Navarro, Willis H.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Obesity is increasingly common in the US and is frequently associated with co-morbid medical conditions that may increase the risk of HCT, often the optimal treatment for AML. HCT risk and outcomes for AML on the basis of body mass index (BMI) have not been well-characterized. Using data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), we have previously shown no significant difference in outcomes for autologous HCT for lymphoma among normal weight, overweight, and obese patients (pts) but worse outcomes for underweight pts (Navarro et al, BBMT 2006, 12(5): 541–51). Here, we compare outcomes by weight groups for AML patients who underwent autologous, related, or unrelated HCT. METHODS: Our final population included patients age ≥ 18 who underwent myeloablative unpurged autologous or allogeneic HCT for AML in 1st or 2nd complete remission, primary induction failure, or 1st relapse reported to the CIBMTR from 1995 to 2004. Cord blood HCTs were excluded. Four weight groups were defined based on BMI (BMI=weight (kg)/ height (m2)): underweight <18; normal=18–25; overweight >25–30; and obese >30. Treatment-related mortality (TRM), relapse, leukemia-free survival (LFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared using multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis accounting for patient, disease and HCT-related variables. RESULTS: We included 373 autologous, 2041 related, and 1801 unrelated transplant recipients. Patient-, disease-, and transplant characteristics were well-matched across weight groups and transplant types. Multivariable analysis examining risks (95% confidence intervals) relative to the normal weight group are: HCT Type Normal Underweight Overweight Obese -- =not done due to insufficient number of pts; NS=not significant; treatment failure = death or recurrence of disease. Autologous n=164 n=5 n=112 n=81 Death -- NS NS Treatment failure -- NS NS Relapse -- NS NS TRM -- NS NS Related Allogeneic n=1161 n=31 n=543 n=268 Death 1.86 (1.24–2.78) NS 1.23 (1.04–1.47) Treatment failure 2.08 (1.37–3.15) NS 1.19 (1.00–1.42) Relapse 2.02 (1.18–3.47) NS NS TRM 2.22 (1.17–4.22) NS 1.32 (1.02–1.70) Unrelated Allogeneic n=846 n=31 n=523 n=368 Death NS NS NS Treatment failure NS NS NS Relapse NS 0.82 (0.68–0.99) 0.76 (0.60–0.96) TRM NS NS NS CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in risk of TRM, LFS, relapse or OS for normal weight, overweight or obese patient groups who received autologous HCT. Obese recipients of related HCT for AML had increased risk of death, treatment failure, and TRM, though the magnitude was small, an effect was not seen in the unrelated HCT group. Underweight patients who received a related, but not unrelated HCT, fared substantially worse than normal weight patients for all outcomes. It may be that the higher risk of the unrelated HCT procedure masks important but less obvious risks associated with being underweight whereas in the related donor HCT setting, such risks become manifest. Small numbers of patients limit the ability to better characterize this finding in underweight patients. Disproportionately, fewer transplants have been reported in underweight patients which suggest they experience disease and patient-related factors that preclude transplantation. No differences were observed for incidence of acute or chronic GVHD for any weight group. Overweight and obesity should not be a barrier to HCT; however, caution should be exercised in selecting underweight patients for HCT.

Introduction. Our previous flow cytometry-based comparison of HIV(+) and HIV(-) autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) recipient immunomes at 56, 180 and 365 days post-transplant to each other and to healthy controls (HCs) showed that both sets of auto-HSCT recipient immunomes approached HCs over time, but retained significant differences. HIV(+), but not HIV(-), auto-AHCT recipients retained pro-inflammatory features consistent with chronic HIV infection. Here, we report the results of a quantitative and functional analysis of immune reconstitution in HIV(+) patients treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT), in comparison with HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients and HCs. Methods. Blood samples were collected for analysis at days 56, 180 and 365 post-transplant from HIV(+) transplant recipients and at 1 time point from HCs. Whole blood analysis was performed by five-color flow cytometry across 100 immune marker combinations. Comparisons were made between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (n=17, acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative or reduced intensity conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0903/AMC-080 trial), HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (n=36, aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0803/AMC-071 trial) and 71 HCs. Unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA) examined differences in immune cell proportions, identified by flow cytometry across 100 cell subsets at each time point. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared median absolute counts and median proportions of cell subsets. An independent feature importance score analysis (FIS) identified contributions of immune cell populations expressing specific immune marker combinations to the differences between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients, HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HCs. Functional responsiveness of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients' T cells to stimulation with CD3- and CD28-directed antibodies, NK cells to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 and monocytes to stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was assessed in a preliminary mass cytometry on peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated at the same time points (n=2) and compared to HCs (n=2). Results. PCA showed that immunomes of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients clustered together with each other, but away from HCs at all time points throughout the post-transplant year. FIS identified: 1) 13 cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs, and 2) 11 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs; in both of these comparisons, activated CD3+/HLA-DR+ T cells had the greatest impact on the difference between HIV(+) and HC immunomes. At 1 year, both HIV(+) transplant recipient cohorts had higher absolute numbers of activated T cells, effector T cells and CD8+ T cells than HCs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p<0.0031). HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients also had lower numbers of CD4+ T cells, naïve T cells and activated NK cells compared to HCs (p<0.0031). FIS also identified 20 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients immunomes at 1 year, with CD8+/CD27- effector T cell subset exerting the highest impact on the difference. Preliminary functional mass cytometry analysis of 2 HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and 2 HCs showed that: 1) IFNʏ production by CD8+ T cells was increased above that of HCs at all time points. 2) Expanded populations of CD4+/T-bet+ cytotoxic cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, persisted in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients at all time points, but not in HCs. 3) NK cells retained an ability to produce IFNʏ in response to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 in HIV(+) allo-SCT recipients. 4) Monocytes showed an enhanced production of TNFα in response to stimulation with LPS in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients compared to HCs at 1 year post-HSCT. Conclusion. Chronic HIV infection confers the pro-inflammatory immune features on the phenotypic and functional profiling of the T lymphocyte immunome of stem cell transplant recipients, irrespective of allogeneic or autologous stem cell donor source. Disclosures Devine: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Noy:Janssen: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Navarro:Atara Biotherapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Behbehani:Fluidigm corporation: Other: Travel funding. Lozanski:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Genentec: Research Funding. Baiocchi:Prelude: Consultancy.