Abstract

Steroids remain the initial therapy for acute graft-vs.-host disease (AGVHD). Strategies to improve response and minimize steroid exposure are needed. We report results of a randomized, adaptive, Bayesian-designed, phase II trial of prednisone with or without extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) as an initial therapy for patients with newly diagnosed AGVHD. The primary endpoint was success at day 56 defined as: alive, in remission, achieving AGVHD response without additional therapy, and on <1?mg/kg at day 28 and <0.5?mg/kg on day 56 of steroids. Eighty-one patients were randomized to the ECP arm (n?=?51) or steroids alone (n?=?30). Median age was 54 years (range: 17-75); 90% had grade II AGVHD and 10% had grades III and IV AGVHD, with skin (85%), upper (22%)/lower (22%) gastrointestinal, and liver (10%) involvement. The ECP arm had a higher probability of success (0.815) and exceeded the predefined threshold for determining the investigational arm promising. ECP was potentially more beneficial than steroids-alone in skin-only AGVHD (response rate: 72% vs. 57%, respectively) than for visceral-organ AGVHD (47% vs. 43%, respectively). The addition of ECP to steroids may result in higher GVHD response as initial therapy for AGVHD, especially for patients with skin-only involvement.

Abstract

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of azacitidine maintenance in the posttransplant setting based on the encouraging phase 1/2 reports for azacitidine maintenance in patients with acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS). Between 2009 and 2017, a total of 187 patients aged 18 to 75 years were entered into a randomized controlled study of posttransplant azacitidine if they were in complete remission. Patients randomized to the treatment arm (n = 93) were scheduled to receive azacitidine, given as 32 mg/m2 per day subcutaneously for 5 days every 28 days for 12 cycles. The control arm (n = 94) had no intervention. Eighty-seven of the 93 patients started azacitidine maintenance. The median number of cycles received was 4; a total of 29 patients relapsed on study, and 23 patients withdrew from the study due to toxicity, patient's preference, or logistical reasons. Median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 2.07 years in the azacitidine group vs 1.28 years in the control group (P = .19). There was also no significant difference for overall survival, with a median of 2.52 years vs 3.56 years in the azacitidine and control groups (P = .43), respectively. Cox regression analysis revealed no improvement in RFS or overall survival with the use of azacitidine as maintenance compared with the control group (hazard ratios of 0.86 [95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.3; P = .43] and 0.84 [95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.29; P = .43]). This randomized trial with azacitidine maintenance showed that a prospective trial in the posttransplant setting was feasible and safe but challenging. Although RFS was comparable between the 2 arms, we believe the strategy of maintenance therapy merits further study with a goal to reduce the risk of relapse in patients with AML/MDS. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00887068.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Optimal conditioning regimen for older patients with myelofibrosis undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is not known. Likewise, role of dose intensity is not clear. METHODS We conducted a non-randomized prospective phase II trial using low-dose, later escalated to high-dose (MAC) busulfan with fludarabine (Bu-Flu) in myelofibrosis patients up to 74 years. First 15 patients received intravenous busulfan 130 mg/m(2)/day on days -3 and -2 ("low dose"); 31 received high dose - either 100 mg/m(2)/day (days -5 to -2; n=4) or pharmacokinetic-guided area under the curve of 4,000 mumol.min (days -5 to -2; n=27). Primary endpoint was day 100 non-relapse mortality (NRM). FINDINGS Median age was 58 years (interquartile range (IQR) 53-63). Dynamic international prognostic scoring system (DIPSS)-plus was intermediate (n=28) or high (n=18). Donors were related (n=19) or unrelated (n=27). Cumulative incidence of NRM was 9.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0-20.3) at day 100 and at 3 years in the high dose, while it was 0% in the low dose group at day 100, and increased to 20% (95% CI 0-41.9) at 3 years. With a median follow up of 5.1 years (IQR 3.8-6), 3-year relapse was 32.3% (95% CI 15.4-49.1) in high dose versus 53.3% (95% CI 26.6-80.1) in low dose; event-free survival was 58% (95% CI 43-78%) versus 27% (95% CI 12-62%), and overall survival was 74% (95% CI 60-91%) versus 60% (95% CI 40-91%) respectively. In multivariate analysis, high dose busulfan had a trend towards lower relapse (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% CI, 0.18-1.07, p=0.07), with no impact on NRM. INTERPRETATION Intensifying Bu-Flu regimen using pharmacokinetic-monitoring appears promising in reducing relapse without increasing non-relapse mortality. FUNDING The study was supported partly by Otsuka pharmaceutical and partly by the Cancer Center Support Grant (NCI Grant P30 CA016672).

Abstract

BACKGROUND BK polymavirus (BKPyV), a member of the family Polyomaviridae, is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients. METHODS In our previous retrospective study of 2477 stem cell transplant patients, BKPyV replication independently predicted chronic kidney disease and poor survival. In this study, using the same cohort, we derived and validated a risk grading system to identify patients at risk of BKPyV replication after transplantation in a user-friendly modality. We used 3 baseline variables (conditioning regimen, HLA match status, and underlying cancer diagnosis) that significantly predicted BKPyV replication in our initial study in a subdistribution hazard model with death as a competing risk. We also developed a nomogram of the hazard model as a visual aid. The AUC of the ROC of the risk-score-only model was 0.65. We further stratified the patients on the basis of risk score into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups. RESULTS The total risk score was significantly associated with BKPyV replication (P < .0001). At 30 days after transplantation, the low-risk (score ≤ 0) patients had a 9% chance of developing symptomatic BKPyV replication, while the high-risk (score ≥ 8) of the population had 56% of developing BKPyV replication. We validated the risk score using a separate cohort of 1478 patients. The AUC of the ROC of the risk-score-only model was 0.59. Both the total risk score and 3-level risk variable were significantly associated with BKPyV replication in this cohort (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS This grading system for the risk of symptomatic BKPyV replication may help in early monitoring and intervention to prevent BKPyV-associated morbidity, mortality, and kidney-function decline.

Abstract

Haploidentical donors are increasingly used for patients requiring hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Although several factors have been associated with transplant outcomes, the impact of HLA disparity in haploidentical HSCT (haplo-HSCT) remains unclear. We investigated the impact of HLA disparity quantified by mismatched eplets (ME) load of each HLA locus on the clinical outcome of 278 consecutive haploidentical transplants. Here, we demonstrated that the degree of HLA molecular mismatches, at individual HLA loci, may be relevant to clinical outcome in the haplo-HSCT. A significantly better overall survival was associated with higher ME load from HLA-A (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-0.99; P = .003) and class I loci (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P = .045) in the host-versus-graft direction. The apparent survival advantage of HLA-A ME was primarily attributed to reduced risk in relapse associated with an increase in HLA-A ME load (subdistribution HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P = .004). Furthermore, we have identified an association between the risk of grade 3-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and a higher ME load at HLA-B and class I loci in graft-versus-host (GVH) direction. Additionally, GVH nonpermissive HLA-DPB1 mismatch defined by T-cell epitope grouping was significantly associated with relapse protection (subdistribution HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.59; P = .004) without a concurrent increase in GVHD. These findings indicate that alloreactivity generated by HLA disparity at certain HLA loci is associated with transplant outcomes, and ME analysis of individual HLA loci might assist donor selection and risk stratification in haplo-HSCT.

Abstract

PURPOSE Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) outcomes depend on disease and patient characteristics. We previously developed a novel prognostic model, hematopoietic cell transplant composite-risk (HCT-CR) by incorporating the refined disease risk index (DRI-R) and hematopoietic cell transplant - comorbidity/age index (HCT-CI/Age) to predict post-transplant survival in patients with AML and MDS. Here we aimed to validate and prove the generalizability of the HCT-CR model in an independent cohort of patients with hematologic malignancies receiving AHCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data of consecutive adult patients receiving AHCT for various hematologic maliganacies were analyzed. Patients were stratified into 4 HCT-CR risk groups. The discrimination, calibration performance and clinical net benefit of the HCT-CR model were tested. RESULTS The HCT-CR model stratified patient into 4 risk groups with significantly different OS. Three-year OS was 67.4%, 50%, 37.5% and 29.9% for low, intermediate, high and very high-risk group, respectively (P<0.001). The HCT-CR model had better discrimination on OS prediction when compared with the DRI-R and HCT-CI/Age (C-idindex was 0.69 vs. 0.59 and 0.56, respectively, P<0.001). The decision curve analysis showed that HCT-CR model provided better clinical utility for patient selection for post-transplant clinical trial than the "treat all" or "treat none" strategy and the use of the DRI-R and HCT-CI/Age model separately. CONCLUSIONS The HCT-CR can be effectively used to predict post-transplant survival in patients with various hematologic malignancies. This composite model can identify patients who will benefit the most from transplantation and helps physicians in making decisions regarding post-transplant therapy to improve outcomes.

Abstract

The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) published its first white paper on indications for autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in 2015. It was identified at the time that periodic updates of indications would be required to stay abreast with state of the art and emerging indications and therapy. In recent years, the field has not only seen an improvement in transplantation technology thus widening the therapeutic scope of HCT, but additionally a whole new treatment strategy using modified immune effector cells including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART-cell) and T-cell receptors (TCRs) has emerged. The guidelines review committee of the ASTCT deemed it optimal to update the ASTCT recommendations for indications for HCT to include new data and to incorporate indications for immune effector cell therapy (IECT) where appropriate. The guidelines committee established multi-stakeholder task force consisting of transplant experts, payer representatives and a patient advocate to provide guidance on indications for HCT and IECT. This manuscript presents the updated recommendations from the ASTCT on indications for HCT and IECT. Indications for HCT/IECT were categorized as (1) Standard of care, where indication is well defined and supported by evidence, (2) Standard of care, clinical evidence available, where large clinical trials and observational studies are not available but has been shown to be effective therapy, (3) Standard of care, rare indication, for rare diseases where demonstrated effectiveness exist but large clinical trials and observational studies are not feasible, (4) Developmental, for diseases where pre-clinical and/or early phase clinical studies show HCT/IECT to be a promising treatment option, and (5) Not generally recommended, where available evidence does not support the routine use of HCT/IECT. The ASTCT will continue to periodically review these guidelines and update them as new evidence becomes available.