Transplantation

Patients with multiple myeloma who don’t respond to induction therapy may be better off advancing straight to autologous stem cell therapy, rather than undergoing salvage therapy before transplant, according to findings of an analysis that included both real-world and clinical trial patients.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

Joanna Blocka, MD, of the University Hospital of Heidelberg (Germany) and colleagues found similar progression-free and overall survival rates for patients who had progressive disease and underwent autologous stem cell therapy (ASCT), compared with patients who underwent salvage therapy and improved to at least stable disease before proceeding to transplant. The findings were published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.

The real-world analysis included 1,599 patients with multiple myeloma who had undergone ASCT between 1991 and 2016. More than half of the patients (58%) were not enrolled in clinical trials. The remainder were split between the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG)-HD3 and GMMG-HD4 trials, which compared various induction regimens.

Just 23 patients in the analysis received salvage therapy because of progressive disease and deepened their response before ASCT. Of these patients, 12 received novel agents in induction therapy and 11 received older medications.

Looking across all 1,599 patients, 5.3% achieved complete remission before first ASCT. Most patients (71.8%) achieved partial remission, 9.7% had a minimal response, and 5.7% had stable disease. A group of 120 patients (7.5%) progressed between the last course of induction and ASCT.

The researchers compared the progression-free and overall survival rates of patients with progressive disease versus those who had stable disease or better before their first transplant. Both univariable and multivariable analysis showed no statistically significant differences in either survival outcome between the two groups.

In the multivariable analysis, there was a hazard ratio of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.56) for progression-free survival for patients with progressive disease versus those who responded to induction therapy. Similarly, the HR for overall survival between the two groups was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.93-1.65).

The researchers also analyzed the groups based on whether they received novel or older agents during induction.

Patients with progressive disease who received novel agents had significantly worse progression-free survival (22.2 months), compared with patients who responded to treatment with novel agents (22.2 months vs. 29.1 months; P = .03). The same trend was seen with overall survival in these groups (54.4 months vs. 97.5 months; P less than .001).

Rates of survival were similar for patients with progressive disease and responders who had received older medications at induction.

“This might be explained by a prognostically disadvantageous disease biology in patients nonresponsive to novel agents,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also compared survival outcomes for the 120 patients who underwent ASCT with progressive disease versus the 23 patients who received salvage therapy and improved their response to at least stable disease before transplant. Univariable analysis showed that salvage patients actually did worse than those with progressive disease who proceeded straight to transplant – 12.1 months versus 22.9 months of progression-free survival (P = .04) and 33.1 versus 69.5 months of overall survival (P = .08). But on multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference between the two groups for progression-free survival (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.28-1.80; P = .5) or overall survival (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.30-1.95; P = .6). The use of novel agents did not appear to affect the survival outcomes in these patients.

The worse outcomes seen among salvage patients observed in univariable analysis “might be due to a cumulative toxic effect of salvage therapy,” the researchers suggested. “An alternative explanation could be that the patients who were offered salvage therapy might have had more aggressive disease than those who did not undergo salvage therapy.”

Dr. Blocka reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Other coauthors reported relationships with Janssen, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and others.

mschneider@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Blocka J et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1646905.

Patients with multiple myeloma who don’t respond to induction therapy may be better off advancing straight to autologous stem cell therapy, rather than undergoing salvage therapy before transplant, according to findings of an analysis that included both real-world and clinical trial patients.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

Joanna Blocka, MD, of the University Hospital of Heidelberg (Germany) and colleagues found similar progression-free and overall survival rates for patients who had progressive disease and underwent autologous stem cell therapy (ASCT), compared with patients who underwent salvage therapy and improved to at least stable disease before proceeding to transplant. The findings were published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.

The real-world analysis included 1,599 patients with multiple myeloma who had undergone ASCT between 1991 and 2016. More than half of the patients (58%) were not enrolled in clinical trials. The remainder were split between the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG)-HD3 and GMMG-HD4 trials, which compared various induction regimens.

Just 23 patients in the analysis received salvage therapy because of progressive disease and deepened their response before ASCT. Of these patients, 12 received novel agents in induction therapy and 11 received older medications.

Looking across all 1,599 patients, 5.3% achieved complete remission before first ASCT. Most patients (71.8%) achieved partial remission, 9.7% had a minimal response, and 5.7% had stable disease. A group of 120 patients (7.5%) progressed between the last course of induction and ASCT.

The researchers compared the progression-free and overall survival rates of patients with progressive disease versus those who had stable disease or better before their first transplant. Both univariable and multivariable analysis showed no statistically significant differences in either survival outcome between the two groups.

In the multivariable analysis, there was a hazard ratio of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.56) for progression-free survival for patients with progressive disease versus those who responded to induction therapy. Similarly, the HR for overall survival between the two groups was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.93-1.65).

The researchers also analyzed the groups based on whether they received novel or older agents during induction.

Patients with progressive disease who received novel agents had significantly worse progression-free survival (22.2 months), compared with patients who responded to treatment with novel agents (22.2 months vs. 29.1 months; P = .03). The same trend was seen with overall survival in these groups (54.4 months vs. 97.5 months; P less than .001).

Rates of survival were similar for patients with progressive disease and responders who had received older medications at induction.

“This might be explained by a prognostically disadvantageous disease biology in patients nonresponsive to novel agents,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also compared survival outcomes for the 120 patients who underwent ASCT with progressive disease versus the 23 patients who received salvage therapy and improved their response to at least stable disease before transplant. Univariable analysis showed that salvage patients actually did worse than those with progressive disease who proceeded straight to transplant – 12.1 months versus 22.9 months of progression-free survival (P = .04) and 33.1 versus 69.5 months of overall survival (P = .08). But on multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference between the two groups for progression-free survival (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.28-1.80; P = .5) or overall survival (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.30-1.95; P = .6). The use of novel agents did not appear to affect the survival outcomes in these patients.

The worse outcomes seen among salvage patients observed in univariable analysis “might be due to a cumulative toxic effect of salvage therapy,” the researchers suggested. “An alternative explanation could be that the patients who were offered salvage therapy might have had more aggressive disease than those who did not undergo salvage therapy.”

Dr. Blocka reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Other coauthors reported relationships with Janssen, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and others.

mschneider@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Blocka J et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1646905.

Patients with multiple myeloma who don’t respond to induction therapy may be better off advancing straight to autologous stem cell therapy, rather than undergoing salvage therapy before transplant, according to findings of an analysis that included both real-world and clinical trial patients.

Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

Joanna Blocka, MD, of the University Hospital of Heidelberg (Germany) and colleagues found similar progression-free and overall survival rates for patients who had progressive disease and underwent autologous stem cell therapy (ASCT), compared with patients who underwent salvage therapy and improved to at least stable disease before proceeding to transplant. The findings were published in Leukemia & Lymphoma.

The real-world analysis included 1,599 patients with multiple myeloma who had undergone ASCT between 1991 and 2016. More than half of the patients (58%) were not enrolled in clinical trials. The remainder were split between the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG)-HD3 and GMMG-HD4 trials, which compared various induction regimens.

Just 23 patients in the analysis received salvage therapy because of progressive disease and deepened their response before ASCT. Of these patients, 12 received novel agents in induction therapy and 11 received older medications.

Looking across all 1,599 patients, 5.3% achieved complete remission before first ASCT. Most patients (71.8%) achieved partial remission, 9.7% had a minimal response, and 5.7% had stable disease. A group of 120 patients (7.5%) progressed between the last course of induction and ASCT.

The researchers compared the progression-free and overall survival rates of patients with progressive disease versus those who had stable disease or better before their first transplant. Both univariable and multivariable analysis showed no statistically significant differences in either survival outcome between the two groups.

In the multivariable analysis, there was a hazard ratio of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.56) for progression-free survival for patients with progressive disease versus those who responded to induction therapy. Similarly, the HR for overall survival between the two groups was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.93-1.65).

The researchers also analyzed the groups based on whether they received novel or older agents during induction.

Patients with progressive disease who received novel agents had significantly worse progression-free survival (22.2 months), compared with patients who responded to treatment with novel agents (22.2 months vs. 29.1 months; P = .03). The same trend was seen with overall survival in these groups (54.4 months vs. 97.5 months; P less than .001).

Rates of survival were similar for patients with progressive disease and responders who had received older medications at induction.

“This might be explained by a prognostically disadvantageous disease biology in patients nonresponsive to novel agents,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also compared survival outcomes for the 120 patients who underwent ASCT with progressive disease versus the 23 patients who received salvage therapy and improved their response to at least stable disease before transplant. Univariable analysis showed that salvage patients actually did worse than those with progressive disease who proceeded straight to transplant – 12.1 months versus 22.9 months of progression-free survival (P = .04) and 33.1 versus 69.5 months of overall survival (P = .08). But on multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference between the two groups for progression-free survival (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.28-1.80; P = .5) or overall survival (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.30-1.95; P = .6). The use of novel agents did not appear to affect the survival outcomes in these patients.

The worse outcomes seen among salvage patients observed in univariable analysis “might be due to a cumulative toxic effect of salvage therapy,” the researchers suggested. “An alternative explanation could be that the patients who were offered salvage therapy might have had more aggressive disease than those who did not undergo salvage therapy.”

Dr. Blocka reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Other coauthors reported relationships with Janssen, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and others.

mschneider@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Blocka J et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1646905.

A novel transplant protocol (WZ-14-TM) improved survival outcomes and rates of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients with beta-thalassemia major undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from an unrelated donor, according to findings from a single-center study.

“In August 2014, we began using WZ-14-TM in hopes of lowering the [graft failure] rate and transplant-related mortality,” Lan Sun, MD, of Wenzhou (China) Medical University and colleagues wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The study cohort included 48 patients (aged 2-11 years) with beta-thalassemia major who underwent unrelated-donor HSCT from August 2014 to June 2018. Prior to transplantation, all participants received iron chelation therapy and regular red blood cell transfusions.

The original busulfan/cyclophosphamide–based conditioning regimen was modified to include antithymocyte globulin and fludarabine in order to reduce the risk of graft failure.

Additionally, the team lowered the cumulative dose of cyclophosphamide from 200 mg/kg to 100 mg/kg in an effort to lessen treatment-related toxicity.

After analysis, the researchers reported that the rates of thalassemia-free and overall survival were both 100%, while the incidence rates of acute (grade 2-4) and chronic GVHD were both 8.3%. In prior studies, the incidence rates of acute (grade 2-4) and chronic GVHD were 37%-42% and 14%-27%, respectively.

Neutrophil engraftment was achieved in a median duration of 13 days, while the median hemoglobin and platelet recovery times were 11 days and 12 days, respectively.

The low incidence of GVHD in their study may be related to the combination of antithymocyte globulin, cyclosporine A, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for GVHD prophylaxis, the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and its single-center design. Accordingly, the findings should be validated in future studies.

The results suggest that the WZ-14-TM protocol is a “feasible and safe” conditioning regimen for patients with beta-thalassemia major undergoing unrelated-donor HSCT, they concluded.

The study was funded by the Public Welfare Science and Technology Project of Wenzhou, the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Sun L et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019; 25(8):1592-6.

A novel transplant protocol (WZ-14-TM) improved survival outcomes and rates of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients with beta-thalassemia major undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from an unrelated donor, according to findings from a single-center study.

“In August 2014, we began using WZ-14-TM in hopes of lowering the [graft failure] rate and transplant-related mortality,” Lan Sun, MD, of Wenzhou (China) Medical University and colleagues wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The study cohort included 48 patients (aged 2-11 years) with beta-thalassemia major who underwent unrelated-donor HSCT from August 2014 to June 2018. Prior to transplantation, all participants received iron chelation therapy and regular red blood cell transfusions.

The original busulfan/cyclophosphamide–based conditioning regimen was modified to include antithymocyte globulin and fludarabine in order to reduce the risk of graft failure.

Additionally, the team lowered the cumulative dose of cyclophosphamide from 200 mg/kg to 100 mg/kg in an effort to lessen treatment-related toxicity.

After analysis, the researchers reported that the rates of thalassemia-free and overall survival were both 100%, while the incidence rates of acute (grade 2-4) and chronic GVHD were both 8.3%. In prior studies, the incidence rates of acute (grade 2-4) and chronic GVHD were 37%-42% and 14%-27%, respectively.

Neutrophil engraftment was achieved in a median duration of 13 days, while the median hemoglobin and platelet recovery times were 11 days and 12 days, respectively.

The low incidence of GVHD in their study may be related to the combination of antithymocyte globulin, cyclosporine A, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for GVHD prophylaxis, the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and its single-center design. Accordingly, the findings should be validated in future studies.

The results suggest that the WZ-14-TM protocol is a “feasible and safe” conditioning regimen for patients with beta-thalassemia major undergoing unrelated-donor HSCT, they concluded.

The study was funded by the Public Welfare Science and Technology Project of Wenzhou, the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Sun L et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019; 25(8):1592-6.

A novel transplant protocol (WZ-14-TM) improved survival outcomes and rates of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients with beta-thalassemia major undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from an unrelated donor, according to findings from a single-center study.

“In August 2014, we began using WZ-14-TM in hopes of lowering the [graft failure] rate and transplant-related mortality,” Lan Sun, MD, of Wenzhou (China) Medical University and colleagues wrote in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The study cohort included 48 patients (aged 2-11 years) with beta-thalassemia major who underwent unrelated-donor HSCT from August 2014 to June 2018. Prior to transplantation, all participants received iron chelation therapy and regular red blood cell transfusions.

The original busulfan/cyclophosphamide–based conditioning regimen was modified to include antithymocyte globulin and fludarabine in order to reduce the risk of graft failure.

Additionally, the team lowered the cumulative dose of cyclophosphamide from 200 mg/kg to 100 mg/kg in an effort to lessen treatment-related toxicity.

After analysis, the researchers reported that the rates of thalassemia-free and overall survival were both 100%, while the incidence rates of acute (grade 2-4) and chronic GVHD were both 8.3%. In prior studies, the incidence rates of acute (grade 2-4) and chronic GVHD were 37%-42% and 14%-27%, respectively.

Neutrophil engraftment was achieved in a median duration of 13 days, while the median hemoglobin and platelet recovery times were 11 days and 12 days, respectively.

The low incidence of GVHD in their study may be related to the combination of antithymocyte globulin, cyclosporine A, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for GVHD prophylaxis, the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged two key limitations of the study were the small sample size and its single-center design. Accordingly, the findings should be validated in future studies.

The results suggest that the WZ-14-TM protocol is a “feasible and safe” conditioning regimen for patients with beta-thalassemia major undergoing unrelated-donor HSCT, they concluded.

The study was funded by the Public Welfare Science and Technology Project of Wenzhou, the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Sun L et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019; 25(8):1592-6.

Newly updated guidelines can inform the selection of adult donors and cord blood units for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The evidence-based guidelines suggest high-resolution human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching and donor age are important when selecting adult donors, while HLA matching, cell dose, and banking practices should be considered when selecting cord blood units.

The guidelines were developed by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and were recently published in Blood.

Adult donors

The guidelines recommend high-resolution HLA typing for adult donors and patients. This means typing for HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1, at minimum. Typing at other loci – DPB1, DQB1, DRB3/4/5, DQA1, and DPA1 – is “optional but often helpful.”

An 8/8 HLA-matched donor is considered optimal. If only 7/8-matched donors are available, select a donor with a single allele mismatched at the patient’s homozygous locus if possible, and select an HLA-C*03:03 mismatch over an HLA-C*03:04 mismatch where applicable.

For both 8/8- and 7/8-matched donors, try to avoid mismatches at DQB1 and DRB3/4/5, and select DPB1 mismatches based on the DPB1 T-cell epitope algorithm. Mismatches of allotypes targeted by donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA), including DQA1 and DPA1, should be avoided.

The guidelines recommend pursuing multiple donors because not all potential donors will be available. Younger donors should be prioritized over older donors. Other factors – such as sex or cytomegalovirus serostatus – should not affect donor selection.

Cord blood

For cord blood donations, testing attached segment identity is mandatory, red blood cell–replete units are not recommended, and both unit cryovolume and year of cryopreservation should be taken into consideration. The guidelines note that “some expert centers” favor red blood cell–depleted units with a postcryopreservation volume of about 25 ml/bag, and units banked more recently “may be linked to optimal banking practices.”

The guidelines recommend a minimum of eight high-resolution HLA typing for cord blood units and patients. A 4/6 match (HLA-A, -B, -DRB1) is acceptable, as is a 4/8 match (HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1) or greater. In the case of a double-unit transplant, there is no need to match the units to each other.

“DSA must be considered on a case-by-case basis,” according to the guidelines. The patient’s diagnosis, prior immunosuppressive therapy, planned conditioning regimen, and DSA number/titer/specificity/complement fixation should be taken into consideration. DSA-targeted units should be avoided in patients with nonmalignant conditions and used with caution in patients with hematologic malignancies.

For single–cord blood units, the total nucleated cell dose should be at least 2.5 x 10⁷/kg, and the number of CD34+ cells should be at least 1.5 x 10⁵/kg. For double-unit transplants, the total nucleated cell dose should be at least 1.5 x 10⁷/kg for each unit, and the number of CD34+ cells should be at least 1.0 x 10⁵/kg for each unit.

The guidelines note that additional research is needed to inform how to balance cell dose against HLA match. However, cell dose should often take priority over HLA match for adults and larger pediatric patients, and HLA match can take priority in children, smaller adults, or patients with common HLA typing who have multiple units with a high cell dose.

The guidelines’ authors reported relationships with MolMed, NexImmune, AbbVie, Bellicum, Incyte, Medigene, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Servier, Miltenyi, and the U.S. government/military.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Dehn J et al. Blood. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019001212.

Newly updated guidelines can inform the selection of adult donors and cord blood units for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The evidence-based guidelines suggest high-resolution human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching and donor age are important when selecting adult donors, while HLA matching, cell dose, and banking practices should be considered when selecting cord blood units.

The guidelines were developed by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and were recently published in Blood.

Adult donors

The guidelines recommend high-resolution HLA typing for adult donors and patients. This means typing for HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1, at minimum. Typing at other loci – DPB1, DQB1, DRB3/4/5, DQA1, and DPA1 – is “optional but often helpful.”

An 8/8 HLA-matched donor is considered optimal. If only 7/8-matched donors are available, select a donor with a single allele mismatched at the patient’s homozygous locus if possible, and select an HLA-C*03:03 mismatch over an HLA-C*03:04 mismatch where applicable.

For both 8/8- and 7/8-matched donors, try to avoid mismatches at DQB1 and DRB3/4/5, and select DPB1 mismatches based on the DPB1 T-cell epitope algorithm. Mismatches of allotypes targeted by donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA), including DQA1 and DPA1, should be avoided.

The guidelines recommend pursuing multiple donors because not all potential donors will be available. Younger donors should be prioritized over older donors. Other factors – such as sex or cytomegalovirus serostatus – should not affect donor selection.

Cord blood

For cord blood donations, testing attached segment identity is mandatory, red blood cell–replete units are not recommended, and both unit cryovolume and year of cryopreservation should be taken into consideration. The guidelines note that “some expert centers” favor red blood cell–depleted units with a postcryopreservation volume of about 25 ml/bag, and units banked more recently “may be linked to optimal banking practices.”

The guidelines recommend a minimum of eight high-resolution HLA typing for cord blood units and patients. A 4/6 match (HLA-A, -B, -DRB1) is acceptable, as is a 4/8 match (HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1) or greater. In the case of a double-unit transplant, there is no need to match the units to each other.

“DSA must be considered on a case-by-case basis,” according to the guidelines. The patient’s diagnosis, prior immunosuppressive therapy, planned conditioning regimen, and DSA number/titer/specificity/complement fixation should be taken into consideration. DSA-targeted units should be avoided in patients with nonmalignant conditions and used with caution in patients with hematologic malignancies.

For single–cord blood units, the total nucleated cell dose should be at least 2.5 x 10⁷/kg, and the number of CD34+ cells should be at least 1.5 x 10⁵/kg. For double-unit transplants, the total nucleated cell dose should be at least 1.5 x 10⁷/kg for each unit, and the number of CD34+ cells should be at least 1.0 x 10⁵/kg for each unit.

The guidelines note that additional research is needed to inform how to balance cell dose against HLA match. However, cell dose should often take priority over HLA match for adults and larger pediatric patients, and HLA match can take priority in children, smaller adults, or patients with common HLA typing who have multiple units with a high cell dose.

The guidelines’ authors reported relationships with MolMed, NexImmune, AbbVie, Bellicum, Incyte, Medigene, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Servier, Miltenyi, and the U.S. government/military.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Dehn J et al. Blood. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019001212.

Newly updated guidelines can inform the selection of adult donors and cord blood units for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The evidence-based guidelines suggest high-resolution human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching and donor age are important when selecting adult donors, while HLA matching, cell dose, and banking practices should be considered when selecting cord blood units.

The guidelines were developed by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and were recently published in Blood.

Adult donors

The guidelines recommend high-resolution HLA typing for adult donors and patients. This means typing for HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1, at minimum. Typing at other loci – DPB1, DQB1, DRB3/4/5, DQA1, and DPA1 – is “optional but often helpful.”

An 8/8 HLA-matched donor is considered optimal. If only 7/8-matched donors are available, select a donor with a single allele mismatched at the patient’s homozygous locus if possible, and select an HLA-C*03:03 mismatch over an HLA-C*03:04 mismatch where applicable.

For both 8/8- and 7/8-matched donors, try to avoid mismatches at DQB1 and DRB3/4/5, and select DPB1 mismatches based on the DPB1 T-cell epitope algorithm. Mismatches of allotypes targeted by donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA), including DQA1 and DPA1, should be avoided.

The guidelines recommend pursuing multiple donors because not all potential donors will be available. Younger donors should be prioritized over older donors. Other factors – such as sex or cytomegalovirus serostatus – should not affect donor selection.

Cord blood

For cord blood donations, testing attached segment identity is mandatory, red blood cell–replete units are not recommended, and both unit cryovolume and year of cryopreservation should be taken into consideration. The guidelines note that “some expert centers” favor red blood cell–depleted units with a postcryopreservation volume of about 25 ml/bag, and units banked more recently “may be linked to optimal banking practices.”

The guidelines recommend a minimum of eight high-resolution HLA typing for cord blood units and patients. A 4/6 match (HLA-A, -B, -DRB1) is acceptable, as is a 4/8 match (HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1) or greater. In the case of a double-unit transplant, there is no need to match the units to each other.

“DSA must be considered on a case-by-case basis,” according to the guidelines. The patient’s diagnosis, prior immunosuppressive therapy, planned conditioning regimen, and DSA number/titer/specificity/complement fixation should be taken into consideration. DSA-targeted units should be avoided in patients with nonmalignant conditions and used with caution in patients with hematologic malignancies.

For single–cord blood units, the total nucleated cell dose should be at least 2.5 x 10⁷/kg, and the number of CD34+ cells should be at least 1.5 x 10⁵/kg. For double-unit transplants, the total nucleated cell dose should be at least 1.5 x 10⁷/kg for each unit, and the number of CD34+ cells should be at least 1.0 x 10⁵/kg for each unit.

The guidelines note that additional research is needed to inform how to balance cell dose against HLA match. However, cell dose should often take priority over HLA match for adults and larger pediatric patients, and HLA match can take priority in children, smaller adults, or patients with common HLA typing who have multiple units with a high cell dose.

The guidelines’ authors reported relationships with MolMed, NexImmune, AbbVie, Bellicum, Incyte, Medigene, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Servier, Miltenyi, and the U.S. government/military.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Dehn J et al. Blood. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019001212.

Two doses of recombinant zoster vaccine significantly reduced incidence of herpes zoster in adults who had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial indicate.

The incidence of herpes zoster was 30 per 1,000 person-years for patients who received the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) versus 94 per 1,000 person-years for those who received placebo, according to study results.

Recombinant zoster vaccine induced humoral and cellular responses that were strong and occurring at a rate higher than what was seen in the placebo group, said senior author Keith M. Sullivan, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and coauthors, who reported findings on behalf of the Zoster Efficacy Study in Patients Undergoing HSCT (ZOE-HSCT) Study Group.

“The vaccinations were generally well tolerated, and most symptoms were mild and transient and did not substantially deter participants from receiving their second dose,” Dr. Sullivan and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The risk of herpes zoster is increased for 2-3 years after autologous HSCT because of diminished T-cell immunity, according to the authors.

“Antiviral prophylaxis is commonly administered to patients after HSCT to prevent such complications, but the efficacy depends on adherence to treatment,” they said.

While vaccines could provide long-term protection, immunocompromised individuals receiving live attenuated vaccine would be at increased risk of varicella caused by spread of the vaccine strain, they added.

There have been a few encouraging recent studies of non-live vaccines in this setting, including one large phase 3 trial of a heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine that showed patients undergoing autologous HSCT had a 63.8% estimated efficacy in preventing herpes zoster, investigators from that study said in The Lancet (2018 May 26;391[10135]:2116-27).

A phase 1/2a study of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine in patients undergoing HSCT demonstrated strong humoral and cell-mediated immunity responses, which provided the rationale for studying the vaccine further in the randomized ZOE-HSCT study, according to Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

Their study included a total of 1,846 adults who had undergone autologous HSCT. They were randomized to receive two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine, the first at 50-70 days after the procedure and the second 1-2 months later.

Herpes zoster cases were seen in 49 and 136 individuals in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively, which resulted in overall incidences of 30 and 94 per 1,000 person-years.

The incidence rate ratio of a first episode of herpes zoster was 0.36 for individuals receiving at least one dose, which authors said was equivalent to a vaccine efficacy of 63.7%.

That efficacy rate is “very similar” to the estimated efficacy reported for the heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine reported in The Lancet, said Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

However, the heat-inactivated vaccine achieved that level of protection with a four-dose schedule, including one dose given prior to autologous HSCT.

“An advantage of the short 2-dose posttransplantation schedule is that more patients might complete the vaccination program,” they said in a discussion of the results, noting that 94.7% of the recombinant zoster vaccine recipients completed two doses, compared with 81.9% of recipients who received the heat-inactivated herpes zoster vaccine in the previous report.

The study was funded and sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Dr. Sullivan reported disclosures related to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Kiadis Pharmaceutical, Roche Genentech, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthors provided disclosures related to GSK, AbbVie, Roche, Gilead, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Morphosys, Helsinn, Celgene, and others.

SOURCE: Bastidas A et al. JAMA. 2019 July 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.9053.

Two doses of recombinant zoster vaccine significantly reduced incidence of herpes zoster in adults who had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial indicate.

The incidence of herpes zoster was 30 per 1,000 person-years for patients who received the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) versus 94 per 1,000 person-years for those who received placebo, according to study results.

Recombinant zoster vaccine induced humoral and cellular responses that were strong and occurring at a rate higher than what was seen in the placebo group, said senior author Keith M. Sullivan, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and coauthors, who reported findings on behalf of the Zoster Efficacy Study in Patients Undergoing HSCT (ZOE-HSCT) Study Group.

“The vaccinations were generally well tolerated, and most symptoms were mild and transient and did not substantially deter participants from receiving their second dose,” Dr. Sullivan and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The risk of herpes zoster is increased for 2-3 years after autologous HSCT because of diminished T-cell immunity, according to the authors.

“Antiviral prophylaxis is commonly administered to patients after HSCT to prevent such complications, but the efficacy depends on adherence to treatment,” they said.

While vaccines could provide long-term protection, immunocompromised individuals receiving live attenuated vaccine would be at increased risk of varicella caused by spread of the vaccine strain, they added.

There have been a few encouraging recent studies of non-live vaccines in this setting, including one large phase 3 trial of a heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine that showed patients undergoing autologous HSCT had a 63.8% estimated efficacy in preventing herpes zoster, investigators from that study said in The Lancet (2018 May 26;391[10135]:2116-27).

A phase 1/2a study of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine in patients undergoing HSCT demonstrated strong humoral and cell-mediated immunity responses, which provided the rationale for studying the vaccine further in the randomized ZOE-HSCT study, according to Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

Their study included a total of 1,846 adults who had undergone autologous HSCT. They were randomized to receive two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine, the first at 50-70 days after the procedure and the second 1-2 months later.

Herpes zoster cases were seen in 49 and 136 individuals in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively, which resulted in overall incidences of 30 and 94 per 1,000 person-years.

The incidence rate ratio of a first episode of herpes zoster was 0.36 for individuals receiving at least one dose, which authors said was equivalent to a vaccine efficacy of 63.7%.

That efficacy rate is “very similar” to the estimated efficacy reported for the heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine reported in The Lancet, said Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

However, the heat-inactivated vaccine achieved that level of protection with a four-dose schedule, including one dose given prior to autologous HSCT.

“An advantage of the short 2-dose posttransplantation schedule is that more patients might complete the vaccination program,” they said in a discussion of the results, noting that 94.7% of the recombinant zoster vaccine recipients completed two doses, compared with 81.9% of recipients who received the heat-inactivated herpes zoster vaccine in the previous report.

The study was funded and sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Dr. Sullivan reported disclosures related to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Kiadis Pharmaceutical, Roche Genentech, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthors provided disclosures related to GSK, AbbVie, Roche, Gilead, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Morphosys, Helsinn, Celgene, and others.

SOURCE: Bastidas A et al. JAMA. 2019 July 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.9053.

Two doses of recombinant zoster vaccine significantly reduced incidence of herpes zoster in adults who had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial indicate.

The incidence of herpes zoster was 30 per 1,000 person-years for patients who received the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) versus 94 per 1,000 person-years for those who received placebo, according to study results.

Recombinant zoster vaccine induced humoral and cellular responses that were strong and occurring at a rate higher than what was seen in the placebo group, said senior author Keith M. Sullivan, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and coauthors, who reported findings on behalf of the Zoster Efficacy Study in Patients Undergoing HSCT (ZOE-HSCT) Study Group.

“The vaccinations were generally well tolerated, and most symptoms were mild and transient and did not substantially deter participants from receiving their second dose,” Dr. Sullivan and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The risk of herpes zoster is increased for 2-3 years after autologous HSCT because of diminished T-cell immunity, according to the authors.

“Antiviral prophylaxis is commonly administered to patients after HSCT to prevent such complications, but the efficacy depends on adherence to treatment,” they said.

While vaccines could provide long-term protection, immunocompromised individuals receiving live attenuated vaccine would be at increased risk of varicella caused by spread of the vaccine strain, they added.

There have been a few encouraging recent studies of non-live vaccines in this setting, including one large phase 3 trial of a heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine that showed patients undergoing autologous HSCT had a 63.8% estimated efficacy in preventing herpes zoster, investigators from that study said in The Lancet (2018 May 26;391[10135]:2116-27).

A phase 1/2a study of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine in patients undergoing HSCT demonstrated strong humoral and cell-mediated immunity responses, which provided the rationale for studying the vaccine further in the randomized ZOE-HSCT study, according to Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

Their study included a total of 1,846 adults who had undergone autologous HSCT. They were randomized to receive two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine, the first at 50-70 days after the procedure and the second 1-2 months later.

Herpes zoster cases were seen in 49 and 136 individuals in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively, which resulted in overall incidences of 30 and 94 per 1,000 person-years.

The incidence rate ratio of a first episode of herpes zoster was 0.36 for individuals receiving at least one dose, which authors said was equivalent to a vaccine efficacy of 63.7%.

That efficacy rate is “very similar” to the estimated efficacy reported for the heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine reported in The Lancet, said Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

However, the heat-inactivated vaccine achieved that level of protection with a four-dose schedule, including one dose given prior to autologous HSCT.

“An advantage of the short 2-dose posttransplantation schedule is that more patients might complete the vaccination program,” they said in a discussion of the results, noting that 94.7% of the recombinant zoster vaccine recipients completed two doses, compared with 81.9% of recipients who received the heat-inactivated herpes zoster vaccine in the previous report.

The study was funded and sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Dr. Sullivan reported disclosures related to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Kiadis Pharmaceutical, Roche Genentech, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthors provided disclosures related to GSK, AbbVie, Roche, Gilead, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Morphosys, Helsinn, Celgene, and others.

SOURCE: Bastidas A et al. JAMA. 2019 July 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.9053.

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. — A multicenter pilot study of a prophylactic regimen for both matched sibling donor and unrelated donor bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe sickle cell disease has found similar overall and event-free survival rates between the two approaches, exceeding 90% and 85%, respectively, at one year, according to preliminary results presented at the annual meeting of the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research.

The results have led to a Phase 2 single-arm, multicenter trial, known as STRIDE , to evaluate a reduced toxicity preparative regimen consisting of busulfan (13.2 mg/kg), fludarabine (175   mg/m ² ) and antithymocyte globulin (ATG, 6 mg/kg) and cyclosporine or tacrolimus and methotrexate for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD), said Lakshmanan Krishnamurti, MD, of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta/Emory University. “The data are similar with 91% overall survival and 86% event-free survival,” he said.

The pilot study, published recently ( Am J Hematol. 2019;94:446-54 ), indicated the effectiveness of non-myeloablative conditioning in SCD patients with matched-sibling bone marrow transplant (BMT), with a higher intensity regimen of busulfan/fludarabine/ATG effective in unrelated donor BMT for other conditions, Dr. Krishnamurti said.

The pilot study also found that three-year event-free survival (EFS) of 82%, and statistically significant improvements in pain and health-related quality of life.

STRIDE is the first comparative study of BMT vs. standard of care in severe SCD, Dr. Krishnamurti added. The primary endpoint is overall survival at two years after biologic assignment, with longer-term outcomes including survival at three to 10 years post-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and impact of BMT on sickle-related events, organ function, health-related quality of life and chronic pain.  

The pilot study included 22 patients between the ages of 17 and 36 who had BMT at eight centers. Seventeen patients received marrow from a sibling-matched donor and five patients received marrow from an unrelated donor. 

Dr. Krishnamurti referenced a recent study out of France that showed chimerism levels after transplant may be a determining physiological factor for outcomes (Haematologica. doi:10.3324/haematol.2018.213207 ). “So if chimerism is stable, somewhere in the 25% to 50% or better range, and hemoglobin levels are improved, this decrease hemolysis,” he said. “This is very important in understanding how to manage these patients.”

That study showed that rates of chronic GVHD up to 10 years post-transplant have steadily improved over the past three decades in patients with SCD who’ve had BMT, Dr. Krishnamurti noted. “But chronic GVHD is higher in patients age 16 to 30 vs. patients 15 and younger,” he said, “so that’s the reason to consider transplantation sooner in patients who have a matched sibling donor.”

The French study shows that BMT with sibling-matched donors has excellent outcomes in young children, Dr. Krishnamurti said. “Outcomes for adults with transplantation is becoming similar to that in children,” he added. “Age is an important predictor of outcomes and the risk for progressive morbidity-impaired quality of life and risk of mortality still exists in adults with sickle cell disease.”

The bottom line, he said, is that patients and caregivers must be given the opportunity to consider transplantation as an option at younger ages.

Dr. Krishnamurti did not disclose any financial relationships.

SOURCE: Krishnamurti L et al. FSCDR 2019

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. — A multicenter pilot study of a prophylactic regimen for both matched sibling donor and unrelated donor bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe sickle cell disease has found similar overall and event-free survival rates between the two approaches, exceeding 90% and 85%, respectively, at one year, according to preliminary results presented at the annual meeting of the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research.

The results have led to a Phase 2 single-arm, multicenter trial, known as STRIDE , to evaluate a reduced toxicity preparative regimen consisting of busulfan (13.2 mg/kg), fludarabine (175   mg/m ² ) and antithymocyte globulin (ATG, 6 mg/kg) and cyclosporine or tacrolimus and methotrexate for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD), said Lakshmanan Krishnamurti, MD, of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta/Emory University. “The data are similar with 91% overall survival and 86% event-free survival,” he said.

The pilot study, published recently ( Am J Hematol. 2019;94:446-54 ), indicated the effectiveness of non-myeloablative conditioning in SCD patients with matched-sibling bone marrow transplant (BMT), with a higher intensity regimen of busulfan/fludarabine/ATG effective in unrelated donor BMT for other conditions, Dr. Krishnamurti said.

The pilot study also found that three-year event-free survival (EFS) of 82%, and statistically significant improvements in pain and health-related quality of life.

STRIDE is the first comparative study of BMT vs. standard of care in severe SCD, Dr. Krishnamurti added. The primary endpoint is overall survival at two years after biologic assignment, with longer-term outcomes including survival at three to 10 years post-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and impact of BMT on sickle-related events, organ function, health-related quality of life and chronic pain.  

The pilot study included 22 patients between the ages of 17 and 36 who had BMT at eight centers. Seventeen patients received marrow from a sibling-matched donor and five patients received marrow from an unrelated donor. 

Dr. Krishnamurti referenced a recent study out of France that showed chimerism levels after transplant may be a determining physiological factor for outcomes (Haematologica. doi:10.3324/haematol.2018.213207 ). “So if chimerism is stable, somewhere in the 25% to 50% or better range, and hemoglobin levels are improved, this decrease hemolysis,” he said. “This is very important in understanding how to manage these patients.”

That study showed that rates of chronic GVHD up to 10 years post-transplant have steadily improved over the past three decades in patients with SCD who’ve had BMT, Dr. Krishnamurti noted. “But chronic GVHD is higher in patients age 16 to 30 vs. patients 15 and younger,” he said, “so that’s the reason to consider transplantation sooner in patients who have a matched sibling donor.”

The French study shows that BMT with sibling-matched donors has excellent outcomes in young children, Dr. Krishnamurti said. “Outcomes for adults with transplantation is becoming similar to that in children,” he added. “Age is an important predictor of outcomes and the risk for progressive morbidity-impaired quality of life and risk of mortality still exists in adults with sickle cell disease.”

The bottom line, he said, is that patients and caregivers must be given the opportunity to consider transplantation as an option at younger ages.

Dr. Krishnamurti did not disclose any financial relationships.

SOURCE: Krishnamurti L et al. FSCDR 2019

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. — A multicenter pilot study of a prophylactic regimen for both matched sibling donor and unrelated donor bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe sickle cell disease has found similar overall and event-free survival rates between the two approaches, exceeding 90% and 85%, respectively, at one year, according to preliminary results presented at the annual meeting of the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research.

The results have led to a Phase 2 single-arm, multicenter trial, known as STRIDE , to evaluate a reduced toxicity preparative regimen consisting of busulfan (13.2 mg/kg), fludarabine (175   mg/m ² ) and antithymocyte globulin (ATG, 6 mg/kg) and cyclosporine or tacrolimus and methotrexate for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD), said Lakshmanan Krishnamurti, MD, of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta/Emory University. “The data are similar with 91% overall survival and 86% event-free survival,” he said.

The pilot study, published recently ( Am J Hematol. 2019;94:446-54 ), indicated the effectiveness of non-myeloablative conditioning in SCD patients with matched-sibling bone marrow transplant (BMT), with a higher intensity regimen of busulfan/fludarabine/ATG effective in unrelated donor BMT for other conditions, Dr. Krishnamurti said.

The pilot study also found that three-year event-free survival (EFS) of 82%, and statistically significant improvements in pain and health-related quality of life.

STRIDE is the first comparative study of BMT vs. standard of care in severe SCD, Dr. Krishnamurti added. The primary endpoint is overall survival at two years after biologic assignment, with longer-term outcomes including survival at three to 10 years post-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and impact of BMT on sickle-related events, organ function, health-related quality of life and chronic pain.  

The pilot study included 22 patients between the ages of 17 and 36 who had BMT at eight centers. Seventeen patients received marrow from a sibling-matched donor and five patients received marrow from an unrelated donor. 

Dr. Krishnamurti referenced a recent study out of France that showed chimerism levels after transplant may be a determining physiological factor for outcomes (Haematologica. doi:10.3324/haematol.2018.213207 ). “So if chimerism is stable, somewhere in the 25% to 50% or better range, and hemoglobin levels are improved, this decrease hemolysis,” he said. “This is very important in understanding how to manage these patients.”

That study showed that rates of chronic GVHD up to 10 years post-transplant have steadily improved over the past three decades in patients with SCD who’ve had BMT, Dr. Krishnamurti noted. “But chronic GVHD is higher in patients age 16 to 30 vs. patients 15 and younger,” he said, “so that’s the reason to consider transplantation sooner in patients who have a matched sibling donor.”

The French study shows that BMT with sibling-matched donors has excellent outcomes in young children, Dr. Krishnamurti said. “Outcomes for adults with transplantation is becoming similar to that in children,” he added. “Age is an important predictor of outcomes and the risk for progressive morbidity-impaired quality of life and risk of mortality still exists in adults with sickle cell disease.”

The bottom line, he said, is that patients and caregivers must be given the opportunity to consider transplantation as an option at younger ages.

Dr. Krishnamurti did not disclose any financial relationships.

SOURCE: Krishnamurti L et al. FSCDR 2019

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Jafaki (ruxolitinib) for treatment of steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older.

Ruxolitinib will be made available to appropriate patients immediately, according to a statement from Incyte, which markets the drug. The company noted that ruxolitinib is the first FDA-approved treatment for this indication.

The approval is based on data from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter REACH1 trial, which studied ruxolitinib in combination with corticosteroids. The 71 patients in the trial had grade 2-4 acute GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant; of these patients, 49 were refractory to steroids alone, 12 had received at least two prior therapies for GVHD, and 10 did not otherwise meet the FDA definition of steroid refractory.

The trial’s primary endpoints were day-28 overall response rate and response duration. Among the 49 patients with steroid only–refractory GVHD, the overall response rate was 100% for grade 2 GVHD, 40.7% for grade 3, and 44.4% for grade 4. Median response duration was 16 days. For all 49 of these patients, the overall response rate was 57%, and the complete response rate was 31%.

Among all 71 participants, the most frequently reported adverse reactions were infections (55%) and edema (51%); anemia (71%), thrombocytopenia (75%), and neutropenia (58%) were the most common laboratory abnormalities.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Jafaki (ruxolitinib) for treatment of steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older.

Ruxolitinib will be made available to appropriate patients immediately, according to a statement from Incyte, which markets the drug. The company noted that ruxolitinib is the first FDA-approved treatment for this indication.

The approval is based on data from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter REACH1 trial, which studied ruxolitinib in combination with corticosteroids. The 71 patients in the trial had grade 2-4 acute GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant; of these patients, 49 were refractory to steroids alone, 12 had received at least two prior therapies for GVHD, and 10 did not otherwise meet the FDA definition of steroid refractory.

The trial’s primary endpoints were day-28 overall response rate and response duration. Among the 49 patients with steroid only–refractory GVHD, the overall response rate was 100% for grade 2 GVHD, 40.7% for grade 3, and 44.4% for grade 4. Median response duration was 16 days. For all 49 of these patients, the overall response rate was 57%, and the complete response rate was 31%.

Among all 71 participants, the most frequently reported adverse reactions were infections (55%) and edema (51%); anemia (71%), thrombocytopenia (75%), and neutropenia (58%) were the most common laboratory abnormalities.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Jafaki (ruxolitinib) for treatment of steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older.

Ruxolitinib will be made available to appropriate patients immediately, according to a statement from Incyte, which markets the drug. The company noted that ruxolitinib is the first FDA-approved treatment for this indication.

The approval is based on data from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter REACH1 trial, which studied ruxolitinib in combination with corticosteroids. The 71 patients in the trial had grade 2-4 acute GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant; of these patients, 49 were refractory to steroids alone, 12 had received at least two prior therapies for GVHD, and 10 did not otherwise meet the FDA definition of steroid refractory.

The trial’s primary endpoints were day-28 overall response rate and response duration. Among the 49 patients with steroid only–refractory GVHD, the overall response rate was 100% for grade 2 GVHD, 40.7% for grade 3, and 44.4% for grade 4. Median response duration was 16 days. For all 49 of these patients, the overall response rate was 57%, and the complete response rate was 31%.

Among all 71 participants, the most frequently reported adverse reactions were infections (55%) and edema (51%); anemia (71%), thrombocytopenia (75%), and neutropenia (58%) were the most common laboratory abnormalities.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers say they’ve found an association between the percentage of cytogenetically abnormal cells at allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) and posttransplant outcomes in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Patients who had more than 60% cytogenetically abnormal cells at ASCT had significantly inferior overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS), compared to patients with fewer abnormal cells.

Dipenkumar Modi, MD, of Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State University in Detroit, and his colleagues conducted this research and presented the results at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

The researchers studied 109 adult MDS patients who underwent ASCT from January 2000 through December 2016. The patients were divided into three groups based on the percentage of cytogenetically abnormal cells at ASCT:

• Group 1 had less than 30% (n = 22)
• Group 2 had 30%-60% (n = 23)
• Group 3 had greater than 60% (n = 64).

Baseline characteristics were largely similar between the groups. However, patients in group 3 were significantly more likely than those in groups 1 and 2 to have del(5q) and monosomy 5+7 (P = .048).

Patients in group 1 had a significantly higher percentage of bone marrow transplants (as opposed to peripheral blood stem cell transplants) than patients in groups 2 and 3 (P = .039). And patients in group 1 had significantly fewer blasts at ASCT than patients in groups 2 and 3 (P = .011).

The researchers found no significant between-group differences in relapse and nonrelapse mortality, but there were significant differences in OS and RFS.

Patients in group 3 had inferior RFS compared to patients in group 1, which was the reference group. The hazard ratio (HR) was 2.503 (P = .013) in a univariable analysis and 2.196 (P = .049) in a multivariable analysis.

Group 3 also had inferior OS compared to group 1. The hazard ratio was 2.589 (P = .021) in a univariable analysis and 2.478 (P = .040) in a multivariable analysis.

There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between groups 1 and 2. The HR for RFS in group 2 was 1.879 (P = .148) in a univariable analysis and 1.365 (P = .506) in a multivariable analysis. The HR for OS was 1.997 (P = .155) and 1.413 (P = .511), respectively.

Dr. Modi said these results suggest patients with greater than 60% cytogenetically abnormal cells at ASCT should be monitored more closely after transplant, and their immunosuppressive medication should be tapered as soon as possible.

Dr. Modi and his colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest relevant to this research.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

jensmith@mdedge.com

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers say they’ve found an association between the percentage of cytogenetically abnormal cells at allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) and posttransplant outcomes in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Patients who had more than 60% cytogenetically abnormal cells at ASCT had significantly inferior overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS), compared to patients with fewer abnormal cells.

Dipenkumar Modi, MD, of Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State University in Detroit, and his colleagues conducted this research and presented the results at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

The researchers studied 109 adult MDS patients who underwent ASCT from January 2000 through December 2016. The patients were divided into three groups based on the percentage of cytogenetically abnormal cells at ASCT:

• Group 1 had less than 30% (n = 22)
• Group 2 had 30%-60% (n = 23)
• Group 3 had greater than 60% (n = 64).

Baseline characteristics were largely similar between the groups. However, patients in group 3 were significantly more likely than those in groups 1 and 2 to have del(5q) and monosomy 5+7 (P = .048).

Patients in group 1 had a significantly higher percentage of bone marrow transplants (as opposed to peripheral blood stem cell transplants) than patients in groups 2 and 3 (P = .039). And patients in group 1 had significantly fewer blasts at ASCT than patients in groups 2 and 3 (P = .011).

The researchers found no significant between-group differences in relapse and nonrelapse mortality, but there were significant differences in OS and RFS.

Patients in group 3 had inferior RFS compared to patients in group 1, which was the reference group. The hazard ratio (HR) was 2.503 (P = .013) in a univariable analysis and 2.196 (P = .049) in a multivariable analysis.

Group 3 also had inferior OS compared to group 1. The hazard ratio was 2.589 (P = .021) in a univariable analysis and 2.478 (P = .040) in a multivariable analysis.

There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between groups 1 and 2. The HR for RFS in group 2 was 1.879 (P = .148) in a univariable analysis and 1.365 (P = .506) in a multivariable analysis. The HR for OS was 1.997 (P = .155) and 1.413 (P = .511), respectively.

Dr. Modi said these results suggest patients with greater than 60% cytogenetically abnormal cells at ASCT should be monitored more closely after transplant, and their immunosuppressive medication should be tapered as soon as possible.

Dr. Modi and his colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest relevant to this research.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

jensmith@mdedge.com

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers say they’ve found an association between the percentage of cytogenetically abnormal cells at allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) and posttransplant outcomes in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).

Patients who had more than 60% cytogenetically abnormal cells at ASCT had significantly inferior overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS), compared to patients with fewer abnormal cells.

Dipenkumar Modi, MD, of Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute at Wayne State University in Detroit, and his colleagues conducted this research and presented the results at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

The researchers studied 109 adult MDS patients who underwent ASCT from January 2000 through December 2016. The patients were divided into three groups based on the percentage of cytogenetically abnormal cells at ASCT:

• Group 1 had less than 30% (n = 22)
• Group 2 had 30%-60% (n = 23)
• Group 3 had greater than 60% (n = 64).

Baseline characteristics were largely similar between the groups. However, patients in group 3 were significantly more likely than those in groups 1 and 2 to have del(5q) and monosomy 5+7 (P = .048).

Patients in group 1 had a significantly higher percentage of bone marrow transplants (as opposed to peripheral blood stem cell transplants) than patients in groups 2 and 3 (P = .039). And patients in group 1 had significantly fewer blasts at ASCT than patients in groups 2 and 3 (P = .011).

The researchers found no significant between-group differences in relapse and nonrelapse mortality, but there were significant differences in OS and RFS.

Patients in group 3 had inferior RFS compared to patients in group 1, which was the reference group. The hazard ratio (HR) was 2.503 (P = .013) in a univariable analysis and 2.196 (P = .049) in a multivariable analysis.

Group 3 also had inferior OS compared to group 1. The hazard ratio was 2.589 (P = .021) in a univariable analysis and 2.478 (P = .040) in a multivariable analysis.

There was no significant difference in RFS or OS between groups 1 and 2. The HR for RFS in group 2 was 1.879 (P = .148) in a univariable analysis and 1.365 (P = .506) in a multivariable analysis. The HR for OS was 1.997 (P = .155) and 1.413 (P = .511), respectively.

Dr. Modi said these results suggest patients with greater than 60% cytogenetically abnormal cells at ASCT should be monitored more closely after transplant, and their immunosuppressive medication should be tapered as soon as possible.

Dr. Modi and his colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest relevant to this research.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

jensmith@mdedge.com

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers say they have identified biomarkers that may help guide early treatment decisions in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

The biomarkers, ST2 and REG3-alpha, were measured during the first month of GVHD treatment and proved more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM). In fact, biomarker assessment revealed patients who responded to treatment but had a high risk of NRM and nonresponders who had a low risk of NRM.

The researchers also found that biomarkers changed over the first month of treatment but remained significant predictors of NRM. This suggests that modifying treatment according to biomarker findings at various time points could result in better outcomes for patients.

“We think this is going to transform the way we treat graft-versus-host disease,” said James L.M. Ferrara, MD, DSc, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Ferrara and Hrishikesh Srinagesh, along with their colleagues at Mount Sinai, have conducted extensive research with these biomarkers and presented some of their findings at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

Comparing biomarkers and response

In one study, the researchers evaluated 355 patients who had undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant at 1 of 20 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between January 2016 and February 2018. All patients developed acute GVHD and received systemic steroids as treatment.

Patients provided blood samples weekly for the first month of treatment, and concentrations of ST2 and REG3-alpha were measured in each sample. Both biomarker concentrations were used to calculate the biomarker probability of NRM.

“The concentration of those two biomarkers are put into a computer, and we get … a single number, and that gives us the probability of mortality,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[W]e call this the MAGIC algorithm probability, or MAP. And when a MAP is low, the patient has a very low chance of dying from graft-versus-host disease, when it’s intermediate, they have an intermediate risk, and when it’s high, they have a high risk.”

The researchers then compared the MAP and clinical response for their ability to predict 6-month NRM throughout the first month of therapy for acute GVHD.

MAP bests response

After 1 month of therapy, the MAP was more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.84 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).

Likewise, the MAP after 1 week of therapy was more accurate than clinical response at 1 month for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.80 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).

“[T]he clinical responses were good, but not great, at predicting long-term outcome, where the biomarker, the MAP, was significantly better,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[A]t every time point we tested, the biomarkers were better than the clinical responses.”

The researchers also identified subgroups of clinical responders and nonresponders for whom MAP more accurately predicted 6-month NRM.

The team found that 61% of clinical nonresponders were actually low risk according to MAP. And the incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly lower in the MAP-designated low-risk patients than in MAP-designated high-risk patients – 22% and 56%, respectively (P less than .001).

On the other hand, 10% of clinical responders were high risk according to MAP. The incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly higher in the high-risk patients than in the low-risk patients – 40% and 13%, respectively (P less than .001).

Assessing changes over time

The researchers found that patients who were initially high risk by MAP but had not experienced NRM by 6 months had significant decreases in their MAP after 4 weeks of treatment (P = .003). Patients who did experience NRM had a significant increase in their MAP whether their initial MAP was low (P = .007) or high (P = .024).

“What we found was that patients who lived tended to either have low biomarkers at the start of treatment and stay low or start out with high biomarkers and have reductions over the first month of therapy,” Mr. Srinagesh said. “Conversely, patients who tended to do worse were those who had either increases in their biomarkers or stayed high at all time points.”

The researchers identified a threshold – 0.290 – for separating patients by mortality risk.

“Patients who started out above the threshold and then went below it had a 5-fold reduction in mortality, whereas patients who started out below the threshold and rose above it had a 5-fold increase in mortality,” Mr. Srinagesh said.

MAP in clinical trials and practice

Based on these findings and results from related studies, the researchers theorize that MAP would be a better endpoint for clinical trials than clinical response.

At present, there are three trials in which researchers are using MAP as an endpoint to assess the efficacy of treatment for GVHD (NCT02133924, NCT03459040, and NCT03846479). Dr. Ferrara said a fourth trial is set to begin this summer.

Additionally, MAP is being used in clinical practice. A company called Viracor Eurofins Clinical Diagnostics licensed the MAGIC algorithm and provides three related tests for consumer use.

Viracor’s aGVHD Pre-Symptomatic Algorithm assigns patients to high- and low-risk groups based on results from samples collected 7 days after transplant. The aGVHD Symptomatic Onset Algorithm assigns patients to high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. The aGVHD Post-Treatment Algorithm, which can be used 7 days or more after GVHD treatment initiation, stratifies steroid-resistant patients into high- or low-risk groups for both NRM and overall survival.

“We are still in early days of figuring out how to use [the biomarker tests], but … what I’ve heard is that people are finding them to be useful in their clinical practice,” Dr. Ferrara said.

Dr. Ferrara has an ownership interest in and receives royalties from Viracor. Mr. Srinagesh reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

jensmith@mdedge.com

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers say they have identified biomarkers that may help guide early treatment decisions in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

The biomarkers, ST2 and REG3-alpha, were measured during the first month of GVHD treatment and proved more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM). In fact, biomarker assessment revealed patients who responded to treatment but had a high risk of NRM and nonresponders who had a low risk of NRM.

The researchers also found that biomarkers changed over the first month of treatment but remained significant predictors of NRM. This suggests that modifying treatment according to biomarker findings at various time points could result in better outcomes for patients.

“We think this is going to transform the way we treat graft-versus-host disease,” said James L.M. Ferrara, MD, DSc, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Ferrara and Hrishikesh Srinagesh, along with their colleagues at Mount Sinai, have conducted extensive research with these biomarkers and presented some of their findings at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

Comparing biomarkers and response

In one study, the researchers evaluated 355 patients who had undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant at 1 of 20 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between January 2016 and February 2018. All patients developed acute GVHD and received systemic steroids as treatment.

Patients provided blood samples weekly for the first month of treatment, and concentrations of ST2 and REG3-alpha were measured in each sample. Both biomarker concentrations were used to calculate the biomarker probability of NRM.

“The concentration of those two biomarkers are put into a computer, and we get … a single number, and that gives us the probability of mortality,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[W]e call this the MAGIC algorithm probability, or MAP. And when a MAP is low, the patient has a very low chance of dying from graft-versus-host disease, when it’s intermediate, they have an intermediate risk, and when it’s high, they have a high risk.”

The researchers then compared the MAP and clinical response for their ability to predict 6-month NRM throughout the first month of therapy for acute GVHD.

MAP bests response

After 1 month of therapy, the MAP was more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.84 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).

Likewise, the MAP after 1 week of therapy was more accurate than clinical response at 1 month for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.80 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).

“[T]he clinical responses were good, but not great, at predicting long-term outcome, where the biomarker, the MAP, was significantly better,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[A]t every time point we tested, the biomarkers were better than the clinical responses.”

The researchers also identified subgroups of clinical responders and nonresponders for whom MAP more accurately predicted 6-month NRM.

The team found that 61% of clinical nonresponders were actually low risk according to MAP. And the incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly lower in the MAP-designated low-risk patients than in MAP-designated high-risk patients – 22% and 56%, respectively (P less than .001).

On the other hand, 10% of clinical responders were high risk according to MAP. The incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly higher in the high-risk patients than in the low-risk patients – 40% and 13%, respectively (P less than .001).

Assessing changes over time

The researchers found that patients who were initially high risk by MAP but had not experienced NRM by 6 months had significant decreases in their MAP after 4 weeks of treatment (P = .003). Patients who did experience NRM had a significant increase in their MAP whether their initial MAP was low (P = .007) or high (P = .024).

“What we found was that patients who lived tended to either have low biomarkers at the start of treatment and stay low or start out with high biomarkers and have reductions over the first month of therapy,” Mr. Srinagesh said. “Conversely, patients who tended to do worse were those who had either increases in their biomarkers or stayed high at all time points.”

The researchers identified a threshold – 0.290 – for separating patients by mortality risk.

“Patients who started out above the threshold and then went below it had a 5-fold reduction in mortality, whereas patients who started out below the threshold and rose above it had a 5-fold increase in mortality,” Mr. Srinagesh said.

MAP in clinical trials and practice

Based on these findings and results from related studies, the researchers theorize that MAP would be a better endpoint for clinical trials than clinical response.

At present, there are three trials in which researchers are using MAP as an endpoint to assess the efficacy of treatment for GVHD (NCT02133924, NCT03459040, and NCT03846479). Dr. Ferrara said a fourth trial is set to begin this summer.

Additionally, MAP is being used in clinical practice. A company called Viracor Eurofins Clinical Diagnostics licensed the MAGIC algorithm and provides three related tests for consumer use.

Viracor’s aGVHD Pre-Symptomatic Algorithm assigns patients to high- and low-risk groups based on results from samples collected 7 days after transplant. The aGVHD Symptomatic Onset Algorithm assigns patients to high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. The aGVHD Post-Treatment Algorithm, which can be used 7 days or more after GVHD treatment initiation, stratifies steroid-resistant patients into high- or low-risk groups for both NRM and overall survival.

“We are still in early days of figuring out how to use [the biomarker tests], but … what I’ve heard is that people are finding them to be useful in their clinical practice,” Dr. Ferrara said.

Dr. Ferrara has an ownership interest in and receives royalties from Viracor. Mr. Srinagesh reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

jensmith@mdedge.com

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers say they have identified biomarkers that may help guide early treatment decisions in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

The biomarkers, ST2 and REG3-alpha, were measured during the first month of GVHD treatment and proved more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM). In fact, biomarker assessment revealed patients who responded to treatment but had a high risk of NRM and nonresponders who had a low risk of NRM.

The researchers also found that biomarkers changed over the first month of treatment but remained significant predictors of NRM. This suggests that modifying treatment according to biomarker findings at various time points could result in better outcomes for patients.

“We think this is going to transform the way we treat graft-versus-host disease,” said James L.M. Ferrara, MD, DSc, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Ferrara and Hrishikesh Srinagesh, along with their colleagues at Mount Sinai, have conducted extensive research with these biomarkers and presented some of their findings at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

Comparing biomarkers and response

In one study, the researchers evaluated 355 patients who had undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant at 1 of 20 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between January 2016 and February 2018. All patients developed acute GVHD and received systemic steroids as treatment.

Patients provided blood samples weekly for the first month of treatment, and concentrations of ST2 and REG3-alpha were measured in each sample. Both biomarker concentrations were used to calculate the biomarker probability of NRM.

“The concentration of those two biomarkers are put into a computer, and we get … a single number, and that gives us the probability of mortality,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[W]e call this the MAGIC algorithm probability, or MAP. And when a MAP is low, the patient has a very low chance of dying from graft-versus-host disease, when it’s intermediate, they have an intermediate risk, and when it’s high, they have a high risk.”

The researchers then compared the MAP and clinical response for their ability to predict 6-month NRM throughout the first month of therapy for acute GVHD.

MAP bests response

After 1 month of therapy, the MAP was more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.84 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).

Likewise, the MAP after 1 week of therapy was more accurate than clinical response at 1 month for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.80 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).

“[T]he clinical responses were good, but not great, at predicting long-term outcome, where the biomarker, the MAP, was significantly better,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[A]t every time point we tested, the biomarkers were better than the clinical responses.”

The researchers also identified subgroups of clinical responders and nonresponders for whom MAP more accurately predicted 6-month NRM.

The team found that 61% of clinical nonresponders were actually low risk according to MAP. And the incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly lower in the MAP-designated low-risk patients than in MAP-designated high-risk patients – 22% and 56%, respectively (P less than .001).

On the other hand, 10% of clinical responders were high risk according to MAP. The incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly higher in the high-risk patients than in the low-risk patients – 40% and 13%, respectively (P less than .001).

Assessing changes over time

The researchers found that patients who were initially high risk by MAP but had not experienced NRM by 6 months had significant decreases in their MAP after 4 weeks of treatment (P = .003). Patients who did experience NRM had a significant increase in their MAP whether their initial MAP was low (P = .007) or high (P = .024).

“What we found was that patients who lived tended to either have low biomarkers at the start of treatment and stay low or start out with high biomarkers and have reductions over the first month of therapy,” Mr. Srinagesh said. “Conversely, patients who tended to do worse were those who had either increases in their biomarkers or stayed high at all time points.”

The researchers identified a threshold – 0.290 – for separating patients by mortality risk.

“Patients who started out above the threshold and then went below it had a 5-fold reduction in mortality, whereas patients who started out below the threshold and rose above it had a 5-fold increase in mortality,” Mr. Srinagesh said.

MAP in clinical trials and practice

Based on these findings and results from related studies, the researchers theorize that MAP would be a better endpoint for clinical trials than clinical response.

At present, there are three trials in which researchers are using MAP as an endpoint to assess the efficacy of treatment for GVHD (NCT02133924, NCT03459040, and NCT03846479). Dr. Ferrara said a fourth trial is set to begin this summer.

Additionally, MAP is being used in clinical practice. A company called Viracor Eurofins Clinical Diagnostics licensed the MAGIC algorithm and provides three related tests for consumer use.

Viracor’s aGVHD Pre-Symptomatic Algorithm assigns patients to high- and low-risk groups based on results from samples collected 7 days after transplant. The aGVHD Symptomatic Onset Algorithm assigns patients to high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. The aGVHD Post-Treatment Algorithm, which can be used 7 days or more after GVHD treatment initiation, stratifies steroid-resistant patients into high- or low-risk groups for both NRM and overall survival.

“We are still in early days of figuring out how to use [the biomarker tests], but … what I’ve heard is that people are finding them to be useful in their clinical practice,” Dr. Ferrara said.

Dr. Ferrara has an ownership interest in and receives royalties from Viracor. Mr. Srinagesh reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

jensmith@mdedge.com

GLASGOW – Constant patient monitoring and early intervention with tocilizumab and steroids are essential to the safe delivery of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), according to a leading expert.

As a clinical researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Loretta Nastoupil, MD has played an active role in the evolution of CAR T-cell therapy, from early trials to ongoing development of treatment protocols. During a presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, Dr. Nastoupil discussed leading topics in CAR T-cell therapy, with an emphasis on safe delivery.

“[Toxicity] is something we don’t talk about as much as we should, partly because this therapy works and it’s really exciting,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But the toxicity is not something that I minimize, and it’s very challenging. It’s led us to restructure our inpatient services. It’s led to a lot of sleepless nights. These patients can do very, very well, or they can do very, very poorly in terms of toxicity and I think the most important strategy is recognition and early intervention.”

Monitoring

Early recognition depends on close monitoring, Dr. Nastoupil said, which is carried out by highly trained nursing staff who follow therapy-specific decision algorithms.

“We have nurses that are on the front line,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “They’re the most important group. We have staff that round on [patients] daily, but the nurses are there 24 hours a day. We have a flow sheet where they grade cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity every 8 hours, or if there is an acute change in symptoms or toxicity, they’ll do it in real time.”

Dr. Nastoupil said that if these toxicities are detected, intervention is occurring sooner than it did with some of the first patients to receive CAR-T cell therapy.

“Initially there was a lot of fear surrounding anything that would abort the CAR-T cell therapy,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “There was concern that if you were trying to mitigate some of the toxicity you might have a negative impact on efficacy ... [W]ith the first iteration of studies, generally we were waiting until grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome before initiating either tocilizumab and/or steroids. As the studies evolved, it started to move into grade 2 toxicity that we started using therapy, mostly because we started to see that those patients were still responding.”

At MD Anderson, these earlier interventions have decreased severity of adverse events.

“It’s rare nowadays to have grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome because we are generally introducing abortive therapy at grade 2,” Dr. Nastoupil said, citing increased use of steroids and tocilizumab.

Currently, no consensus exists for managing these events, partly because clinicians are still learning about best management practices.

“There will be a consensus on management,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “I think that’s needed. The problem is, it will probably evolve as we get more experience with managing these patients. I think there’s been a little hesitation to put something out on paper knowing that a year from now that might change.”

Grading toxicity

In contrast, Dr. Nastoupil said that a consensus has been reached for grading acute toxicity. Of note, fever is now considered an essential element of cytokine release syndrome.

“The first thing we see [with cytokine release syndrome] is fever, generally speaking,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “That will prompt a workup for infection because these patients are going to be neutropenic. And we initiate broad spectrum antimicrobials.”

She said that some patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy have had disseminated fungal infections, so clinicians need to be on the lookout for septic shock.

To assess neurotoxicity, the team at MD Anderson uses an objective scoring system, called “CARTOX.” This helps maintain consistency when facing broadly different neurological presentations.

“There’s such a wide ranging spectrum of patients that are undergoing neurotoxicity you can’t expect someone, even myself, to be consistent when you are trying to tease out how serious it is,” Dr. Nastoupil said.

With CARTOX, nurses can easily score patients and call clinicians with results. Still, this doesn’t eliminate difficulties inherent to managing neurotoxicity, particularly when it is severe.

“I’d say one of the areas that is still very challenging is when [patients with neurotoxicity] are no longer responding,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “You have to be very mindful of seizure activity. We’ve had a couple of patients with status [epilepticus]. You don’t see seizure activity physically, but when you do an EEG, you pick it up.”

Dr. Nastoupil added that most centers are now giving patients prophylactic levetiracetam (Keppra) to lower seizure risk.

Choosing therapy

When selecting between the two therapies currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) – based on safety, Dr. Nastoupil said that rates of cytokine release syndrome appear similar, but neurotoxicity rates may differ.

“Cytokine release syndrome in my opinion is probably more similar than different in terms of grade 3 or higher because tocilizumab and steroids work quite well in aborting those toxicities,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But neurotoxicity still sticks out in my mind as the most striking difference, where with axicabtagene you see more grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity, though very, very few deaths as a result of this. But it’s very challenging in terms of management.”

According to Dr. Nastoupil, comparisons between CAR T-cell therapies have been complicated by differences in clinical trial methodologies. However, she offered a general conclusion regarding efficacy.

“[W]hat I’ll tell you, at the end of the day, is [that existing CAR T-cell therapies] all seem to sort of settle out around 30%-40% in terms of durable responses,” Dr. Nastoupil said.

Dr. Nastoupil concluded her presentation with an overview and look to the future.

“I do think [CAR T-cell therapy] is transformative, particularly for our chemo refractory patients,” she said. “There is nothing else like it. The problem right now is that it is only durable in 40% of patients. So can we be better at selecting out patients that are more likely to respond? Does introducing this in earlier lines of therapy increase that fraction of patients that are potentially cured?”

Considering these questions, she said: “We need more patients. We need more data. We need longer follow-up to understand the nuances of this therapy.”

Dr. Nastoupil previously reported financial relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Spectrum, and TG Therapeutics.

GLASGOW – Constant patient monitoring and early intervention with tocilizumab and steroids are essential to the safe delivery of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), according to a leading expert.

As a clinical researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Loretta Nastoupil, MD has played an active role in the evolution of CAR T-cell therapy, from early trials to ongoing development of treatment protocols. During a presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, Dr. Nastoupil discussed leading topics in CAR T-cell therapy, with an emphasis on safe delivery.

“[Toxicity] is something we don’t talk about as much as we should, partly because this therapy works and it’s really exciting,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But the toxicity is not something that I minimize, and it’s very challenging. It’s led us to restructure our inpatient services. It’s led to a lot of sleepless nights. These patients can do very, very well, or they can do very, very poorly in terms of toxicity and I think the most important strategy is recognition and early intervention.”

Monitoring

Early recognition depends on close monitoring, Dr. Nastoupil said, which is carried out by highly trained nursing staff who follow therapy-specific decision algorithms.

“We have nurses that are on the front line,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “They’re the most important group. We have staff that round on [patients] daily, but the nurses are there 24 hours a day. We have a flow sheet where they grade cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity every 8 hours, or if there is an acute change in symptoms or toxicity, they’ll do it in real time.”

Dr. Nastoupil said that if these toxicities are detected, intervention is occurring sooner than it did with some of the first patients to receive CAR-T cell therapy.

“Initially there was a lot of fear surrounding anything that would abort the CAR-T cell therapy,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “There was concern that if you were trying to mitigate some of the toxicity you might have a negative impact on efficacy ... [W]ith the first iteration of studies, generally we were waiting until grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome before initiating either tocilizumab and/or steroids. As the studies evolved, it started to move into grade 2 toxicity that we started using therapy, mostly because we started to see that those patients were still responding.”

At MD Anderson, these earlier interventions have decreased severity of adverse events.

“It’s rare nowadays to have grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome because we are generally introducing abortive therapy at grade 2,” Dr. Nastoupil said, citing increased use of steroids and tocilizumab.

Currently, no consensus exists for managing these events, partly because clinicians are still learning about best management practices.

“There will be a consensus on management,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “I think that’s needed. The problem is, it will probably evolve as we get more experience with managing these patients. I think there’s been a little hesitation to put something out on paper knowing that a year from now that might change.”

Grading toxicity

In contrast, Dr. Nastoupil said that a consensus has been reached for grading acute toxicity. Of note, fever is now considered an essential element of cytokine release syndrome.

“The first thing we see [with cytokine release syndrome] is fever, generally speaking,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “That will prompt a workup for infection because these patients are going to be neutropenic. And we initiate broad spectrum antimicrobials.”

She said that some patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy have had disseminated fungal infections, so clinicians need to be on the lookout for septic shock.

To assess neurotoxicity, the team at MD Anderson uses an objective scoring system, called “CARTOX.” This helps maintain consistency when facing broadly different neurological presentations.

“There’s such a wide ranging spectrum of patients that are undergoing neurotoxicity you can’t expect someone, even myself, to be consistent when you are trying to tease out how serious it is,” Dr. Nastoupil said.

With CARTOX, nurses can easily score patients and call clinicians with results. Still, this doesn’t eliminate difficulties inherent to managing neurotoxicity, particularly when it is severe.

“I’d say one of the areas that is still very challenging is when [patients with neurotoxicity] are no longer responding,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “You have to be very mindful of seizure activity. We’ve had a couple of patients with status [epilepticus]. You don’t see seizure activity physically, but when you do an EEG, you pick it up.”

Dr. Nastoupil added that most centers are now giving patients prophylactic levetiracetam (Keppra) to lower seizure risk.

Choosing therapy

When selecting between the two therapies currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) – based on safety, Dr. Nastoupil said that rates of cytokine release syndrome appear similar, but neurotoxicity rates may differ.

“Cytokine release syndrome in my opinion is probably more similar than different in terms of grade 3 or higher because tocilizumab and steroids work quite well in aborting those toxicities,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But neurotoxicity still sticks out in my mind as the most striking difference, where with axicabtagene you see more grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity, though very, very few deaths as a result of this. But it’s very challenging in terms of management.”

According to Dr. Nastoupil, comparisons between CAR T-cell therapies have been complicated by differences in clinical trial methodologies. However, she offered a general conclusion regarding efficacy.

“[W]hat I’ll tell you, at the end of the day, is [that existing CAR T-cell therapies] all seem to sort of settle out around 30%-40% in terms of durable responses,” Dr. Nastoupil said.

Dr. Nastoupil concluded her presentation with an overview and look to the future.

“I do think [CAR T-cell therapy] is transformative, particularly for our chemo refractory patients,” she said. “There is nothing else like it. The problem right now is that it is only durable in 40% of patients. So can we be better at selecting out patients that are more likely to respond? Does introducing this in earlier lines of therapy increase that fraction of patients that are potentially cured?”

Considering these questions, she said: “We need more patients. We need more data. We need longer follow-up to understand the nuances of this therapy.”

Dr. Nastoupil previously reported financial relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Spectrum, and TG Therapeutics.

GLASGOW – Constant patient monitoring and early intervention with tocilizumab and steroids are essential to the safe delivery of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), according to a leading expert.

As a clinical researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Loretta Nastoupil, MD has played an active role in the evolution of CAR T-cell therapy, from early trials to ongoing development of treatment protocols. During a presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Haematology, Dr. Nastoupil discussed leading topics in CAR T-cell therapy, with an emphasis on safe delivery.

“[Toxicity] is something we don’t talk about as much as we should, partly because this therapy works and it’s really exciting,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But the toxicity is not something that I minimize, and it’s very challenging. It’s led us to restructure our inpatient services. It’s led to a lot of sleepless nights. These patients can do very, very well, or they can do very, very poorly in terms of toxicity and I think the most important strategy is recognition and early intervention.”

Monitoring

Early recognition depends on close monitoring, Dr. Nastoupil said, which is carried out by highly trained nursing staff who follow therapy-specific decision algorithms.

“We have nurses that are on the front line,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “They’re the most important group. We have staff that round on [patients] daily, but the nurses are there 24 hours a day. We have a flow sheet where they grade cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity every 8 hours, or if there is an acute change in symptoms or toxicity, they’ll do it in real time.”

Dr. Nastoupil said that if these toxicities are detected, intervention is occurring sooner than it did with some of the first patients to receive CAR-T cell therapy.

“Initially there was a lot of fear surrounding anything that would abort the CAR-T cell therapy,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “There was concern that if you were trying to mitigate some of the toxicity you might have a negative impact on efficacy ... [W]ith the first iteration of studies, generally we were waiting until grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome before initiating either tocilizumab and/or steroids. As the studies evolved, it started to move into grade 2 toxicity that we started using therapy, mostly because we started to see that those patients were still responding.”

At MD Anderson, these earlier interventions have decreased severity of adverse events.

“It’s rare nowadays to have grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome because we are generally introducing abortive therapy at grade 2,” Dr. Nastoupil said, citing increased use of steroids and tocilizumab.

Currently, no consensus exists for managing these events, partly because clinicians are still learning about best management practices.

“There will be a consensus on management,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “I think that’s needed. The problem is, it will probably evolve as we get more experience with managing these patients. I think there’s been a little hesitation to put something out on paper knowing that a year from now that might change.”

Grading toxicity

In contrast, Dr. Nastoupil said that a consensus has been reached for grading acute toxicity. Of note, fever is now considered an essential element of cytokine release syndrome.

“The first thing we see [with cytokine release syndrome] is fever, generally speaking,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “That will prompt a workup for infection because these patients are going to be neutropenic. And we initiate broad spectrum antimicrobials.”

She said that some patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy have had disseminated fungal infections, so clinicians need to be on the lookout for septic shock.

To assess neurotoxicity, the team at MD Anderson uses an objective scoring system, called “CARTOX.” This helps maintain consistency when facing broadly different neurological presentations.

“There’s such a wide ranging spectrum of patients that are undergoing neurotoxicity you can’t expect someone, even myself, to be consistent when you are trying to tease out how serious it is,” Dr. Nastoupil said.

With CARTOX, nurses can easily score patients and call clinicians with results. Still, this doesn’t eliminate difficulties inherent to managing neurotoxicity, particularly when it is severe.

“I’d say one of the areas that is still very challenging is when [patients with neurotoxicity] are no longer responding,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “You have to be very mindful of seizure activity. We’ve had a couple of patients with status [epilepticus]. You don’t see seizure activity physically, but when you do an EEG, you pick it up.”

Dr. Nastoupil added that most centers are now giving patients prophylactic levetiracetam (Keppra) to lower seizure risk.

Choosing therapy

When selecting between the two therapies currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration – tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) – based on safety, Dr. Nastoupil said that rates of cytokine release syndrome appear similar, but neurotoxicity rates may differ.

“Cytokine release syndrome in my opinion is probably more similar than different in terms of grade 3 or higher because tocilizumab and steroids work quite well in aborting those toxicities,” Dr. Nastoupil said. “But neurotoxicity still sticks out in my mind as the most striking difference, where with axicabtagene you see more grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity, though very, very few deaths as a result of this. But it’s very challenging in terms of management.”

According to Dr. Nastoupil, comparisons between CAR T-cell therapies have been complicated by differences in clinical trial methodologies. However, she offered a general conclusion regarding efficacy.

“[W]hat I’ll tell you, at the end of the day, is [that existing CAR T-cell therapies] all seem to sort of settle out around 30%-40% in terms of durable responses,” Dr. Nastoupil said.

Dr. Nastoupil concluded her presentation with an overview and look to the future.

“I do think [CAR T-cell therapy] is transformative, particularly for our chemo refractory patients,” she said. “There is nothing else like it. The problem right now is that it is only durable in 40% of patients. So can we be better at selecting out patients that are more likely to respond? Does introducing this in earlier lines of therapy increase that fraction of patients that are potentially cured?”

Considering these questions, she said: “We need more patients. We need more data. We need longer follow-up to understand the nuances of this therapy.”

Dr. Nastoupil previously reported financial relationships with Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Spectrum, and TG Therapeutics.

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.

For patients with multiple myeloma in relapse after an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), salvage ASCT is associated with reduced quality of life and greater pain in the near term, compared with nontransplantation consolidation (NTC) therapy, a secondary analysis from the United Kingdom’s Myeloma X trial suggested.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

But global health status scores for salvage ASCT (sASCT) lagged only in the first 100 days after randomization, whereas pain scores were worse with salvage transplantation in the first 2 years but slightly better thereafter, reported Sam H. Ahmedzai, MBChB, from the University of Sheffield, England, and his colleagues.

“The small and diminishing differences in global health status and side effects of treatment need to be considered alongside the results of Myeloma X, which showed a significant benefit of sASCT on [overall survival]. The benefits of sASCT should be considered alongside the relatively short-term negative effects on [quality of life] and pain when making patient treatment decisions and further support the use of sASCT,” they wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The BSBMT/UKMF Myeloma X trial was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing sASCT with weekly oral cyclophosphamide in patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after a prior ASCT. In the final overall survival analysis, median overall survival was superior for the sASCT, at 67 months vs. 52 months for nontransplantation consolidation (P = .022; hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .0169).

In the current study, the investigators reported on secondary patient-reported pain and quality of life outcomes assessed using the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its myeloma-specific module, QLQ-MY20; the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form), and the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (Self-Assessment) scale.

Of the 297 patients enrolled, 288 had consented to the quality of life portion of the study, and of this group, 171 (88 assigned to sASCT and 83 assigned to NTC) were included.

After a median follow-up of 52 months, the QLQ-C30 global health status scores were 9.2 points higher (indicating better) for patients in the nontransplantation group (P = .0496) at 100 days after transplantation, but there were no significant differences between the groups for this measure at any later time point.

“This deterioration in global health status for patients receiving sASCT, compared with NTC, dissipated to a trivial difference at 6 months and a smaller trivial difference at 1 year,” Dr. Ahmedzai and his colleagues wrote.

At 2 years, the pendulum had swung to favor sASCT, but also by a “trivial” amount.

The side effects of treatment subscale was slightly higher (worse) with sASCT at 100 days and 6 months after treatment, but this difference dwindled thereafter.

Pain interference scores adjusted for baseline score and baseline neuropathic pain level were not significantly different 100 days after randomization, but there were significant differences at both 6 months and up to 2 years. At all the time points considered, pain interference scores were approximately 1 point lower in the NTC group, which the authors noted is a clinically relevant difference.

Patients who had undergone sASCT and reported below-median scores on a side-effect subscale had significantly longer time to progression, compared with patients who received NTC (HR, 0.24; P = .003), a difference that held up on multivariable regression analysis (HR, 0.20; P = .0499).

Pain scores were not significantly predictive of either time to progression or overall survival, however.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, Janssen-Cilag, and Chugai Pharma UK. Dr. Ahmedzai reported honoraria, consulting, research funding, and travel fees from various companies, not including the study sponsors.

SOURCE: Ahmedzai SH et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01006.