Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 121, No. 3 ( 2013-01-17), p. 440-446

Abstract: Patients with blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) have a poor prognosis with conventional chemotherapy. In the present study, we retrospectively analyzed the outcome of patients with BPDCN who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) or autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT). A total of 39 patients (allo-SCT, n = 34; auto-SCT, n = 5) were identified in the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry. The 34 allo-SCT patients had a median age of 41 years (range, 10-70) and received transplantations from sibling (n = 11) or unrelated donors (n = 23) between 2003 and 2009. MAC was used in 74% of patients. Nineteen allo-SCT patients (56%) received transplantations in first complete remission. The 3-year cumulative incidence of relapse, disease-free survival, and overall survival was 32%, 33%, and 41%, respectively. By univariate comparison, being in first remission at allo-SCT favorably influenced survival, whereas age, donor source, and chronic GVHD had no significant impact. We conclude that high-dose therapy followed by allo-SCT from related or unrelated donors can provide durable remission even in elderly patients with BPDCN. However, it remains to be shown if graft-versus-malignancy effects can contribute significantly to BPDCN control after allo-SCT.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-08-448613

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2013

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 137, No. 7 ( 2021-02-18), p. 923-928

Abstract: In hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), permissive HLA-DPB1 mismatches between patients and their unrelated donors are associated with improved outcomes compared with nonpermissive mismatches, but the underlying mechanism is incompletely understood. Here, we used mass spectrometry, T-cell receptor-β (TCRβ) deep sequencing, and cellular in vitro models of alloreactivity to interrogate the HLA-DP immunopeptidome and its role in alloreactive T-cell responses. We find that permissive HLA-DPB1 mismatches display significantly higher peptide repertoire overlaps compared with their nonpermissive counterparts, resulting in lower frequency and diversity of alloreactive TCRβ clonotypes in healthy individuals and transplanted patients. Permissiveness can be reversed by the absence of the peptide editor HLA-DM or the presence of its antagonist, HLA-DO, through significant broadening of the peptide repertoire. Our data establish the degree of immunopeptidome divergence between donor and recipient as the mechanistic basis for the clinically relevant permissive HLA-DPB1 mismatches in HCT and show that permissiveness is dependent on HLA-DM–mediated peptide editing. Its key role for harnessing T-cell alloreactivity to HLA-DP highlights HLA-DM as a potential novel target for cellular and immunotherapy of leukemia.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.2020008464

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, ( 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: Bone Marrow Transplantation, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 56, No. 2 ( 2021-02), p. 481-491

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0268-3369 , 1476-5365

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1038/s41409-020-01050-7

Language: English

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2004030-1

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. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 1581-1581

Abstract: During the course of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) progression to blast crisis (BC) is thought to be caused by genetic instability such as cytogenetic aberrations in addition to the translocation t(9;22)(q34;q11). We have shown previously that major route ACA indicate an unfavorable outcome (Fabarius et al., Blood 2011). We now investigate whether there is a correlation in time between appearance of major route ACA and increase in blast count. Methods: Cytogenetic data and blast count in the peripheral blood were available from 1,290 CML patients recruited to the German CML-studies III (621 patients) and IIIa (669 patients) from January 1995 to January 2004. Treatments were interferon-alpha-based or related allogeneic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Presence of ACA and major route ACA was considered as a time-dependent covariate. Multivariate proportional hazards models were estimated taking Euro CML score, study III vs. IIIa and stem cell transplantability into account. Cumulative incidences of blast increases were calculated starting at the date of the first ACA or major route ACA, respectively, regarding death as a competing risk. Patients were censored at the date of HSCT with an unrelated donor. Results: 1,287 patients were evaluable with median observation times of 13 and 12 years and a 10-year survival of 48% and 61% in CML studies III and IIIa, respectively. 258 patients progressed to BC with a cumulative 10-year incidence of 20%. 195 patients displayed ACA during the course of disease. 45 patients (15.7%) showed ACA already at diagnosis. 44 patients showed unbalanced minor route, 29 balanced minor route aberrations, 23 -Y. 109 patients showed major route aberrations including 10 with other prior ACA. In a multivariate analysis on 1,257 patients, patients with ACA had a hazard ratio (HR) for a blast increase of between 2.0-2.2 (p 〈 0.001) for blast increases to ≥1%, ≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15%, ≥ 20% and ≥30% compared with patients without ACA (Table). When the same model was performed for major route ACA only at any time during disease, HRs of 2.2-2.7 (p 〈 0.001) were found. For ACA without major route ACA HRs were 1.6-2.1 (p 〈 0.001). In the multivariate analyses of major route ACA vs. no major route ACA a blast increase of 1-5% after diagnosis of major route ACA seems already indicative of progression. 5 years after the diagnosis of any ACA the cumulative incidence for a blast increase was 30% (95%- confidence interval (CI): 23-38%), of a major route ACA 40% (95%- CI: 28-49%). The 6-year probability of death without blast increase was 10%. 14 additional patients received an unrelated transplant of which 6 died. We conclude that ACA, particularly major route ACA, precede an increase of blasts. Major route ACA have to be considered as a prognostic indicator for disease progression at any time. Table 1. Blast increase to HR (univariate): ACA vs. no ACA HR(multivariate)*: ACA vs. no ACA HR (univariate): major route ACA vs. no major route ACA HR (multivariate)*: major route ACA vs. no major route ACA ≥30% 2.409 2.139 2.646 2.203 ≥20% 2.413 2.144 2.656 2.211 ≥15% 2.415 2.161 2.868 2.426 ≥10% 2.416 2.160 2.799 2.357 ≥5% 2.286 2.047 2.719 2.278 ≥1% 2.209 1.999 3.171 2.684 *adjusted to Euro-Score, study (III vs. IIIa) and transplantability Disclosures Saussele: ARIAD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Scheid:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Baerlocher:Geron Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Schnittger:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Müller:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hochhaus:ARIAD: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Pfirrmann:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Baccarani:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hehlmann:BMS: Consultancy; Novartis Pharma: Research Funding.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V126.23.1581.1581

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2015

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 114, No. 22 ( 2009-11-20), p. 2293-2293

Abstract: Abstract 2293 Poster Board II-270 Introduction: Although modern chemotherapy regimens achieve a high cure rate in primary Hodgkin's disease and relapsed patients can be salvaged by high dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation there remains a subgroup of patients with early relapse despite high dose chemotherapy. The prognosis of these patients is dismal with further chemotherapy. Allogeneic transplantation has the potential to exert an alloimmune response against lymphoma cells and has therefor been offered to patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's disease, in particular when a matched sibling donor was available. However only limited information on the feasability of allogeneic transplantion from an unrelated donor is available. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of allogeneic transplants for Hodgkins disease within the German Cooperative Transplantation Study Group. 18 centres have provided data on patient and donor characteristics, transplant procedure and outcome. Survival data were analysed by Kaplan-Meier and tested for differences by log rank test. Cumulative incidences for relapse, non-relapse mortality and graft-versus-host-disease were calculated in a competing risk model. Results: 79 patients with a median age of 30 years (range 14-59) were included. 65 (82%) patients had failed a previous autologous transplantation 582 days (median) before allotransplantation. Disease status at transplantation was CR in 17.6%, PR in 54.0%, stable disease in 9.5%, PD in 12.2%, and untreated relapse in 6.8%. Donors were matched related in 33%, mismatched related in 5%, matched unrelated in 42% and mismatched unrelated in 20%. With a median follow up of 19 months for surviving patients the median overall survival (OS) after allotransplant was 42 months with a 2 year survival of 51%. Non-relapse mortality was 21.1% after 12 and 24 months. The median progression-free survival was 14.6 months with a 2 year PFS of 42.0%. Patients relapsing after an autologous transplantation had a significantly better OS (median 53.7 vs 8.4 months, p=0.029) and PFS (22.0 vs 7.5 months, p=0.039) than patients without a prior autograft. No significant difference was seen for OS or PFS regarding the use of related or unrelated donors or disease status at transplant. Conclusions: Allogenic transplantation is a feasible option for high-risk patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkins disease in particular after failing an autograft. Non-relapse mortality appears to be acceptable in view of the intensive prior treatment. Probabilities for overall survival and progression-free survival were similar after transplantation from a related or unrelated donor. Further optimisation strategies have to focus on on efforts to reduce the high relapse-rate after transplantation, thereby potentially increasing overall and progression free survival. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood.V114.22.2293.2293

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2009

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 134, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-11-13), p. 3326-3326

Abstract: Background The best preparative regimen for the growing number of older acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) from matched related (MRD) or unrelated donors (MUD) remains undefined. A large randomized phase III trial (MC-FludT.14/L study: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00822393) recently demonstrated that myeloablative intravenous (IV) treosulfan (10 g/m² IV on days -4 to -2) in combination with fludarabine (TreoFlu) improves outcome in older and/or comorbid patients with AML in complete remission (CR) or MDS compared with the reference reduced intensity busulfan (0.8 mg/kg IV in 6-hour intervals on days -4 and -3) and fludarabine (30 mg/m² IV on days -6 to -2 in each study arm) regimen. The beneficial effect of the TreoFlu regimen resulted from a significantly reduced non-relapse mortality (NRM) and translated to improved event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) (Beelen DW et al The Lancet Haematology, 2019). These results raised the question, how this new regimen compares to broadly applied myeloablative regimens, namely busulfan (0.8 mg/kg IV in 6-hour intervals over 4 days) plus cyclophosphamide (120 mg/kg IV over 2 days) (BuCy) or melphalan (140 mg/m² IV over 1 day or 2 days) plus fludarabine (MelFlu) in older AML and MDS patients. To address this question, we performed a comparative analysis of MC-FludT.14/L study patients treated with the TreoFlu regimen and similar patients of the European Blood and Marrow Transplantation Society (EBMT) registry, who underwent HCT from MRD or MUD after the BuCy or MelFlu regimen between 2010 and 2016. Patients and Methods Inclusion criteria were essentially the same as for the MC-FludT.14/L-study (patient age 50 to 70 years [yrs], primary or secondary AML in CR or MDS, Karnofsky-index ≥ 60%, MRD or MUD, 1st HCT). The study objectives were to compare OS, relapse incidence (RI), and NRM at 2 yrs after HCT between the TreoFlu regimen and the BuCy or MelFlu regimen. A total of 1493 EBMT registry patients (median age 58 yrs, AML: n=1135 [76%] , MDS: n=358 [24%]) were identified for the comparison with the 252 MC-FludT.14/L patients (median age 61 yrs, AML: n=174 [69%] , MDS: n=78 [31%]). A 1:1 matching method based on propensity scores (PS) with 14 patient-, donor-, and disease-characteristics was used to reduce confounding due to differences between regimens and was performed separately for AML and MDS patients. With the exception of comparison between the TreoFlu and BuCy regimen in AML patients, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the TreoFlu regimen subsets had a HCT-comorbidity index 〉 2 compared to patient subsets treated with the BuCy or MelFlu regimen. Results For patients with AML, the 2-yrs OS estimate was significantly higher after the TreoFlu compared with the BuCy regimen (76.4%, 95%-confidence interval [95%-CI]: 66.8% - 85.9% vs 49.2%, 95%-CI: 36.4% - 62.1%, p 〈 0.001) and MelFlu regimen (72.7%, 95%-CI: 63.7% - 80.7% vs 58.7%, 95%-CI: 48.3% - 69.1%, p=0.04). This was clearly related to the significantly lower 2-yrs NRM estimate after the TreoFlu compared with the BuCy regimen (3.9%, 95-CI: 0% - 8.2% vs 23.5%, 95%-CI: 13.1% - 33.9%, p 〈 0.001) and MelFlu regimen (6.4%, 95-CI: 1.8% - 11.0% vs 17.5%, 95%-CI: 9.6% - 25.5%, p 〈 0.02). For patients with MDS, the differences of the 2-yrs OS and NRM estimates between patient subsets were similar, but were only significant for the comparison of the OS estimate between the TreoFlu and BuCy regimen (72.0%, 95%-CI: 54.4% - 89.6% vs 30.5, 95%-CI: 6.1% - 54.9%, p 〈 0.01). The adjusted hazard ratios of 2-yrs overall mortality and NRM between regimens including all eligible patients by multivariate sensitivity analysis based on Cox proportional hazards models are given in the table below. Notably, no differences between the respective 2-yrs RI were detectable when comparing these patient subsets. Conclusion In older AML and MDS patients, the new TreoFlu regimen compares favorable to the broadly applied myeloablative BuCy and MelFlu regimens. The substantially lower 2-yrs NRM estimate supports its superior tolerability in this patient population. This large retrospective comparative analysis provides a basis for properly designed randomized trials of the new toxicity reduced myeloablative TreoFlu regimen in comparison with other myeloablative regimens in this target population. Table Disclosures Beelen: Medac GmbH Wedel Germany: Consultancy, Honoraria. Stoelzel:Neovii: Other: Travel funding; Shire: Consultancy, Other: Travel funding; JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Dreger:MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Sponsoring of Symposia; Neovii, Riemser: Research Funding; AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, Riemser, Roche: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Riemser, Roche: Consultancy.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1182/blood-2019-127108

Language: English

Publisher: American Society of Hematology

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3

detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7

In: Transplantation, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 81, No. 2 ( 2006-01), p. 247-254

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0041-1337

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1097/01.tp.0000188671.94646.16

Language: English

Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Publication Date: 2006

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2035395-9