Maintenance Therapies for Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas After Autologous Transplantation: A Consensus Project of ASBMT, CIBMTR, and the Lymphoma Working Party of EBMT
JAMA oncology. 2019
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.
Autologous transplantation versus allogeneic transplantation in patients with follicular lymphoma experiencing early treatment failure
BACKGROUND Early treatment failure (ETF) in follicular lymphoma (FL), defined as relapse or progression within 2 years of frontline chemoimmunotherapy, is a newly recognized marker of poor survival and identifies a high-risk group of patients with an expected 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of approximately 50%. Transplantation is an established option for relapsed FL, but its efficacy in this specific ETF FL population has not been previously evaluated. METHODS This study compared autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HCT) with either matched sibling donor (MSD) or matched unrelated donor (MUD) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) as the first transplantation approach for patients with ETF FL (age ≥ 18 years) undergoing auto-HCT or allo-HCT between 2002 and 2014. The primary endpoint was OS. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, relapse, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM). RESULTS Four hundred forty FL patients had ETF (auto-HCT, 240; MSD hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [HCT], 105; and MUD HCT, 95). With a median follow-up of 69 to 73 months, the adjusted probability of 5-year OS was significantly higher after auto-HCT (70%) or MSD HCT (73%) versus MUD HCT (49%; P = .0008). The 5-year adjusted probability of NRM was significantly lower for auto-HCT (5%) versus MSD (17%) or MUD HCT (33%; P < .0001). The 5-year adjusted probability of disease relapse was lower with MSD (31%) or MUD HCT (23%) versus auto-HCT (58%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS Patients with high-risk FL, as defined by ETF, undergoing auto-HCT for FL have low NRM and a promising 5-year OS rate (70%). MSD HCT has lower relapse rates than auto-HCT but similar OS. Cancer 2018. (c) 2018 American Cancer Society.