Association between the choice of the conditioning regimen and outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelofibrosis

Allogeneic hematopoietic; Cell transplantation; MyelofibrosisTrasplante alogénico; Células hematopoyéticas; MielofibrosisTrasplantament al·logènic; Cèl·lules hematopoètiques; MielofibrosiAllogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) remains the only curative treatment for myelofibrosis. However, the optimal conditioning regimen either with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) or myeloablative conditioning (MAC) is not well known. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we identified adults aged ≥18 years with myelofibrosis undergoing allo-HCT between 2008-2019 and analyzed the outcomes separately in the RIC and MAC cohorts based on the conditioning regimens used. Among 872 eligible patients, 493 underwent allo-HCT using RIC (fludarabine/ busulfan n=166, fludarabine/melphalan n=327) and 379 using MAC (fludarabine/busulfan n=247, busulfan/cyclophosphamide n=132). In multivariable analysis with RIC, fludarabine/melphalan was associated with inferior overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]=1.80; 95% confidenec interval [CI]: 1.15-2.81; P=0.009), higher early non-relapse mortality (HR=1.81; 95% CI: 1.12-2.91; P=0.01) and higher acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) (grade 2-4 HR=1.45; 95% CI: 1.03-2.03; P=0.03; grade 3-4 HR=2.21; 95%CI: 1.28-3.83; P=0.004) compared to fludarabine/busulfan. In the MAC setting, busulfan/cyclophosphamide was associated with a higher acute GvHD (grade 2-4 HR=2.33; 95% CI: 1.67-3.25; P<0.001; grade 3-4 HR=2.31; 95% CI: 1.52-3.52; P<0.001) and inferior GvHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) (HR=1.94; 95% CI: 1.49-2.53; P<0.001) as compared to fludarabine/busulfan. Hence, our study suggests that fludarabine/busulfan is associated with better outcomes in RIC (better overall survival, lower early non-relapse mortality, lower acute GvHD) and MAC (lower acute GvHD and better GRFS) in myelofibrosis.The CIBMTR is supported primarily by Public Health Service U24CA076518 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); HHSH250201700006C from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and N00014-20-1-2705 and N00014-20-1-2832 from the Ofce of Naval Research; support is also provided by Be the Match Foundation, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the National Marrow Donor Program, and from the following commercial entities: AbbVie; Accenture; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation; Adienne SA; Allovir, Inc.; Amgen, Inc.; Astellas Pharma US; bluebird bio, inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb Co.; CareDx; CSL Behring; CytoSen Therapeutics, Inc.; Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.; Eurofins Viracor, DBA Eurofins Transplant Diagnostics; Fate Therapeutics; Gamida-Cell, Ltd.; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; HistoGenetics; Incyte Corporation; Iovance; Janssen Research & Development, LLC; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Jasper Therapeutics; Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Kadmon; Karius; Karyopharm Therapeutics; Kiadis Pharma; Kite Pharma Inc; Kite, a Gilead Company; Kyowa Kirin International plc; Kyowa Kirin; Legend Biotech; Magenta Therapeutics; Medac GmbH; Medexus; Merck & Co.; Millennium, the Takeda Oncology Co.; Miltenyi Biotec, Inc.; MorphoSys; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Omeros Corporation; OncoImmune, Inc.; Oncopeptides, Inc.; OptumHealth; Orca Biosystems, Inc.; Ossium Health, Inc; Pfizer, Inc.; Pharmacyclics, LLC; Priothera; Sanofi Genzyme; Seagen, Inc.; Stemcyte; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; Talaris Therapeutics; Terumo Blood and Cell Technologies; TG Therapeutics; Tscan; Vertex; Vor Biopharma; Xenikos BV

The Mutational Landscape in Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia and Its Impact on Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Outcomes: A Center for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) Analysis

Somatic mutations are recognized as an important prognostic factor in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). However, limited data are available regarding their impact on outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). In this registry analysis conducted in collaboration with the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Registry database/sample repository, we identified 313 adult patients with CMML (median age: 64 years, range, 28- 77) who underwent allogeneic HCT during 2001-2017 and had an available biospecimen in the form of a peripheral blood sample obtained prior to the start of conditioning. In multivariate analysis, a CMML-specific prognostic scoring system (CPSS) score of intermediate-2 (HR=1.46, P=0.049) or high (HR=3.22, P=0.0004) correlated significantly with overall survival. When the molecularly informed CPSS-Mol prognostic model was applied, a high CPSS-Mol score (HR=2 P=0.0079) correlated significantly with overall survival. The most common somatic mutations were in ASXL1 (62%), TET2 (35%), KRAS/NRAS (33% combined), and SRSF2 (31%). DNMT3A and TP53 mutations were associated with decreased overall survival (HR=1.70 [95% CI: 1.11-2.60], P=0.0147 and HR=2.72 [95% CI: 1.37-5.39], P=0.0042, respectively) while DNMT3A, JAK2, and TP53 mutations were associated with decreased disease-free survival (HR=1.66 [95% CI: 1.11-2.49], P=0.0138, HR=1.79 [95% CI: 1.06-3.03], P=0.0293, and HR=2.94 [95% CI: 1.50-5.79], P=0.0018, respectively). The only mutation associated with increased relapse was TP53 (HR=2.94, P=0.0201). Nonetheless, the impact of TP53 mutations specifically should be interpreted cautiously given their rarity in CMML. We calculated the goodness of fit measured by Harrell\u27s C-index for both the CPSS and CPSS-Mol, which were very similar. In summary, via registry data we have determined the mutational landscape in patients with CMML who underwent allogeneic HCT, and demonstrated an association between CPSS-Mol and transplant outcomes although without major improvement in the risk prediction beyond that provided by the CPSS

Impact of Second Primary Malignancy Post–Autologous Transplantation on Outcomes of Multiple Myeloma: A CIBMTR Analysis

The overall survival (OS) has improved significantly in multiple myeloma (MM) over the last decade with the use of proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory drug-based combinations, followed by high-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) and subsequent maintenance therapies in eligible newly diagnosed patients. However, clinical trials using auto-HSCT followed by lenalidomide maintenance have shown an increased risk of second primary malignancies (SPM), including second hematological malignancies (SHM). We evaluated the impact of SPM and SHM on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients with MM after auto-HSCT using CIBMTR registry data. Adult patients with MM who underwent first auto-HSCT in the United States with melphalan conditioning regimen from 2011 to 2018 and received maintenance therapy were included (n = 3948). At a median follow-up of 37 months, 175 (4%) patients developed SPM, including 112 (64%) solid, 36 (20%) myeloid, 24 (14%) SHM, not otherwise specified, and 3 (2%) lymphoid malignancies. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that SPM and SHM were associated with an inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.62, P \u3c .001 and HR 5.01, P \u3c .001, respectively) and OS (HR 3.85, P \u3c .001 and HR 8.13, P \u3c .001, respectively). In patients who developed SPM and SHM, MM remained the most frequent primary cause of death (42% vs 30% and 53% vs 18%, respectively). We conclude the development of SPM and SHM leads to a poor survival in patients with MM and is an important survivorship challenge. Given the median survival for MM continues to improve, continued vigilance is needed to assess the risks of SPM and SHM with maintenance therapy post-auto-HSCT

Impact of Induction Therapy with VRD versus VCD on Outcomes in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Partial Response or Better Undergoing Upfront Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Bortezomib-based triplet regimens—specifically bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) and bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCD)—are the 2 most common induction regimens used in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), with conflicting data on comparative efficacy and outcomes in this population. We compared long-term outcomes of patients with NDMM receiving VRD induction and those receiving VCD induction prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Patients registered with the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry were included if they had undergone ASCT for MM within 6 months of diagnosis between January 2013 and December 2018, received VRD or VCD induction, and achieved a pretransplantation partial or better response. Of 1135 patients, 914 received VRD and 221 received VCD. The patients receiving VCD were more likely to have renal impairment and International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease and less likely to receive full-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) conditioning (69% versus 80%; P < .001). Very good partial response rates pretransplantation, post-transplantation, and at best response were not significantly different in the 2 groups. Maintenance use was more common after VRD induction (88% versus 76%; P < .001), with lenalidomide the most common agent (80% versus 63%). Patients in the VRD group had a higher rate of renal recovery (74% versus 43%; P < .001), possibly due to a rapid reduction of light chains in the VRD group or improvement in renal function with VCD, which allowed a switch over to VRD, as patients who switched were classified in the VRD group. Patients receiving VRD had better survival on univariate analysis, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) from transplantation of 44.6 months versus 34.1 months (P = .004) and median 5-year overall survival (OS) of 79% versus 60% (P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed no significant survival difference, with a hazard ratio for VCD versus VRD induction of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.55; P = .10) for PFS and 1.33 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.92, P = .12) for OS. Maintenance use was independently associated with superior PFS and OS, along with ISS stage, cytogenetics, and pretransplantation response (PFS only). In patients with MM undergoing upfront ASCT after VRD or VCD induction, no independent survival difference was seen based on the induction therapy received after adjusting for other prognostic factors. The use of maintenance treatment was uniformly associated with superior outcomes. © 2021 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc

Maintenance therapy after second autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. A CIBMTR analysis

The role of maintenance therapy after high-dose chemotherapy and first autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma (MM) is well established. We explored the effect of maintenance therapy on outcomes after salvage second autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT2) using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry. Outcomes of interest included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (REL), progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). Of 522 patients who underwent AHCT2 between 2010 and 2018, 342 received maintenance therapy and 180 did not. Maintenance regimens included lenalidomide (42%), pomalidomide (13%), and bortezomib (13%). Median follow up was 58 months in the maintenance group and 61.5 months in the no-maintenance group. Univariate analysis showed superior outcomes at 5 years in maintenance compared to the no-maintenance group: NRM 2 (0.7-3.9)% vs 9.9 (5.9-14.9)%, (p < 0.01), REL 70.2 (64.4-75.8)% vs 80.3 (73.6-86.3)% (p < 0.01), PFS 27.8 (22.4-33.5)% vs. 9.8 (5.5-15.2)% (p < 0.01), and OS 54 (47.5-60.5)% vs 30.9 (23.2-39.2)% (p < 0.01), respectively. Use of maintenance therapy retained its association with improved outcomes in multivariate analysis. There was no difference in second cancers in the two groups (p = 0.39). We conclude that maintenance after AHCT2 is associated with improved 5-year outcomes

The mutational landscape in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and its impact on allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes: a Center for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) analysis.

Somatic mutations are recognized as an important prognostic factor in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). However, limited data are available regarding their impact on outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). In this registry analysis conducted in collaboration with the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Registry (CIBMTR) database/sample repository, we identified 313 adult patients with CMML (median age: 64 years, range: 28-77) who underwent alloHCT during 2001-2017 and had an available biospecimen in the form of a peripheral blood sample obtained prior to the start of conditioning. In multivariate analysis, a CMML-specific prognostic scoring system (CPSS) score of intermediate-2 (HR=1.46, p=0.049) or high (HR=3.22, p=0.0004) correlated significantly with overall survival (OS). When the molecularly informed CPSS-Mol was applied, a high CPSS-Mol score (HR=2 p=0.0079) correlated significantly with OS. The most common somatic mutations were ASXL1 (62%), TET2 (35%), KRAS/NRAS (33% combined), and SRSF2 (31%). DNMT3A and TP53 mutations were associated with decreased OS (HR=1.70 [95%CI: 1.11-2.60], p=0.0147 and HR=2.72 [95%CI: 1.37-5.39], p=0.0042, respectively) while DNMT3A, JAK2, and TP53 mutations were associated with decreased disease-free survival (DFS) (HR=1.66 [95%CI: 1.11-2.49], p=0.0138, HR=1.79 [95%CI: 1.06- 3.03], p=0.0293, and HR=2.94 [95%CI: 1.50-5.79], p=0.0018 respectively). The only mutation associated with increased relapse was TP53 (HR=2.94, p=0.0201). Nonetheless, the impact specifically of TP53 mutations should be interpreted cautiously given its rarity in CMML. We calculated the goodness of fit measured by Harrell's C-index for both the CPSS and CPSS-Mol, which were very similar. In summary, via registry data we have provided the mutational landscape in patients with CMML who underwent alloHCT, and we demonstrated an association between CPSS-Mol and transplant outcomes although without major improvement in the risk prediction beyond the CPSS

Association between the choice of the conditioning regimen and outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelofibrosis

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) remains the only curative treatment for myelofibrosis. However, theoptimal conditioning regimen either with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) or myeloablative conditioning (MAC) is not wellknown. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we identified adults aged =18years with myelofibrosis undergoing allo-HCT between 2008-2019 and analyzed the outcomes separately in the RIC and MACcohorts based on the conditioning regimens used. Among 872 eligible patients, 493 underwent allo-HCT using RIC (fludarabine/busulfan n=166, fludarabine/melphalan n=327) and 379 using MAC (fludarabine/busulfan n=247, busulfan/cyclophosphamide n=132). In multivariable analysis with RIC, fludarabine/melphalan was associated with inferior overall survival (hazardratio [HR]=1.80; 95% confidenec interval [CI]: 1.15-2.81; P=0.009), higher early non-relapse mortality (HR=1.81; 95% CI: 1.12-2.91;P=0.01) and higher acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) (grade 2-4 HR=1.45; 95% CI: 1.03-2.03; P=0.03; grade 3-4 HR=2.21;95%CI: 1.28-3.83; P=0.004) compared to fludarabine/busulfan. In the MAC setting, busulfan/cyclophosphamide was associatedwith a higher acute GvHD (grade 2-4 HR=2.33; 95% CI: 1.67-3.25; P&lt;0.001; grade 3-4 HR=2.31; 95% CI: 1.52-3.52; P&lt;0.001) andinferior GvHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) (HR=1.94; 95% CI: 1.49-2.53; P&lt;0.001) as compared to fludarabine/busulfan.Hence, our study suggests that fludarabine/busulfan is associated with better outcomes in RIC (better overall survival, lowerearly non-relapse mortality, lower acute GvHD) and MAC (lower acute GvHD and better GRFS) in myelofibrosis

Relapse and Disease-Free Survival in Patients With Myelodysplastic Syndrome Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Using Older Matched Sibling Donors vs Younger Matched Unrelated Donors.

Importance Matched sibling donors (MSDs) are preferred for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in myelodysplastic syndrome even if they are older. However, whether older MSDs or younger human leukocyte antigen-matched unrelated donors (MUDs) are associated with better outcomes remains unclear. Objective To investigate whether allo-HCT for myelodysplastic syndrome using younger MUDs would be associated with improved disease-free survival and less relapse compared with older MSDs. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study assessed data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database from 1761 adults 50 years or older with myelodysplastic syndrome who underwent allo-HCT using an older MSD or younger MUD between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017, with a median follow-up of 48 months. Data analysis was performed from January 8, 2019, to December 30, 2020. Interventions/Exposures Allo-HCT from an older MSD (donor age ≥50 years) or a younger MUD (donor age ≤35 years). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were overall survival, relapse, nonrelapse mortality, acute graft-vs-host disease (GVHD), chronic GVHD, and GVHD-free relapse-free survival. Results Of 1761 patients (1162 [66%] male; median [range] age, 64.9 [50.2-77.6] years in the MSD cohort and 66.5 [50.4-80.9] years in MUD cohort), 646 underwent allo-HCT with an older MSD and 1115 with a younger MUD. In multivariable analysis, the rate of disease-free survival was significantly lower in allo-HCTs with older MSDs compared with younger MUDs (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.34; P = .02), whereas the difference in overall survival rate of allo-HCT with younger MUDs vs older MSDs was not statistically significant (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.98-1.29; P = .07). Allo-HCT with older MSDs was associated with significantly higher relapse (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.32-1.97; P < .001), lower nonrelapse mortality (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96; P = .02), lower acute GVHD (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.65; P < .001), chronic GVHD (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; P = .005), and a lower rate of GVHD-free relapse-free survival beyond 12 months after allo-HCT (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.02-1.98; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study found higher disease-free survival and lower relapse for allo-HCT in myelodysplastic syndrome using younger MUDs compared with older MSDs. The risk of nonrelapse mortality and GVHD was lower with older MSDs. These results suggest that the use of younger MUDs should be considered in the donor selection algorithm for myelodysplastic syndrome, in which it is pivotal to minimize relapse given limited treatment options for managing relapsed disease