No Improvement of Survival for Alveolar Rhabdomyosarcoma Patients After HLA-Matched Versus -Mismatched Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Compared to Standard-of-Care Therapy

BackgroundPatients with stage IV alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (RMA) have a 5-year-survival rate not exceeding 30%. Here, we assess the role of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) for these patients in comparison to standard-of-care regimens. We also compare the use of HLA-mismatched vs. HLA-matched grafts after reduced vs. myeloablative conditioning regimens, respectively. Patients and MethodsIn this retrospective analysis, we compare event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity of HLA-mismatched vs. -matched transplanted patients in uni- and multivariate analyses (total: n = 50, HLA-matched: n = 15, HLA-mismatched: n = 35). Here, the factors age at diagnosis, age at allo-HSCT, sex, Oberlin score, disease status at allo-HSCT, and HLA graft type are assessed. For 29 primarily transplanted patients, three matched non-transplanted patients per one transplanted patient were identified from the CWS registry. Outcomes were respectively compared for OS and EFS. Matching criteria included sex, age at diagnosis, favorable/unfavorable primary tumor site, and metastatic sites. ResultsMedian EFS and OS did not differ significantly between HLA-mismatched and -matched patients. In the mismatched group, incidence of acute GvHD was 0.87 (grade III-IV: 0.14) vs. 0.80 in HLA-matched patients (grade III-IV: 0.20). Transplant-related mortality (TRM) of all patients was 0.20 and did not differ significantly between HLA-mismatched and -matched groups. A proportion of 0.58 relapsed or progressed and died of disease (HLA-mismatched: 0.66, HLA-matched: 0.53) whereas 0.18 were alive in complete remission (CR) at data collection. Multivariate and competing risk analyses confirmed CR and very good partial response (VGPR) status prior to allo-HSCT as the only decisive predictor for OS (p < 0.001). Matched-pair survival analyses of primarily transplanted patients vs. matched non-transplanted patients also identified disease status prior to allo-HSCT (CR, VGPR) as the only significant predictor for EFS. Here, OS was not affected, however. ConclusionIn this retrospective analysis, only a subgroup of patients with good response at allo-HSCT survived. There was no survival benefit of allo-transplanted patients compared to matched controls, suggesting the absence of a clinically relevant graft-versus-RMA effect in the current setting. The results of this analysis do not support further implementation of allo-HSCT in RMA stage IV patients

No difference in survival after HLA mismatched versus HLA matched allogeneic stem cell transplantation in Ewing sarcoma patients with advanced disease

Patients with advanced Ewing sarcoma (AES) carry a poor prognosis. Retrospectively, we analyzed 66 AES patients treated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) receiving HLA-mismatched (group A, n = 39) versus HLA-matched grafts (group B, n = 27). Median age at diagnosis was 13 years, and 15 years (range 3-49 years) at allo-SCT. The two groups did not differ statistically in distribution of gender, age, remission status/number of relapses at allo-SCT, or risk stratum. 9/39 (23%) group A versus 2/27 (7%) group B patients developed severe acute graft versus host disease (GvHD). Of patients alive at day 100, 7/34 (21%) group A versus 9/19 (47%) group B patients had developed chronic GvHD. In group A, 33/39 (85%) versus 20/27 (74%) group B patients died of disease and 1/39 (3%) versus 1/27 (4%) patients died of complications, respectively. Altogether 12/66 (18%) patients survived in CR. Median EFS 24 months after allo-SCT was 20% in both groups, median OS was 27% (group A) versus 17% (group B), respectively. There was no difference in EFS and OS in AES patients transplanted with HLA-mismatched versus HLA-matched graft in univariate and multivariate analyses. In this analysis, CR at allo-SCT is a condition for survival (p < 0.02)

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field