Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, ( 2022-03-22)

Abstract: CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have evolved as new standard-of-care (SOC) treatment in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Here, we report the first German real-world data on SOC CAR-T cell therapies with the aim to explore risk factors associated with outcome. Patients who received SOC axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) for LBCL and were registered with the German Registry for Stem Cell Transplantation (DRST) were eligible. Main outcomes analyzed were toxicities, response, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). We report 356 patients who received axi-cel (n=173) or tisa-cel (n=183) between November 2018 and April 2021 at 21 German centers. Whereas the axi-cel and tisa-cel cohorts were comparable for age, sex, LDH, IPI, and pretreatment, the tisa-cel group comprised significantly more patients with poor performance status, ineligibility for ZUMA-1, and need for bridging, respectively. With a median follow-up alive of 11 months, Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS, PFS, and non-relapse mortality (NRM) 12 months after dosing were 52%, 30%, and 6%, respectively. While NRM was largely driven by infections subsequent to prolonged neutropenia and/or severe neurotoxicity and significantly higher with axi-cel, significant risk factors for PFS on multivariate analysis included bridging failure, elevated LDH, age, and tisa-cel use. In conclusion, this study suggests that important outcome determinants of CD19-directed CAR-T cell treatment of LBCL in the real-world setting are bridging success, CAR-T product selection, LDH, and the absence of prolonged neutropenia and/or severe neurotoxicity. These findings may have implications for designing risk-adapted CAR-T cell therapy strategies.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.2021015209

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2022

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 3822-3822

Abstract: Introduction The CD19 targeting CAR-T cell constructs axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) have become an accepted standard salvage treatment of LBCL beyond the second line. Patients scheduled for approved CAR-T cell therapies usually have 4-8 weeks wait time for CAR-T cell infusion, thus often requiring bridging strategies in rapidly progressing patients to achieve disease control until start of lymphodepletion. It is still unclear, however, if the adverse impact of active progressive lymphoma can be overcome by successful bridging. We have addressed this question using registry data provided by the German Registry for Stem Cell Transplantation (DRST), the national partner of the EBMT. Methods We analyzed 356 consecutive patients who received standard of care axi-cel (n=173) or tisa-cel (n=183) treatment of LBCL between November 2018 and April 2021 at 21 German centers and were registered with the DRST/EBMT. Baseline patient, disease, and transplant data were collected from MED-A cellular therapy forms. Centers were contacted to provide additional treatment and follow-up information. Predictors of progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed by uni- and multivariate comparisons. Results Compared to the approval trials, patients were of poor risk with 58% presenting with elevated LDH at lymphodepletion and 71% having received ≥3 pretreatment lines, resulting in ineligibility for the ZUMA-1 study in 87% of cases. Kaplan-Maier estimates of overall survival, PFS and non-relapse mortality (NRM) 12 months after dosing were 52%, 30% and 7%, respectively. Information on bridging was available for 355 patients (99%). Of these, 279 patients (78%) underwent at least one line of bridging attempt, whereas bridging was deemed unnecessary in 76 patients (22%). A wide variety of modalities were employed for bridging, with the most frequent being chemoimmunotherapy (n=188), chemotherapy (n=41), radiation (n=30), immunotherapy (n=12) and steroids (n=6). Bridging resulted in disease control (CR/PR) in 58 of 270 patients evaluable for response (21%). With a median follow-up of 11 months, 12-month PFS rates for patients without bridging, successful bridging, and bridging failure were 41%, 52%, and 20%, respectively, p= & lt;0.001 (Figure). Of note, an increased LDH at lymphodepletion did not impair PFS within the bridging responders, but affected the outcome of those patients who did not respond or not undergo bridging (p & lt;0.0001). The adverse impact of bridging failure on PFS was confirmed after multivariable adjustment for confounders (p=0.001, HR 2.083; 95% CI 1.358-3.195). Other significant risk factors for PFS on multivariate analysis were elevated LDH (p=0.012, HR 1.46; 95% CI 1.08-1.96), tisa-cel (p=0.0109, HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.06-1.88) and ECOG (p=0.021, HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.03-1.45). Conclusion The results of this large German GLA/DRST analysis suggest that effective bridging can overcome the adverse impact of active disease on the outcome of standard-of-case CD19 CAR-T therapy. With current treatment strategies, however, bridging is often unsuccessful, highlighting the need for exploring innovative tools for inducing temporary LBCL control for CAR-T therapy preparation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bethge: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Schmitt: TolerogenixX: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Novartis: Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Kite Gilead: Other: Travel grants; Apogenix: Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Other: Travel grants; Hexal: Other: Travel grants, Research Funding. Holtick: Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Borchmann: Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotech: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Subklewe: Klinikum der Universität München: Current Employment; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. von Tresckow: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: congress and travel support; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Ayuk: Gilead: Honoraria; Mallinckrodt/Therakos: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biomedicine: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Kroeger: Novartis: Honoraria; AOP Pharma: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding. Wulf: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Clinigen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Marks: Merck: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: Meeting attendance; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Penack: Astellas: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Omeros: Consultancy; Shionogi: Consultancy; Priothera: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Therakos: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria. Koenecke: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EUSA Pharm: Consultancy. Von Bonin: Kite/Gilead: Other: traveling support and advisory fees; Novartis: Other: traveling support and advisory fees; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: traveling support and advisory fees. Stelljes: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Riemser: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Baldus: Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Vucinic: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; MSD: Honoraria. Topp: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Macrogeniecs: Research Funding; Universitatklinikum Wurzburg: Current Employment. Schroers: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Thomas: Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Art tempi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Kite-Gilead: Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Medigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau. Dreger: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2021-146120

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 1748-1748

Abstract: Introduction Although the labeled CD19 targeting CAR-T cell constructs axi-cel and tisa-cel are generally associated with an acceptable safety profile, non-relapse deaths can occur. Little is known about timing, causes and predictors of NRM following SOC CAR-T cell therapy for LBCL. Here, we analyzed frequency, causes, and risk factors of non-relapse deaths with focus on late NRM (beyond 4 weeks after dosing) using registry data provided by the DRST, the national partner of the EBMT. Methods Patients were selected from 356 consecutive patients who received SOC CAR-T treatment of LBCL between November 2018 and April 2021 at 21 German centers and were registered with the DRST/EBMT. Baseline patient, disease, and transplant data were collected from MED-A cellular therapy forms. Centers were contacted to provide additional treatment and follow-up information. Patients with late NRM (defined as NRM occurring beyond 4 weeks after dosing without prior LBCL relapse or progression) were compared with all patients surviving progression-free the 4-week landmark after dosing without subsequent NRM. Cumulative incidences of NRM were calculated considering relapse/progression as competing event. Results The analysis set consisted of 312 patients surviving progression-free at least 28 days after CAR-T treatment and remained alive until the end of follow-up or had a documented cause of death. Median age was 61 years (19-83), 66% were male, 52% had an IPI ≥3, 13 had an ECOG score & gt;1, 70% had received ≥3 treatment lines, 33% had failed a prior HCT, and 78% were refractory at lymphodepletion. 50% had been treated at a center contributing ≥20 cases with axi-cel (52%) or tisa-cel (48%). Grade ≥3 CRS and grade ≥3 neurotoxicity (NT) had occurred in 11% each, and 7% had no neutrophil recovery at day 100 post dosing or at last follow-up, whatever was earlier. With a median follow-up of 11.2 months, 124 patients (40%) had died, 109 (35%) LBCL-related, and 15 (5%) because of NRM. The cumulative incidence of late NRM at 12 months post dosing was 4.3% (95%CI 2.0-6.6). Causes of NRM were infections in 10 patients (bacterial or fungal sepsis/pneumonia 6; viral/atypical pneumonia/encephalitis 4); late NT 2; hyperinflammatory syndrome 1; 2 nd malignancy 1; unknown 1). Of note, 5 of the 6 lethal fungal/bacterial infections occurred subsequent to high grade NT. There was no significant difference between patients experiencing and not experiencing NRM in terms of age, gender, IPI, ECOG, pretreatment lines, prior HCT, disease status at lymphodepletion, and grade ≥3 CRS frequency. However, a significantly larger proportion of patients with late NRM had failed neutrophil recovery (27% vs 5%, p 0.011), had experienced grade ≥3 NT (40% vs 10%, p 0.0031), and/or had received axi-cel (93% vs 51%, p 0.001). Patients having neutrophil non-recovery and/or grade ≥3 NT had a 12-month NRM incidence of 16% (95%CI 5.1-26.9) vs 2.5% (95%CI 0.3-4.7) in patients with none of these 2 factors. Conclusions Late NRM in patients receiving SOC CAR-T treatment for LBCL is largely driven by infections. Risk factors for late NRM appear to be protracted neutropenia and higher grade NT, suggesting that intensified anti-bacterial/anti-fungal prophylaxis may be considered in patients with persisting critical neutropenia or exposed to high-dose steroids for NT treatment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dreger: BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Schubert: Gilead: Consultancy. Holtick: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Subklewe: Miltenyi: Research Funding; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Klinikum der Universität München: Current Employment; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bastian: Abbvie: Other; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other; BMS and Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Ayuk: Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biomedicine: Honoraria; Mallinckrodt/Therakos: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Marks: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; AbbVie: Other: Meeting attendance. Penack: Priothera: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Neovii: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Therakos: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Shionogi: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy. Koenecke: EUSA Pharm: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Von Bonin: Daiichi Sankyo: Other: traveling support and advisory fees; Novartis: Other: traveling support and advisory fees; Kite/Gilead: Other: traveling support and advisory fees. Stelljes: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Riemser: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Baldus: Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria. Vucinic: MSD: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Travel Sponsoring. Topp: Universitatklinikum Wurzburg: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Macrogeniecs: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schroers: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Hanoun: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Other: travel expenses; Novartis: Research Funding. Thomas: AbbVie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Art tempi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Medigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau. Kröger: Novartis: Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Pharma: Honoraria. Bethge: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2021-151469

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 138, No. Supplement 1 ( 2021-11-05), p. 173-173

Abstract: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) offers the highest chance for cure in patients with adverse-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) when performed in first remission (CR1). In contrast, patients in CR1 with favorable risk do not seem to benefit from allogeneic HCT due to the inherent risk of transplant-related mortality. Donor vs. no donor comparisons as well as prospective matched-pair analyses have suggested that allogeneic HCT performed in intermediate-risk AML may provide a higher probability of overall survival or relapse-free survival in patients ≤ 60 years of age with an acceptable risk for transplant-related mortality. On the other hand, many intermediate-risk patients relapsing after conventional chemotherapy may be successfully salvaged by allogeneic HCT. The role of allogeneic HCT in cytogenetically defined intermediate-risk AML patients in CR1 was addressed by a prospective randomized trial performed in 16 centers in Germany. Key inclusion criteria were: AML with intermediate-risk cytogenetics, first CR or CRi after conventional induction therapy, age of 18-60 years, and availability of an HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor. For unrelated donors, a 9 out of 10 HLA allelic match was acceptable except for patients with an NPM1 mutation, for whom full 10/10 allele matching was required. Randomization was stratified according to age ( & lt; 40 vs. 40-60), NPM1/FLT3, and CEBP-alpha mutational status and unrelated vs. related donor availability. Endpoints included overall-survival as primary outcome and relapse-free survival (RFS), cumulative incidence of relapse, treatment-related mortality, and quality of life measured according to the short form (36) health status. From 2010 - 2018, 143 patients in CR1 were randomized into Arm A (n=76, allogeneic HCT) and Arm B (n=67, conventional consolidation and allo-HCT only in case of relapse). In July 2018, the trial was stopped prematurely due to slow accrual (143 out of 356 pts. randomized). Median age of the trial cohort was 51 years (range, 19-60), with 42% exhibiting an NPM1 and 25% a FLT3 mutation. A normal karyotype was reported in 84% of the included patients. All mentioned characteristics did not differ between both treatment arms. Sibling donors were available for 44 (31% of patients), matched unrelated donors for 99 (69%) patients. According to the intent-to-treat analysis, the probability of survival at 2 years was 71% (95% CI 60-81%) and 84% (95% CI 73-92%) in Arm A (Transplant) and Arm B (conventional consolidation), respectively (p=0.120, Figure 1A). RFS after allogeneic HCT was 69% (95% CI 57-80%) compared to 41% (95% CI 29-54%) after conventional consolidation (p=0.001, Figure 1B). Primary allogeneic HCT reduced the cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years from 57% [95%-CI 46-71%] after conventional consolidation to 20% [95%-CI 13-31%] after HCT (p & lt;0.001). Non-relapse mortality at 2 years after primary allogeneic HCT was 9% [95%-CI 5-19%] compared to 2% [95%-CI 0-11%] after consolidation (p=0.017).Most importantly, all 38 patients relapsing in arm B (33 hematologic, 4 molecular and 1 extramedullary) proceeded to allogeneic HCT as salvage therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed a status of CRi compared to CR before randomization to be associated with a significantly higher risk of death (HR 3.3, p=0.009). SF (36) scoring suggested a trend towards a lower physical functioning throughout the first 3 months after randomization in the primary HCT arm. No significant differences in vitality, mental health, social and emotional functioning could be documented between both treatment arms. In summary, the results of this first prospective randomized trial did not show that allogeneic HCT performed immediately after achievement of CR1 in patients with cytogenetically defined intermediate-risk AML ≤ 60 years of age conveys an overall survival advantage. However, allogeneic HCT in CR1 significantly reduced the relapse risk and was not associated with relevant impairments in quality of life. Although the limited statistical power of the trial does not allow definitive conclusions, delayed allogeneic transplantation seems to be a potential treatment algorithm in CR1 intermediate-risk AML with an available donor. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Schliemann: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Astellas: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Other: travel grants. Schetelig: Roche: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; BMS: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: lecture fees . Glass: Riemser: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Platzbecker: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Geron: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Burchert: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Haenel: Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Bayer Vital: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mueller: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentium: Other: Travel Support; Gilead: Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Other: Travel Support; Novartis: Other: Travel Support; Pfizer: Other: Travel Support; Sanofi: Other: Travel Support. Berdel: Philogen S.p.A.: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stelljes: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2021-145167

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 128, No. 22 ( 2016-12-02), p. 681-681

Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Age is no longer a barrier to successful allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, reports of alloHCT outcomes in elderly patients aged 65 years (yo) and older are limited. These patients are underrepresented in clinical trials and data usually come from relatively small series and subgroup analyses from the main indications, namely acute leukemia (AL) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Here, we sought to evaluate the feasibility and general outcomes of the alloHCT procedure in a large cohort of elderly patients reported to the EBMT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive alloHCT in recipients 65 yo and older reported to the EBMT between 2000 and 2014 were included. Data collection and outcome analysis followed EBMT registry and statistical guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 6046 alloHCT, including 214 second or subsequent procedures, from 270 EBMT centers in 32 countries were identified: median age was 67 (65-84), 4914 were 65-69 yo (Group I) and 1132 ≥70 yo (Group II); 63% were male; 50% had AL, 37% MDS and/or myeloproliferative disorders (MPD), 8% chronic leukemia, 4% lymphoma, 1% bone marrow failure (BMF) and 0.6% plasma cell disorders. They underwent peripheral blood (91%), bone marrow (7%) or cord blood (2%) alloHCT from unrelated (68%), matched (28%) or mismatched related donors (4%). There was female to male sex mismatch in 19% and CMV mismatch in 34% of cases. T cell depletion was used as part of GVHD prophylaxis in 66% of patients. AlloHCT activity in elderly patients increased over the study period from 37 out of 6,413 in 2000 ( 〈 1%) to 1057 out of 15,765 in 2014 (6.7%; p 〈 0.001). Neutrophil and platelet engraftment were achieved at median day +16 (IQR 13-20) and +15 (IQR 13-21), respectively, while 6% experienced primary or secondary graft failure. Grade II-IV acute GvHD was observed in 28% of patients, with stage 2-4 involvement of skin in 50%, gut in 28% and liver in 7% of aGvHD cases. Venoocclusive disease was reported in 2%. The incidence of transplant complications did not differ between age groups. Median follow up time for survivors was 13 months (0.2-175). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 27% [95%CI 26-28] at 1y and 35% [95%CI 33-36] at 3y and was significantly higher in Group II (29% at 1y and 39% at 3y) than in Group I (26% at 1y and 34% at 3y; p 〈 0.01; Fig. 1A). Multivariate analysis contributing to NRM identified increased age, diagnosis of lymphoma, MDS/MPD or BMF, unrelated or mismatched related donor, sex mismatch female to male and transplantation from CMV negative donor to CMV positive patient, or between both CMV positive as independent prognostic factors (Table 1). Cumulative incidence of relapse was similar in both groups, 24% [95%CI 23-25] at 1y and 32% [95%CI 30-33] at 3y. Cause of death was transplant related in 53% of cases, relapse/progression in 39% and others in 8%, with no difference between age groups. Overall survival was 56.6% [95%CI 55-58] at 1y and 38.6% [95%CI 37-40] at 3y. It was significantly higher in Group I (57.3% at 1y and 39.5% at 3y) than in Group II (53.2% at 1y and 34.7% at 3y; p 〈 0.001, Fig. 1B). Multivariate analysis of factors revealed increased age, diagnosis of lymphoma, unrelated or mismatched related donor, time from diagnosis to alloHCT 〉 12 months, sex mismatch female to male and transplantation from CMV negative donor to CMV positive patient as independent risk factors affecting OS (Table 1). For the subset of alloHCT recipients ≥75 yo, NRM was 26% [95%CI 16-38] at 1y and 34% [95%CI 21-47] at 3y, and OS was 56% [95%CI 45-70] at 1y and 38% [95%CI 27-56] at 3y. CONCLUSIONS: Improved supportive care and less toxic preparative regimens make alloHCT feasible in elderly patients aged 65 yo and older. This study confirms the feasibility of alloHCT in a large-series of elderly patients, with acceptable NRM and OS at 1 and 3 years, including those with very advanced age of 75 yo and older. In addition, it identifies in the multivariate analysis factors that have an independent impact on the outcome of alloHCT in elderly patients. Undoubtedly, elderly alloHCT recipients in such a registry study are a highly selected population. This nevertheless further endorses the need to assess comorbidity and frailty beyond age in older alloHCT candidates to improve outcomes further. Studies to assess the benefit from alloHCT in elderly patients with particular diseases and indications for alloHCT are warranted. Disclosures Dreger: Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Montoto:Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Research Funding. Niederwieser:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis Oncology Europe: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V128.22.681.681

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7