A multicenter prospective phase 2 randomized study of extracorporeal photopheresis for treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease

Abstract Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is a major limitation of successful hematopoietic cell transplantation. The safety and efficacy of extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) for 12 to 24 weeks together with standard therapy was compared with standard therapy alone in patients with cutaneous manifestations of cGVHD that could not be adequately controlled by corticosteroid treatment. The primary efficacy end point was a blinded quantitative comparison of percent change from baseline in Total Skin Score (TSS) of 10 body regions at week 12. Ninety-five patients were randomized to either ECP and standard therapy (n = 48) or standard therapy alone (n = 47). The median percentage improvement in TSS at week 12 was 14.5% for the ECP arm and 8.5% for the control arm (P = .48). The proportion of patients who had at least a 50% reduction in steroid dose and at least a 25% decrease from baseline in TSS was 8.3% in the ECP arm at week 12 and 0% in the control arm (P = .04). The nonblinded investigator assessment of skin complete or partial responses revealed a significant improvement in favor of ECP (P < .001). ECP was generally well tolerated. These results suggest that ECP may have a steroid-sparing effect in the treatment of cGVHD. Clinical trials registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00054613

Treatment for acute myelogenous leukemia by low dose Total Body Irradiation (TBI) based conditioning and hematopoietic cell transplantation from related and unrelated donors

n/

Alloreactivity: the Janus-face of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Differences in major and minor histocompatibility antigens between donor and recipient trigger powerful graft-versus-host reactions after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The clinical effects of alloreactivity present a Janus-face: detrimental graft-versus-host disease increases non-relapse mortality, beneficial graft-versus-malignancy may cure the recipient. The ultimate consequences on long-term outcome remain a matter of debate. We hypothesized that increasing donor-recipient antigen matching would decrease the negative effects, while preserving antitumor alloreactivity. We analyzed retrospectively a predefined cohort of 32 838 such patients and compared it to 59 692 patients with autologous HSCT as reference group. We found a significant and systematic decrease in non-relapse mortality with decreasing phenotypic and genotypic antigen disparity, paralleled by a stepwise increase in overall and relapse-free survival (Spearman correlation coefficients of cumulative excess event rates at 5 years 0.964; P<0.00; respectively 0.976; P<0.00). We observed this systematic stepwise effect in all main disease and disease-stage categories. The results suggest that detrimental effects of alloreactivity are additive with each step of mismatching; the beneficial effects remain preserved. Hence, if there is a choice, the best match should be donor of choice. The data support an intensified search for predictive genomic and environmental factors of ‘no-graft-versus-host disease’.Leukemia advance online publication, 7 April 2017; doi:10.1038/leu.2017.79

Guidelines on the use of extracorporeal photopheresis

Peer reviewe

European dermatology forum - updated guidelines on the use of extracorporeal photopheresis 2020 - part 1.

Following the first investigational study on the use of extracorporeal photopheresis for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma published in 1983, this technology has received continued use and further recognition for additional earlier as well as refractory forms. After the publication of the first guidelines for this technology in the JEADV in 2014, this technology has maintained additional promise in the treatment of other severe and refractory conditions in a multi-disciplinary setting. It has confirmed recognition in well-known documented conditions such as graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation, systemic sclerosis, solid organ transplant rejection including lung, heart and liver and to a lesser extent inflammatory bowel disease. In order to further provide recognized expert practical guidelines for the use of this technology for all indications, the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) again proceeded to address these questions in the hands of the recognized experts within and outside the field of dermatology. This was done using the recognized and approved guidelines of EDF for this task. All authors had the opportunity to review each contribution as it was added. These updated 2020 guidelines provide at present the most comprehensive available expert recommendations for the use of extracorporeal photopheresis based on the available published literature and expert consensus opinion. The guidelines are divided in two parts: PART I covers cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, chronic graft-versus-host disease and acute graft-versus-host disease while PART II will cover scleroderma, solid organ transplantation, Crohn's disease, use of ECP in paediatrics practice, atopic dermatitis, type 1 diabetes, pemphigus, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita and erosive oral lichen planus

Biomarkers in chronic graft-versus-host disease: quo vadis?

Biomarkers are increasingly used for diagnosis and treatment of transplant-related complications including the first biomarker-driven interventional trials of acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD). In contrast, the development of biomarkers of chronic GvHD (cGvHD) has lagged behind due to a broader variety of manifestations, overlap with acute GvHD, a greater variation in time to onset and maximum severity, and lack of sufficient patient numbers within prospective trials. An international workshop organized by a North-American and European consortium was held in Marseille in March 2017 with the goal to discuss strategies for future biomarker development to guide cGvHD therapy. As a result of this meeting, two areas were prioritized: the development of prognostic biomarkers for subsequent onset of moderate/severe cGvHD, and in parallel, the development of qualified clinical-grade assays for biomarker quantification. The most promising prognostic serum biomarkers are CXCL9, ST2, matrix metalloproteinase-3, osteopontin, CXCL10, CXCL11, and CD163. Urine-proteomics and cellular subsets (CD4+ T-cell subsets, NK cell subsets, and CD19+CD21low B cells) represent additional potential prognostic biomarkers of cGvHD. A joint effort is required to verify the results of numerous exploratory trials before any of the potential candidates is ready for validation and subsequent clinical application

Pre-transplantation Risks and Transplant-Techniques in Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Acute Leukaemia

Background: The role of conditioning intensity and stem cell source on modifying pre-transplantation risk in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a matter of debate, but crucial when benchmarking centres. Methods: This Retrospective, multicenter exploratory-validation analysis of 9103 patients, (55.5% male, median age 50 years; 1–75 years range) with an allogeneic HSCT between 2010 and 2016 from a matched sibling (N = 8641; 95%) or matched unrelated donor (N = 462; 5%) for acute myeloid (N = 6432; 71%) or acute lymphoblastic (N = 2671; 29%) leukaemia in first complete remission, and reported by 240 centres in 30 countries to the benchmark database of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) searched for factors associated with use of transplant techniques (standard N = 6375;70% or reduced intensity conditioning N = 2728;30%, respectively bone marrow N = 1945;21% or peripheral blood N = 7158;79% as stem cell source), and their impact on outcome. Findings: Treatment groups differed significantly from baseline population (p < 0.001), and within groups regarding patient-, disease-, donor-, and centre-related pre-transplantation risk factors (p < 0.001); choice of technique did depend on pre-transplantation risk factors and centre (p < 0.001). Probability of overall survival at 5 years decreased systematically and significantly with increasing pre-transplantation risk score (score 2 vs 0/1 HR: 1·2, 95% c.i. [1·1–1·.3], p = 0.002; score 3 vs 0/1 HR: 1·5, 95% c.i. [1·3–1·7], p < 0.001; score 4/5/6 vs 0/1 HR: 1·9, 95% c.i. [1·6–2·2], p < 0.001) with no significant differences between treatment groups (likelihood ratio test on interaction: p = 0.40). Overall survival was significantly associated with selection steps and completeness of information (p < 0.001). Interpretation: Patients' pre-transplantation risk factors determine survival, independent of transplant techniques. Transplant techniques should be regarded as centre policy, not stratification factor in benchmarking. Selection criteria and completeness of data bias outcome. Outcomes may be improved more effectively through better identifying pre-transplantation factors as opposed to refinement of transplant techniques. Funding: The study was funded by EBMT

Bone Marrow B cell Precursor Number after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation and GVHD Development

Patients without chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) have robust B cell reconstitution and are able to maintain B cell homeostasis after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). To determine whether B lymphopoiesis differs before cGVHD develops, we examined bone marrow (BM) biopsies for terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) and PAX5 immunostaining early post-HSCTat day 30 when all patients have been shown to have high B cell activating factor (BAFF) levels. We found significantly greater numbers of BM B cell precursors in patients who did not develop cGVHD compared with those who developed cGVHD (median = 44 vs 2 cells/high powered field [hpf]; respectively; P < .001). Importantly, a significant increase in precursor B cells was maintained when patients receiving high-dose steroid therapy were excluded (median = 49 vs 20 cells/hpf; P =.017). Thus, we demonstrate the association of BM B cell production capacity in human GVHD development. Increased BM precursor B cell number may serve to predict good clinical outcome after HSCT

Secondary solid cancer screening following hematopoietic cell transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) recipients have a substantial risk of developing secondary solid cancers, particularly beyond 5 years after HCT and without reaching a plateau overtime. A working group was established through the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research and the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation with the goal to facilitate implementation of cancer screening appropriate to HCT recipients. The working group reviewed guidelines and methods for cancer screening applicable to the general population and reviewed the incidence and risk factors for secondary cancers after HCT. A consensus approach was used to establish recommendations for individual secondary cancers. The most common sites include oral cavity, skin, breast and thyroid. Risks of cancers are increased after HCT compared with the general population in skin, thyroid, oral cavity, esophagus, liver, nervous system, bone and connective tissues. Myeloablative TBI, young age at HCT, chronic GVHD and prolonged immunosuppressive treatment beyond 24 months were well-documented risk factors for many types of secondary cancers. All HCT recipients should be advised of the risks of secondary cancers annually and encouraged to undergo recommended screening based on their predisposition. Here we propose guidelines to help clinicians in providing screening and preventive care for secondary cancers among HCT recipients

Acute graft versus host disease

Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) occurs after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant and is a reaction of donor immune cells against host tissues. Activated donor T cells damage host epithelial cells after an inflammatory cascade that begins with the preparative regimen. About 35%–50% of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients will develop acute GVHD. The exact risk is dependent on the stem cell source, age of the patient, conditioning, and GVHD prophylaxis used. Given the number of transplants performed, we can expect about 5500 patients/year to develop acute GVHD. Patients can have involvement of three organs: skin (rash/dermatitis), liver (hepatitis/jaundice), and gastrointestinal tract (abdominal pain/diarrhea). One or more organs may be involved. GVHD is a clinical diagnosis that may be supported with appropriate biopsies. The reason to pursue a tissue biopsy is to help differentiate from other diagnoses which may mimic GVHD, such as viral infection (hepatitis, colitis) or drug reaction (causing skin rash). Acute GVHD is staged and graded (grade 0-IV) by the number and extent of organ involvement. Patients with grade III/IV acute GVHD tend to have a poor outcome. Generally the patient is treated by optimizing their immunosuppression and adding methylprednisolone. About 50% of patients will have a solid response to methylprednisolone. If patients progress after 3 days or are not improved after 7 days, they will get salvage (second-line) immunosuppressive therapy for which there is currently no standard-of-care. Well-organized clinical trials are imperative to better define second-line therapies for this disease. Additional management issues are attention to wound infections in skin GVHD and fluid/nutrition management in gastrointestinal GVHD. About 50% of patients with acute GVHD will eventually have manifestations of chronic GVHD