Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a major limitation of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation; not all patients have a response to standard glucocorticoid treatment. In a phase 2 trial, ruxolitinib, a selective Janus kinase (JAK1 and JAK2) inhibitor, showed potential efficacy in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD. METHODS:We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) with the investigator's choice of therapy from a list of nine commonly used options (control) in patients 12 years of age or older who had glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. The primary end point was overall response (complete response or partial response) at day 28. The key secondary end point was durable overall response at day 56. RESULTS:A total of 309 patients underwent randomization; 154 patients were assigned to the ruxolitinib group and 155 to the control group. Overall response at day 28 was higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (62% [96 patients] vs. 39% [61]; odds ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65 to 4.22; P<0.001). Durable overall response at day 56 was higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (40% [61 patients] vs. 22% [34]; odds ratio, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.94; P<0.001). The estimated cumulative incidence of loss of response at 6 months was 10% in the ruxolitinib group and 39% in the control group. The median failure-free survival was considerably longer with ruxolitinib than with control (5.0 months vs. 1.0 month; hazard ratio for relapse or progression of hematologic disease, non-relapse-related death, or addition of new systemic therapy for acute GVHD, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.60). The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the ruxolitinib group and 6.5 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.15). The most common adverse events up to day 28 were thrombocytopenia (in 50 of 152 patients [33%] in the ruxolitinib group and 27 of 150 [18%] in the control group), anemia (in 46 [30%] and 42 [28%], respectively), and cytomegalovirus infection (in 39 [26%] and 31 [21%]). CONCLUSIONS:Ruxolitinib therapy led to significant improvements in efficacy outcomes, with a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia, the most frequent toxic effect, than that observed with control therapy. (Funded by Novartis; REACH2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02913261.).

Background/UNASSIGNED:host disease (GVHD), infection and/or bleeding. Treatment options are scarce and a CD34+ stem cell boost or a second bone marrow transplantation may be required to restore adequate haematopoiesis. Methods/UNASSIGNED: = 11) were treated with eltrombopag in a single centre. The reason for eltrombopag treatment was trilineage cytopenia in six patients, bilineage cytopenia in three patients and single lineage cytopenia in three patients. Eltrombopag was initiated at a median of 214 (range: 120-877) days after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCST) and administered for a median time of 114 (range: 12 days to >490) days. In 8/12 patients eltrombopag was introduced at a dose of 75 mg/day and then increased to 150 mg/day after 1 week; 1 patient was given 50 mg eltrombopag per day, and 3 patients received 75 mg daily. Results/UNASSIGNED:In 10/12 patients eltrombopag significantly enhanced blood count values and patients became transfusion independent. Once stable haematological response was obtained, treatment was tapered until final discontinuation in 9/10 responding patients. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed. At time of last follow up, 3/12 patients were dead, 2 due to disease relapse, 1 due to GVHD and pneumonia. All patients except one maintained their complete response and remain transfusion independent at a median of 858 (range: 429-1119) days. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:These preliminary data confirm that eltrombopag is able to rescue multilineage haematopoiesis in patients with treatment-refractory cytopenias after allogeneic HSCT.

We conducted a phase I-II study to evaluate Nilotinib (NIL) safety and pharmacokinetics in 22 SR-cGVHD patients; we also evaluated ORR by using in parallel NIH criteria and an exploratory approach, combining objective improvement (OI) without failure criteria (GITMO criteria). Results: 22 patients were enrolled. After dose escalation up to 600 mg/day, MTD was not reached. Main toxicities were asthenia, headache, nausea, pruritus, cramps, and mild anemia. Mean and median plasma concentrations of NIL (C-NIL) were 817 (SD ± 450) and 773 ng/ml. ORR at 6 months, according to 2005 and 2014 NIH and GITMO criteria were 27.8%, 22.2%, and 55.6% respectively; close correspondence has been observed for ORR, according to 2014 NIH criteria, both assessed in a conventional way and assisted by dedicated software (CROSY). At 48 months OS was 75% while FFS, according to NIH and GITMO criteria, was 30 and 25%. In conclusion the safety profile of NIL and long-term outcome makes NIL an attractive option in SR-cGVHD. Exploratory GITMO criteria could represent an alternative tool for easy response evaluation in patients with prevalent skin and lung involvement, but require validation in a larger population; CROSY software showed excellent reliability in capturing ORR according to the 2014 NIH criteria.

A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6 months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin₃ receptor antagonist (5-HT₃-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin₁ receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.

This is a multicenter retrospective comparison of 2 myeloablative conditioning regimens in 454 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in remission: busulfan (4 days) and fludarabine (BUFLU) versus thiotepa, busulfan, and fludarabine (TBF). Eligible for this study were patients allografted between January 2008 and December 2018 in 10 transplant centers, with AML in first or second remission: 201 patients received BUFLU, whereas 253 received TBF. The 2 groups (BUFLU and TBF) were comparable for age (P = .13) and adverse AML risk factors (P = .3). The TBF group had more second remissions and more haploidentical grafts. The donor type included HLA-identical siblings, unrelated donors, and family haploidentical donors. The 5-year cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 19% for BUFLU and 22% for TBF (P = .8), and the 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 30% and 15%, respectively (P = .0004). The 5-year actuarial survival was 51% for BUFLU and 68% for TBF (P = .002). In a multivariate Cox analysis, after correcting for confounding factors, the use of TBF reduced the risk of relapse compared with BUFLU (P = .03) and the risk of death (P = .03). In a matched pair analysis of 108 BUFLU patients matched with 108 TBF patients, with the exclusion of haploidentical grafts, TBF reduced the risk of relapse (P = .006) and there was a trend for improved survival (P = .07). Superior survival of patients receiving TBF as compared with BUFLU is due to a reduced risk of relapse, with comparable NRM. The survival advantage is independent of donor type and AML risk factors.

BACKGROUND:Allogeneic stem cell transplantation is a potentially curative therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after achieving complete remission (CR). The aim of this study is to evaluate the optimal dose of thiotepa, administered as part of the thiotepa-busulfan-fludarabine (TBF) conditioning regimen for allogeneic stem cell transplantation in adults with AML in CR. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:In a retrospective multicenter analysis, we identified 240 patients allotransplanted from matched related or unrelated donors or T replete haplo-identical donors. We compared the transplantation outcomes of patients who received 5 mg/kg thiotepa and 2 days of intravenous busulfan at 6.4 mg/kg (T1B2F) versus those who received 10 mg/kg thiotepa with 2 days of intravenous busulfan at 6.4 mg/kg (T2B2F). The median follow-up was 20 months. RESULTS:On univariate analysis, the incidence of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) grade II to IV was significantly lower in the T1B2F group (19%) versus 32% in the T2B2F group (P = .029). This result was confirmed on multivariate analysis; acute GVHD was higher for patients receiving T2B2F (hazard ratio, 2.22; P = .024). No significant change in non-relapse mortality, progression-free survival, or overall survival was observed between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:T2B2F is associated with a higher incidence of acute GVHD compared with T1B2F. These results suggest that a lower dose-intensity of thiotepa and busulfan in the TBF regimen may yield better results in patients with AML in CR.

Relapse of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains a clinical challenge. We studied in a phase II trial whether the addition of peri-transplant rituximab would reduce the relapse risk compared with historical controls (n = 157). Patients (n = 55) received fludarabine and low-dose total body irradiation combined with rituximab on days -3, + 10, + 24, + 36. Relapse rate at 3 years was significantly lower among rituximab-treated patients versus controls (17% versus 31%; P = 0.04). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and nonrelapse mortality (NRM) were statistically similar: (53% versus 50%; P = 0.8), (44% versus 42%; P = 0.63), and (38% versus 28%; P = 0.2), respectively. In multivariate analysis, rituximab treatment was associated with lower relapse rates both in the overall cohort [hazard ratio (HR): 0.34, P = 0.006] and in patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR: 0.21, P = 0.0003). Patients with no comorbidities who received rituximab conditioning had an OS rate of 100% and 75% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, with no NRM. Peri-transplant rituximab reduced relapse rates regardless of high-risk cytogenetics. HCT is associated with minimal NRM in patients without comorbidities and is a viable option for patients with high-risk CLL. Clinical trial information: NCT00867529.

The increasing indications for allogeneic stem-cell transplant in patients with hematologic malignancies and non-malignant diseases combined with improved clinical outcomes have contributed to increase the number of long-term survivors. However, survivors are at increased risk of developing a unique set of complications and late effects, besides graft-versus-host disease and disease relapse. In this setting, the management capacity of a single health-care provider can easily be overwhelmed. Thus, to provide appropriate survivorship care, a multidisciplinary approach for the long-term follow-up is essential. This review aims at summarizing the most relevant information that a health-care provider should know to establish a follow-up care plan, in the light of individual exposures and risk factors, that includes all organ systems and considers the psychological burden of these patients.