Association of Human Development Index with rates and outcomes of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients with acute leukemia

Abstract Human Development Index (HDI) is used by the United Nations Organization to measure socioeconomic achievements of countries. We evaluated the association of HDI with rates and outcomes of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for patients with acute leukemia. For the analysis of HSCT rates, all adults with acute leukemia (n = 16 403) treated in 30 European countries, between 2001 and 2005, were included. Association of HDI with the outcome was analyzed for 2015 patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with myeloablative allotransplantation. Countries were classified according to HDI quintiles. Highly significant correlation was found for HDI and the total number of HSCT per population (R = 0.78; P < .001), as well as separately for sibling HSCT (R = 0.84; P < .001), unrelated HSCT (R = 0.66; P < .001), and autologous HSCT (R = 0.43; P = .02). The probabilities of leukemia-free survival for 5 consecutive groups of countries with increasing HDI were: 56%, 59%, 63%, 58%, and 68% (P = .01). In a multivariate analysis, transplantations performed in countries belonging to the upper HDI category were associated with higher leukemia-free survival compared with the remaining ones (HR = 1.36, P = .008), which resulted mainly from reduced risk of relapse (HR = 0.72, P = .04). We conclude that, in Europe, the HDI is associated with both rates and results of HSCT for acute leukemia

The Aethera Trial: An Ongoing Phase 3 Study of Brentuximab Vedotin in the Treatment of Patients at High Risk of Residual Hodgkin Lymphoma Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplant

n/

Updated Efficacy and Safety Data from the AETHERA Trial of Consolidation with Brentuximab Vedotin after Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) in Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients at High Risk of Relapse

Abstract Introduction The AETHERA trial is a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01100502), which evaluated whether post-ASCT consolidation treatment with brentuximab vedotin (BV) could prevent disease progression in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients at high risk for relapse. The study met its primary endpoint: significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review with BV versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57, P=0.001) (Moskowitz, 2015). The 2 most common adverse events (AEs) in the BV- treatment group were peripheral sensory neuropathy (56%) and neutropenia (35%). We are presenting updated efficacy and safety data after approximately 1 additional year of follow-up after the primary analysis. Methods Patients were randomized to receive BV 1.8 mg/kg q3wk or placebo for 16 cycles (approximately 12 months), 30-45 days after transplantation. Randomization was stratified by response to frontline therapy and by best clinical response to pre-ASCT salvage therapy. Patients whose disease had progressed after salvage treatment were not eligible. Patients received CT scans quarterly for the first year and then at 18 and 24 months during long-term follow-up (LTFU). Clinical lymphoma assessments were performed at each cycle of treatment, quarterly during the first year of LTFU, and every 6 months thereafter. AEs were collected for 30 days after the end of treatment, except for peripheral neuropathies and secondary malignancies, which were followed throughout LTFU. Clinical responses to subsequent BV treatment received after progression were also recorded. Results A total of 329 patients were randomized to the BV- (n=165) or placebo- (n=164) treatment arms. Median PFS per investigator assessment was not reached (95% CI not estimable [NE]-NE) in the BV arm and was 15.8 months (95% CI 8.5-44.0) in the placebo arm (HR=0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.71). A sustained plateau with substantial separation is evident between both treatment groups, with improved PFS at 3-years post-randomization with BV consolidation versus placebo (Figure). The 3-year PFS rate was 61% (95% CI 52-68) for the BV arm and 43% (95% CI 36-51) for the placebo arm. Six PFS events (2 progressions and 4 deaths) were recorded after the 24-month evaluation period in the BV arm and 3 in the placebo arm (2 progressions and 1 death). The HR for PFS per independent review was 0.58 (95% CI 0.41-0.82). No new secondary malignancies have been observed since the primary analysis. The number of cases were comparable between the 2 treatment arms (n=4 BV, n=2 placebo). Malignancies on the BV arm included bladder cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). In the placebo arm, secondary malignancies included mantle cell lymphoma and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). Among the 112 patients on the BV arm who experienced treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy based on a Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Query (SMQ) analysis, 99 patients (88%) experienced some improvement (23%) or complete resolution (65%) of neuropathy symptoms at the time of analysis. Discontinuation of treatment due to an AE occurred in 54 patients (33%) on the BV arm, most commonly due to peripheral sensory and motor neuropathies (14% and 7%, respectively). Patients who discontinued treatment as a result of an AE received a median of 9.5 cycles (range, 1 to 15) on the BV arm. The 2-year PFS rate in these patients was 69% (95% CI 54-79) versus 82% (95% CI 71-89) for patients who completed all 16 treatment cycles. Conclusions Consolidation treatment with BV in HL patients at high risk of relapse after ASCT showed an improvement in PFS versus placebo, approximately 3 years since the last patient was randomized. Kaplan-Meier analysis of PFS per investigator assessment showed a continued benefit of BV consolidation. No additional secondary malignancies have been observed in either treatment arm and most patients experienced resolution of peripheral neuropathy symptoms. We are currently analyzing clinical responses to BV treatment after disease progression. Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Disclosures Sweetenham: Seattle Genetics Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated in the US for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. This study investigates the use of brentuximab vedotin for consolidation therapy soon after ASCT. . Walewski:Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Janssen-Cilag; Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda; Teva: Consultancy; Bayer (Inst); Bayer/Onyx (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celltrion (Inst); Gilead Sciences (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); Mundipharma (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche/Genentech (Inst); Seattle Geneti: Research Funding. Nademanee:Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Masszi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Agura:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Holowiecki:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Abidi:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Chen:Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board. Stiff:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Viviani:Italfarmaco SpA: Consultancy; Teva Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda International: Consultancy. Carella:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Osmanov:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sureda:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Huebner:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larsen:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunder:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership

Prophylactic antibiotics or G(M)-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician. MAIN RESULTS In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Dermoscopy of Cutaneous Graft-Versus-Host-Disease in Patients After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Introduction: Progress in the transplant procedure has resulted in a higher proportion of patients with long-term survival after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) occurs often among patients who have undergone allo-HSCT. Routine diagnosis of skin and mucosal lesions is based primarily on clinical evaluation and histopathologic confirmation of skin biopsies. However, biopsy is an invasive method and histopathologic analysis is time-consuming, often accompanied by a lack of clinical correlation. There is therefore an urgent need for non-invasive, reproducible in vivo imaging methods that could be used in patients with cutaneous GvHD\u2014both in the setting of initial diagnosis and during follow-up.The aim of the study reported here was to determine the role of dermoscopic monitoring of skin lesions in allo-HSCT recipients with consecutive histopathologic support as a non-invasive, alternative method to diagnose GvHD. Methods: Twenty patients were examined by dermoscopy upon the manifestation of skin changes in the course of GvHD. Consecutive skin biopsies for histopathologic analysis were obtained from the suspected skin locations determined during dermoscopy. Results: Graft-versus-host disease was confirmed by histopathology in 19 of the 20 allo-HSCT recipients. Four patients developed symptoms of acute cutaneous GvHD (grade 1, n = 2; grade 2, n = 1; grade 3, n = 1), and 15 patients developed chronic cutaneous GvHD. The most frequent dermoscopic signs (irrespective of whether GvHD was chronic or acute) were vessels and scaling (both n = 14, 73.7%). Hyperpigmentation and white patchy areas were present in eight patients (42.1%). Fair to moderate levels of agreement were found between presence of melanophages in the skin sample and dermoscopic granularity (Cohen\u2019s Kappa [\u3ba] = 0.39), scaling (\u3ba = 12 0.3) and vessels (\u3ba = 12 0.42). The finding of white patchy areas was inversely associated with lymphocytic infiltration (\u3ba = 12 0.55). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that dermoscopy may be a useful tool for diagnosing cutaneous GvHD in allo-HSCT recipients. Combining the clinical picture with dermoscopic features may bring us closer to a faster and easier diagnosis of GvHD