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

EXPAND, a dose-finding study of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis and low platelet counts: 48-week follow-up analysis

EEXPAND (phase Ib, dose-finding study) evaluated the starting dose of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis with baseline platelet counts of 50-99×109 /L. The study consisted of dose-escalation and safety-expansion phases. Based on the baseline platelet counts, patients were assigned to stratum 1 (75-99x109 /L) or stratum 2 (50-74x109 /L), with the primary objective of determining the maximum safe starting dose (MSSD); key secondary objectives included safety and efficacy. At week 48 data cutoff (stratum 1, n=44; stratum 2, n=25), 24.6% (17 out of 69) of patients were still receiving treatment. The MSSD was established as ruxolitinib 10 mg twice daily in both strata. Thrombocytopenia [grade 4 (stratum 1, n=1; stratum 2, n=2)] was the only reported dose-limiting toxicity (study drug related) at 10 mg twice daily. In the MSSD cohort (stratum 1, n=20; stratum 2, n=18), adverse events (regardless of study drug relationship) led to treatment discontinuation in 15.0% and 33.3% of patients in stratum 1 and stratum 2, respectively, and dose adjustment/interruption in 45.0% and 66.7% of patients in stratum 1 and stratum 2, respectively. Three cases of on-treatment deaths were reported at the MSSD. Spleen response was achieved at week 48 in 33.3% and 30.0% of patients in stratum 1 and stratum 2, respectively. Improvements in the Total Symptom Score were also observed. In this study, ruxolitinib demonstrated acceptable tolerability in both the strata at the MSSD of 10 mg twice daily. (Registered at: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 01317875)

Safety and efficacy of switching to nilotinib 400 mg twice daily for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase with suboptimal response or failure on frontline imatinib or nilotinib 300 mg twice daily.

In a randomized, phase III trial of nilotinib versus imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase, more patients had suboptimal response or treatment failure on front-line imatinib than on nilotinib. Patients with suboptimal response/treatment failure on imatinib 400 mg once or twice daily or nilotinib 300 mg twice daily could enter an extension study to receive nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. After a 19-month median follow up, the safety profile of nilotinib 400 mg twice daily in patients switching from imatinib (n=35) was consistent with previous reports, and few new adverse events occurred in patients escalating from nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (n=19). Of patients previously treated with imatinib or nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, respectively, 15 of 26 (58%) and 2 of 6 (33%) without complete cytogenetic response at extension study entry, and 11 of 34 (32%) and 7 of 18 (39%) without major molecular response at extension study entry, achieved these responses at any time on nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. Estimated 18-month rates of freedom from progression and overall survival after entering the extension study were lower for patients switched from imatinib (85% and 87%, respectively) versus nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (95% and 94%, respectively). Nilotinib dose escalation was generally well tolerated and improved responses in about one-third of patients with suboptimal response/treatment failure. Switch to nilotinib improved responses in some patients with suboptimal response/treatment failure on imatinib, but many did not achieve complete cytogenetic response (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 00718263, 00471497 - extension)

Molecular landscape and prognostic impact of FLT3 -ITD insertion site in acute myeloid leukemia : RATIFY study results

In acute myeloid leukemia (AML) internal tandem duplications of the FLT3 gene (FLT3- ITD) are associated with poor prognosis. Retrospectively, we investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of FLT3 -ITD insertion site (IS) in 452 patients randomized within the RATIFY trial, which evaluated midostaurin additionally to intensive chemotherapy. Next-generation sequencing identified 908 ITDs, with 643 IS in the juxtamembrane domain (JMD) and 265 IS in the tyrosine kinase domain-1 (TKD1). According to IS, patients were categorized as JMDsole (n = 251, 55%), JMD and TKD1 (JMD/TKD1; n = 117, 26%), and TKD1sole (n = 84, 19%). While clinical variables did not differ among the 3 groups, NPM1 mutation was correlated with JMDsole (P = 0.028). Overall survival (OS) differed significantly, with estimated 4-year OS probabilities of 0.44, 0.50, and 0.30 for JMDsole, JMD/TKD1, and TKD1sole, respectively (P = 0.032). Multivariate (cause-specific) Cox models for OS and cumulative incidence of relapse using allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in first complete remission as a time-dependent variable identified TKD1sole as unfavorable and HCT as favorable factors. In addition, Midostaurin exerted a significant benefit only for JMDsole. Our results confirm the distinct molecular heterogeneity of FLT3 -ITD and the negative prognostic impact of TKD1 IS in AML that was not overcome by midostaurin

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

Safety and efficacy of switching to nilotinib 400 mg twice daily for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase with suboptimal response or failure on frontline imatinib or nilotinib 300 mg twice daily.

In a randomized, phase III trial of nilotinib versus imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase, more patients had suboptimal response or treatment failure on front-line imatinib than on nilotinib. Patients with suboptimal response/treatment failure on imatinib 400 mg once or twice daily or nilotinib 300 mg twice daily could enter an extension study to receive nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. After a 19-month median follow up, the safety profile of nilotinib 400 mg twice daily in patients switching from imatinib (n=35) was consistent with previous reports, and few new adverse events occurred in patients escalating from nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (n=19). Of patients previously treated with imatinib or nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, respectively, 15 of 26 (58%) and 2 of 6 (33%) without complete cytogenetic response at extension study entry, and 11 of 34 (32%) and 7 of 18 (39%) without major molecular response at extension study entry, achieved these responses at any time on nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. Estimated 18-month rates of freedom from progression and overall survival after entering the extension study were lower for patients switched from imatinib (85% and 87%, respectively) versus nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (95% and 94%, respectively). Nilotinib dose escalation was generally well tolerated and improved responses in about one-third of patients with suboptimal response/treatment failure. Switch to nilotinib improved responses in some patients with suboptimal response/treatment failure on imatinib, but many did not achieve complete cytogenetic response (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: 00718263, 00471497 - extension)