The role of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the elderly patient with acute myeloid leukaemia

Older adults with Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML), when compared to younger patients with the same disease, have a poor prognosis and represent a discrete population in terms of disease biology, treatment-related complications, and overall outcome. As a result, older patients require distinctive management approaches. For 85%-95% of older AML patients, any therapy ultimately will be purely palliative. No randomized trial has ever demonstrated that any amount of post-remission therapy in older AML patients provides better outcomes than no post-remission therapy. The only studies demonstrating that long-term Disease Free Survival (DFS) is possible in older AML patients have included remission induction and post-remission therapy. For these reasons alternative post-remission strategies, including autologous or allogeneic transplantation have been explored also in people over sixty considered fit for aggressive therapy. Up to now the data available from clinical trials suggest that the stem cell transplant procedure is promising, and can lead to long-term survival, but it is feasible only in a minority of fit elderly patients. The main limits of Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) are represented by the low percentage of patients able to mobilize a sufficient amount of stem cells and by the still high relapse incidence after ASCT, especially in those with poor prognostic factors; for these patients the allogeneic transplant procedure, by using non myeloablative conditioning regimens, could offer a better chance of cure, thanks to the Graft versus Leukemia (GVL) effect, but there are no prospective trials showing the superiority of any transplant approach over conventional treatment in this subset of patients. Pacientes idosos com leucemia mielóide aguda (LMA), quando comparados com pacientes jovens com a mesma doença, apresentam prognóstico pobre e representam uma população particular em termos biológicos, complicações relacionadas ao tratamento e evolução clínica. Como resultado de tudo isto, o paciente idoso requer manuseio distinto. Para 85%-95% dos pacientes idosos a abordagem terapêutica será finalmente apenas paliativa. Nenhum estudo randomizado demonstrou qualquer vantagem de qualquer terapêutica na fase pós-remissão. Os únicos estudos que mostraram alguma vantagem em termos de sobrevida livre de doença em pacientes idosos portadores de LMA incluíram juntas as fases de indução e consolidação da remissão. Por estas razões, estratégias terapêuticas alternativas pós-remissão, incluindo transplante autólogo ou alogênico, têm sido exploradoras também em pacientes acima de 60 anos com boa performance status para as terapias de alta dose. Até agora, os dados disponíveis dos estudos clínicos sugerem que o procedimento usando célula-tronco é promissor e pode levar a sobrevida de longo prazo, porém factível apenas em uma minoria de pacientes idosos. Os principais limites para o transplante autólogo são representados pela baixa porcentagem de pacientes capazes de mobilizar suficiente quantidade de células-tronco e pela, ainda, alta incidência de recidiva após o transplante, principalmente em pacientes de fatores de mau prognóstico. Para o transplante alogênico, o uso de regimes de intensidade reduzida pode oferecer uma melhor oportunidade de cura graças ao efeito enxerto versus leucemia. Porém, não existem estudos clínicos comprovando a superioridade de qualquer modalidade de transplante em relação à terapia convencional

Mechanisms of Resistence of New Target Drugs in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

New drugs targeting single mutations have been recently approved for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) treatment, but allogeneic transplant still remains the only curative option in intermediate and unfavorable risk settings, because of the high incidence of relapse. Molecular analysis repertoire permits the identification of the target mutations and drives the choice of target drugs, but the etherogeneity of the disease reduces the curative potential of these agents. Primary and secondary AML resistance to new target agents is actually an intriguing issue and some of these mechanisms have already been explored and identified. Changes in mutations, release of microenvironment factors competing for the same therapeutic target or promoting the survival of blasts or of the leukemic stem cell, the upregulation of the target-downstream pathways and of proteins inhibiting the apoptosis, the inhibition of the cytochrome drug metabolism by other concomitant treatments are some of the recognized patterns of tumor escape. The knowledge of these topics might implement the model of the ‘AML umbrella trial’ study through the combinations or sequences of new target drugs, preemptively targeting known mechanisms of resistance, with the aim to improve the potential curative rates, expecially in elderly patients not eligible to transplant

Molecular and functional characterization of human bone marrow adipocytes

n/

Post-transplant events Combined administration of alpha-erythropoietin and filgrastim can improve the outcome and cost balance of autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoproliferative disorders

autologous transplantation; erythropoietin; engraftment kinetic

Impact of Cytomegalovirus Replication and Cytomegalovirus Serostatus on the Outcome of Patients with B Cell Lymphoma after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

n/

A Modified Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide Regimen, for Unmanipulated Haploidentical Marrow Transplantation, in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Multicenter Study

Abstract We report a modified post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PT-CY) regimen, for unmanipulated haploidentical marrow transplants, in 150 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). All patients received a myeloablative regimen, cyclosporine A (CsA) on day 0, mycophenolate on day +1, and PT-CY 50 mg/kg on days +3 and +5. The median age was 51 (range, 17–74) years, 51 (34%) patients had active disease at transplant, and the median follow-up of surviving patients 903 (range, 150-1955) days. The cumulative incidence (CI) of engraftment, acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grade II to IV, and moderate/severe chronic GVHD was 92%, 17%, and 15%, respectively. The 4-year CI of transplant-related mortality (TRM) and relapse was 20% and 24%, respectively. Four-year survival for remission patients was 72% (74% versus 67% fo

Carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed, high-risk myeloma patients not eligible for transplant: a pooled analysis of two studies

none20: Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma in the last decades, the prognosis of patients harboring high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities remains dismal as compared to that of standard-risk patients. Proteasome inhibitors demonstrated to partially ameliorate the prognosis of high-risk patients. We pooled together data from two phase I/II trials on transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma receiving upfront carfilzomib cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance. The aim of this analysis was to compare treatment outcomes in patients with standard- versus high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. High risk was defined by the presence of at least one chromosomal abnormality, including t(4;14), del17p and t(14;16). Overall, 94 patients were included in the analysis: 57 (61%) in the standard-risk and 37 (39%) in the high-risk group. Median follow-up was 38 months. In standard- vs. high-risk patients, we observed similar progression-free survival (3-year PFS: 52% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.50), overall survival (3-year OS: 78% vs. 73%; p=0.38), and overall response rate (88% vs 95%; p=0.47), with no statistical differences between the two groups. No difference in terms of progression-free survival was observed between patients with or without del17p. Carfilzomib, used both as induction and maintenance agent for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, mitigated the poor prognosis carried by high-risk cytogenetics and resulted into similar progression-free survival and overall survival, as compared to standard-risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDs: NCT01857115 (IST-CAR-561) and NCT01346787 (IST-CAR-506).noneMina, Roberto; Bonello, Francesca; Petrucci, Maria Teresa; Liberati, Anna Marina; Conticello, Concetta; Ballanti, Stelvio; Musto, Pellegrino; Olivieri, Attilio; Benevolo, Giulia; Capra, Andrea; Gilestro, Milena; Galieni, Piero; Cavo, Michele; Siniscalchi, Agostina; Palumbo, Antonio; Montefusco, Vittorio; Gaidano, Gianluca; Omedé, Paola; Boccadoro, Mario; Bringhen, SaraMina, Roberto; Bonello, Francesca; Petrucci, Maria Teresa; Liberati, Anna Marina; Conticello, Concetta; Ballanti, Stelvio; Musto, Pellegrino; Olivieri, Attilio; Benevolo, Giulia; Capra, Andrea; Gilestro, Milena; Galieni, Piero; Cavo, Michele; Siniscalchi, Agostina; Palumbo, Antonio; Montefusco, Vittorio; Gaidano, Gianluca; Omedé, Paola; Boccadoro, Mario; Bringhen, Sar

Benda-BEAM High-Dose Therapy Prior to Auto-SCT is Effective in Resistant/Relapsed DLBCL

Abstract Background: The most important drawback of clinical trials of high-dose therapy (HDT) followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in lymphomas is the high heterogeneity of histological entities. Therefore, the statistical power is reduced, and data are not conclusive. We previously demonstrated the safety of a new conditioning regimen with bendamustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BeEAM) prior to ASCT in resistant/relapsed lymphoma patients. This combination of drugs was able to induce a high CR rate in a population that did not have an opportunity of being cured with other therapies. However, that study enrolled both Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Aims: We designed a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of the BeEAM conditioning in resistant/relapsed diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. Patients and methods: The study was registered at European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) N. 2011-001246-14. Until now, 61 patients (median age 54 years, range 19-69) with resistant/relapsed DLBCL were enrolled. The primary end-point of the study is to evaluate the 1-year complete remission rate. Results: Briefly, 46/61 patients had advanced stage disease (III-IV); 20 were primary refractory and 41 had relapsed after a median number of 2 lines of therapy (range: 1-3). Twenty-one patients had 1 or more relevant comorbidities (range: 1- 5). 30 patients were in II or subsequent CR after salvage therapy, whereas 27 were in PR and 4 had stable or progressive disease. A median number of 5.72x106 CD34+/kg cells (range 2.21-10.60) collected from peripheral blood was reinfused to patients. All patients engrafted, with a median time to ANC>0.5x109/l of 10 days. Median times to achieve a platelet count >20x109/l and >50x109/l were 12 and 17 days respectively. Twenty-two out of 61 patients presented a fever of unknown origin (36%), whereas 24 patients (39%) presented a clinically documented infection. All patients received G-CSF after transplant for a median time of 8 days (range: 8-13). One patient died due to an incomplete hematological recovery after transplant, producing an overall transplant related mortality of 2.7%. Fifty-seven patients are evaluable for response: 48/57 (84%) obtained a CR, 3/57 (5%) a PR, whereas 6/57 (11%) did not respond to therapy. After a median follow-up of 10.5 months after transplant (range 3-37), 6/57 (11%) patients were refractory, 12/57 (21%) relapsed and 39/57 (68%) are still alive, in continuous CR. Conclusion: Our clinical trial was designed to closely resemble real-world treatment for these patients. During the study, we transplanted a similar proportion of the patients that would have received ASCT in a real-world scenario. While we cannot make sound comparisons without head-to-head trials, results from previous studies using HDT regimens in DLCBL have not been as encouraging as ours. Accordingly, our data preliminary provide the evidence that the Benda-BEAM regimen is safe and has promising high efficacy in resistant-relapsed aggressive DLBCL patients. Acknowledgments: The study was supported in part by AIL Pesaro Onlus. Mundipharma Italy is grateful acknowledged for providing Bendamustine free of charge. Disclosures Patriarca: Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Zinzani:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; J&J: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees

Practice patterns in chronic graft-versus-host disease patient management and patient reported outcome measures across the EBMT allogeneic transplantation network

Background Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is one of the most common life-threatening complications following allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). Understanding outcome after alloHSCT requires a full evaluation of the patient’s health status, including cGvHD and patient reported outcomes (PROs). In an effort to better understand practice patterns across European countries, a survey was initiated by the Integrated European Network on cGvHD (an EU-funded COST Action CA17138 EUROGRAFT, www.gvhd.eu) and the Transplant Complications Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). This report shares results of the survey, offering a snapshot view of current practice patterns in the context of long-term care of cGvHD patients. Methods Our self-designed 38-item online survey (Supplementary Material) was intended to collect data regarding transplant center characteristics, data registration practices, the use of NIH criteria in clinical routine, biopsies/biomarkers for clinical assessment, cGvHD cell-based therapies, and PROs. The survey used computer adapted testing methods and took ~10 min to complete. All centers participating in the COST Action EUROGRAFT and all EBMT centers performing alloHSCT were invited by email for participation in the survey. Data were collected between July 2019 and July 2020. Appropriate descriptive statistics were used. In case of multiple entries for a single center (n = 4), only the entry from the most senior staff member was included for the analysis. Missing data was reported as such. Findings Center characteristics Survey results are summarized in Table 1. A total of 72 centers out of 424 invited centers from 24 countries responded to the survey, representing ~17% of all alloHSCT centers and 19.6% of all transplanted patients within the EBMT network [1]. The majority of participating alloHSCT centers were from Europe with exception of three centers based in Asia and one in Latin America. Survey responses were mainly submitted by physicians and data managers. Of note, the size of the transplant programs differed between responding (mean ± SD, n = 47 ± 40 transplants/year) vs. non-responding (mean ± SD, n = 39 ± 31 transplants/year) centers (Supplementary Material)