are lacking to guide clinical practice. Conclusions and Relevance: In the absence of contemporary evidence-based data, the panel found RAND-modified Delphi methodology effective in providing a rigorous framework for developing consensus recommendations for post auto-HCT maintenance and/or consolidation therapies in lymphoma.
2.
Maintenance tyrosine kinase inhibitors following allo-HCT for chronic myeloid leukemia: A CIBMTR Study
DeFilipp, Z., Ancheta, R., Liu, Y., Hu, Z. H., Gale, R. P., Snyder, D., Schouten, H. C., Kalaycio, M., Hildebrandt, G. C., Ustun, C., 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
It remains unknown whether the administration of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting BCR-ABL1 after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is associated with improved outcomes for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). In this registry study, we analyzed clinical outcomes of 390 adult patients with CML transplanted from 2007-2014 who received maintenance TKI following HCT (n=89) as compared to no TKI maintenance (n=301), as reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. All patients received TKI therapy prior to HCT. The majority of patients had disease beyond CP1 at HCT (n=240, 62%). The study was conducted as a landmark analysis, excluding patients that died, relapsed, had chronic graft-versus-host disease or were censored prior to Day 100 following HCT. Of the 89 patients receiving TKI maintenance, 77 (87%) received a single TKI while 12 (13%) received multiple sequential TKIs. The most common TKIs used for maintenance were dasatinib (n=50), imatinib (n=27) and nilotinib (n=27). As measured from Day 100, the adjusted estimates for 5-year relapse (maintenance, 35% vs. no maintenance, 26%; p=0.11), leukemia-free survival (LFS, maintenance, 42% vs. no maintenance, 44%; p=0.65) or overall survival (OS, maintenance, 61% vs. no maintenance, 57%; p=0.61) did not significantly differ between patients receiving TKI maintenance or no maintenance. These results remained unchanged in multivariate analysis and were not modified by the status of disease prior to transplant. In conclusion, our data did not demonstrate a significant impact of maintenance TKI therapy on clinical outcomes in a Day 100 landmark analysis. The optimal approach to TKI administration in the post-transplant setting in CML remains undetermined.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult patients with CML transplanted from 2007-2014 (n=390)
Intervention
Maintenance TKI following HCT (n=89)
Comparison
no TKI maintenance (n=301)
Outcome
As measured from day +100, the adjusted estimates for 5-year relapse (maintenance, 35% versus no maintenance, 26%), leukemia-free survival (maintenance, 42% versus no maintenance, 44%; ) or overall survival (maintenance, 61% versus no maintenance, 57%; ) did not differ significantly between patients receiving TKI maintenance or no maintenance. These results remained unchanged in multivariate analysis and were not modified by disease status before transplantation.
3.
Lenalidomide vs bortezomib maintenance choice post-autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma
Huang, J., Phillips, S., Byrne, M., Chinratanalab, W., Engelhardt, B. G., Goodman, S. A., Harrell, S. L., Jagasia, M., Kassim, A., Rawling, K. T., et al
Bone marrow transplantation. 2018;53(6):701-707
Abstract
Maintenance therapy post-autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) with either lenalidomide or bortezomib for multiple myeloma (MM) have separately been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS), but have never been directly compared. We performed a retrospective study to investigate progression-free and overall survival outcomes and toxicities of lenalidomide maintenance therapy compared with bortezomib maintenance in MM patients post-AHCT. This study included 156 patients who received post-AHCT lenalidomide or bortezomib maintenance therapy for MM. The primary outcome was PFS. Ninety-two patients received lenalidomide maintenance and 64 received bortezomib maintenance post-AHCT. By multivariable analysis, maintenance therapy choice and cytogenetics risk did not impact PFS or OS. Staging by International Staging System and pre-maintenance disease response were the greatest predictors for PFS. Treatment-related toxicities were as anticipated with 5.4% of patients receiving maintenance lenalidomide experiencing secondary primary malignancies (SPMs) compared with 3% for bortezomib. These findings suggest there were no differences in PFS or OS between lenalidomide and bortezomib maintenance therapy options for post-transplantation MM patients. These data should be validated in a larger, prospective cohort to determine if maintenance choice should be guided by side effect profile and patient anticipated tolerance rather than by disease biology alone.