Ruxolitinib for Glucocorticoid-Refractory Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease

BACKGROUND: Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a major limitation of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation; not all patients have a response to standard glucocorticoid treatment. In a phase 2 trial, ruxolitinib, a selective Janus kinase (JAK1 and JAK2) inhibitor, showed potential efficacy in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) with the investigator's choice of therapy from a list of nine commonly used options (control) in patients 12 years of age or older who had glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. The primary end point was overall response (complete response or partial response) at day 28. The key secondary end point was durable overall response at day 56. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients underwent randomization; 154 patients were assigned to the ruxolitinib group and 155 to the control group. Overall response at day 28 was higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (62% [96 patients] vs. 39% [61]; odds ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65 to 4.22; P<0.001). Durable overall response at day 56 was higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (40% [61 patients] vs. 22% [34]; odds ratio, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.94; P<0.001). The estimated cumulative incidence of loss of response at 6 months was 10% in the ruxolitinib group and 39% in the control group. The median failure-free survival was considerably longer with ruxolitinib than with control (5.0 months vs. 1.0 month; hazard ratio for relapse or progression of hematologic disease, non-relapse-related death, or addition of new systemic therapy for acute GVHD, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.60). The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the ruxolitinib group and 6.5 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.15). The most common adverse events up to day 28 were thrombocytopenia (in 50 of 152 patients [33%] in the ruxolitinib group and 27 of 150 [18%] in the control group), anemia (in 46 [30%] and 42 [28%], respectively), and cytomegalovirus infection (in 39 [26%] and 31 [21%]). CONCLUSIONS: Ruxolitinib therapy led to significant improvements in efficacy outcomes, with a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia, the most frequent toxic effect, than that observed with control therapy

Primary Cutaneous Multifocal Indolent CD8+ T-Cell Lymphoma: A Novel Primary Cutaneous CD8+ T-Cell Lymphoma

We report the case of a patient who was referred to our institution with a diagnosis of CD4+ small/medium-sized pleomorphic lymphoma. At the time, the patient showed a plethora of lesions mainly localizing to the legs; thus, we undertook studies to investigate the lineage and immunophenotype of the neoplastic clone. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) showed marked CD4 and CD8 positivity. Flow cytometry (FCM) showed two distinct T-cell populations, CD4+ and CD8+ (+/− PD1), with no CD4/CD8 co-expression and no loss of panT-cell markers in either T-cell subset. FCM, accompanied by cell-sorting (CS), permitted the physical separation of four populations, as follows: CD4+/PD1−, CD4+/PD1+, CD8+/PD1− and CD8+/PD1+. TCR gene rearrangement studies on each of the four populations (by next generation sequencing, NGS) showed that the neoplastic population was of T-cytotoxic cell lineage. IHC showed the CD8+ population to be TIA-1+, but perforin- and granzyme-negative. Moreover, histiocytic markers did not render the peculiar staining pattern, which is characteristic of acral CD8+ T-cell lymphoma (PCACD8). Compared to the entities described in the 2018 update of the WHO-EORTC classification for primary cutaneous lymphomas, we found that the indolent lymphoma described herein differed from all of them. We submit that this case represents a hitherto-undescribed type of CTCL

Cell Therapy Transplant Canada (CTTC) Consensus-Based Guideline 2024 for Management and Treatment of Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease and Future Directions for Development

This is a consensus-based Canadian guideline whose primary purpose is to standardize and facilitate the management of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) across the country. Creating uniform healthcare guidance in Canada is a challenge for a number of reasons including the differences in healthcare authority structure, funding and access to healthcare resources between provinces and territories, as well as the geographic size. These differences can lead to variable and unequal access to effective therapies for GvHD. This document will provide comprehensive and practical guidance that can be applied across Canada by healthcare professionals caring for patients with cGvHD. Hopefully, this guideline, based on input from GvHD treaters across the country, will aid in standardizing cGvHD care and facilitate access to much-needed novel therapies. This consensus paper aims to discuss the optimal approach to the initial assessment of cGvHD, review the severity scoring and global grading system, discuss systemic and topical treatments, as well as supportive therapies, and propose a therapeutic algorithm for frontline and subsequent lines of cGvHD treatment in adults and pediatric patients. Finally, we will make suggestions about the future direction of cGvHD treatment development such as (1) a mode-of-action-based cGvHD drug selection, according to the pathogenesis of cGvHD, (2) a combination strategy with the introduction of newer targeted drugs, (3) a steroid-free regimen, particularly for front line therapy for cGvHD treatment, and (4) a pre-emptive approach which can prevent the progression of cGvHD in high-risk patients destined to develop severe and highly morbid forms of cGvHD.Other UBCNon UBCReviewedFacultyResearche

Heterogeneity of chronic graft-versus-host disease biomarkers: association with CXCL10 and CXCR3+ NK cells

Chronic graft-versus-host disease(cGVHD) remains one of the most significant long-term complications after allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation. Diagnostic biomarkers for cGVHD are needed for early diagnosis and may guide identification of prognostic markers. No cGVHD biomarker has yet been validated for use in clinical practice. We evaluated both previously known markers and performed discovery-based analysis for cGVHD biomarkers in a 2 independent test sets (total of 36 cases <= 1 month from diagnosis and 31 time-matched controls with no cGVHD). On the basis of these results, 11 markers were selected and evaluated in 2 independent replication cohorts (total of 134 cGVHD cases and 154 controls). cGVHD cases and controls were evaluated for several clinical covariates, and their impact on biomarkers was identified by univariate analysis. The 2 replications sets were relatively disparate in the biomarkers they replicated. Only sBAFF and, most consistently, CXCL10 were identified as significant in both replication sets. Other markers identified as significant in only 1 replication set included intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), anti-LG3, aminopeptidase N, CXCL9, endothelin-1, and gelsolin. Multivariate analysis found that all covariates evaluated affected interpretation of the biomarkers. CXCL10 had an increased significance in combination with anti-LG3 and CXCL9, or inversely with CXCR3(+)CD56(bright) natural killer (NK) cells. There was significant heterogeneity of cGVHD biomarkers in a large comprehensive evaluation of cGVHD biomarkers impacted by several covariates. Only CXCL10 strongly correlated in both replication sets. Future analyses for plasma cGVHD biomarkers will need to be performed on very large patient groups with consideration of multiple covariates