Kutzke, Jade L.

ABSTRACT Hypomethylating agents (HMA) and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) have both demonstrated remissions in VEXAS; however, comparative data is lacking. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of 66 patients diagnosed with VEXAS syndrome treated with HMA ( n = 35) or alloHSCT ( n = 31). Baseline characteristics such as genetics, co‐morbidities, and performance status were balanced between the groups, except older age in the HMA group. Median follow‐up from therapy initiation was 18 months (95% CI: 11–26), and 14 (21%) deaths were reported (alloHSCT n = 3; HMA n = 11). Among all evaluable patients within the alloHSCT cohort, all patients achieved molecular remission, and a substantial proportion of patients discontinued glucocorticoids (58%). In contrast, HMA therapy was associated with lower but meaningful rates of molecular remission (22%) and glucocorticoid discontinuation (6%). In a real‐world setting, HMA therapy was associated with a high discontinuation rate related to toxicity or lack of response. On multivariable analysis adjusted for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, alloHSCT was associated with improved overall survival (HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05–0.81; p = 0.024). This association remained consistent across multiple ancillary sensitivity analyses, including restriction to transplant‐eligible patients, patients aged ≤ 75 years, 1:1 matching, and propensity score‐based weighted analyses. Although limited by retrospective design, these findings suggest that alloHSCT remains an attractive and potentially curative strategy in selected patients with VEXAS. Prospective validation of these findings is warranted.

Abstract Background: VEXAS (Vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, Autoinflammatory, Somatic) syndrome is a hemato-inflammatory syndrome due to somatic mutations in UBA1 gene. Recently, DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (specifically, 5-azacitidine) and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) have shown success in eradication of UBA1 clones and clinical remission in some patients. This study aims to provide a comparative efficacy analysis between DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (hypomethylating agents/HMA) versus alloHSCT in VEXAS syndrome patients. Methods: This is a multi-center, retrospective cohort study. UBA1 mutations were detected either through next generation sequencing [NGS, limit of detection (LOD) 2% variant allele fraction (VAF)] or quantitative droplet digital polymerase chain reaction testing (ddPCR, LOD 0.5% VAF). Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), glucocorticoid (GC) discontinuation/reduction in dose (prednisone < 10 mg/day), and complete molecular remission (CMR, defined as an undetectable UBA1 mutation). OS was calculated from the time of diagnosis to death or last follow up. Cumulative incidence of reduction in GC dose was calculated using competing risk analysis after accounting for death. Results: Between years 2020-2024, a total of thirty-nine male patients (median age 67, range 45-82 years) with VEXAS syndrome, necessity for therapy (GC-refractory inflammation and/or progressive marrow failure/myeloid neoplasm) and confirmed UBA1 pathogenic mutation were included. Of these, 18 (46%) received HMA therapy (5-azacitidine 72% and Decitabine 28%) with a median of 4 (range 1-36) cycles. and 21 (54%) underwent alloHSCT (MSD=4, MUD=12, MMUD=2, and haploidentical=3), all received reduced intensity conditioning (Flu/Mel =11, Flu/Bu=5, Flu/Cy/TBI=2, and TBF=3) and 91% received post-transplant cyclophosphamide-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis (only 2 patients in alloHSCT group received prior HMA without benefit). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between HMA and alloHSCT groups; age at treatment (median 70 vs 65 years, p=0.2), and UBA1 M41V subtype (25% vs 40%, p=0.3), cytogenetic and non-UBA1 mutation abnormalities (p=0.4), prior lines of therapy (median 4 in both, p=0.5), time from diagnosis to therapy (median 7 vs 13 months, p=0.15), indication for therapy (p=0.12), Charlson CI scores (median 4 in both, p=0.4) and HCI-CI scores (median 4 in both, p=0.7). At a median follow-up of 45 (range 7-57) months, 11 (28%) deaths (alloHSCT=3 and HMA=8) were documented. Causes of death included infections (n=6), cardiac disease (n=2), poor graft function (n=2) and pulmonary GVHD (n=1). Compared to HMA therapy, alloHSCT group demonstrated higher rates of GC discontinuation (52% vs 6%, p<0.01) and CMR (evaluable= 22, 100% vs 50%, p<0.01). In the HMA group, 50% (n=9) discontinued therapy after a median of 4 months due to infectious complications or lack of benefit. In the alloHSCT group, 3 (14%) patients developed grade 2 acute GVHD (1-skin, 2-gut, no grade 3-4 acute GVHD) and 4 (19%) experienced moderate to severe chronic GvHD (2-lung, 2-mucocutaneous). In multivariable analysis (MVA) adjusted for age and HCT-CI, alloHSCT was identified as the strongest favorable predictor for OS (HR 0.18 95% CI 0.04-0.8) with similar results when analysis was restricted to transplant-eligible patients < 75 years of age (HR 0.1, 95% CI 0.03-0.6). In a 6-month post-treatment landmark analysis (n=31 evaluable), patients who underwent alloHSCT (n=17) exhibited numerically superior GC discontiuation rate (29% vs 14%, p=0.049) and subsequent OS compared to HMA (2-years OS: 84% vs. 61%, median not reached vs 25 months, 95% CI: 0.06–1.7). In a post-treatment competing risk [GC dose reduction (death)] analysis alloHSCT was associated with superior 2-, and 3-year rates of 57% (10%), and 76% (10%), compared to HMA 22% (24%), and 31% (42%) [p<0.01 (0.04)]. AlloHSCT was also associated with higher rate of CMR (evaluable= 21, alloHSCT N=16 and HMA N=5, 100% vs 60%, p=0.01). At the last follow up, none of the patients who achieved CMR had re-emergence of the UBA1 clone (despite early mixed chimerism). Conclusions: This study represents the largest comparative analysis of alloHSCT versus HMA therapy in VEXAS syndrome, and confirms superiority of alloHSCT in achieving molecular remission, GC discontinuation/dose reduction, and overall survival. Prospective clinical trial confirmation is warranted.

Introduction: Fludarabine combined with melphalan 140 mg/m2 (FluMel140) is a commonly used reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen in patients undergoing matched related (MRD) and unrelated donor (MUD) allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT). Ciurea et al Blood 2020, described outcomes of Flu 160 mg/m2 and Mel 100 mg/m2. In this study, we describe our experience of attenuated melphalan dosing 100-120 mg/m2 versus 140 mg/m2 with fludarabine 125 mg/m2 (attenuated FluMel versus regular dose FluMel). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients from November 2016 to April 2023 with AML, ALL or MDS undergoing alloSCT who received fludarabine and melphalan. Patients who received the lower dose of melphalan were considered to be the attenuated FluMel cohort, whereas patients receiving the melphalan 140 mg/m2 were considered to be the control cohort. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to estimate OS. NRM and relapse incidence (RI) was calculated using competing risk analysis. R 4.2.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) was used for statistical analyses. Results: A total of 134 patients [92 (68.7%) males] were evaluated. Thirty-seven (27.6%) patients received attenuated FluMel and 97 (72.4%) patients received regular dose FluMel (controls). Among the patients in the attenuated FluMel cohort, 5 (13.5%) patients also received fludarabine at doses less than 125 mg/m 2 [median 20 mg/m 2 (range 87.5-112.5 mg/m 2]. Median age at transplant was 65 years (range 30 - 76 years). The most common disease was AML [75 (56.0%) patients] ( Table 1). Patients in the attenuated FluMel group had comparable iothalamate clearance compared to control cohort (clearance <65 ml/min/1.73 m2: 18.9% vs. 12.4%, P = 0.52). Patients in the attenuated FluMel group had comparable rates of high/very high DRI to those in control cohort (51.4% vs. 43.3%, P = 0.91). Compared to the control cohort, patients in the attenuated FluMel group were less likely to have a matched related donor (21.6% vs. 45.4%, P = 0.02) and were more likely to receive PTCy for GVHD prophylaxis (37.8% vs. 16.5%, P = 0.02). Among the patients receiving attenuated FluMel, the median melphalan dose administered was 100 mg/m2. The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 19 days (IQR 16-21 days), and median time to platelet engraftment was 18 days (range 12-25 days). Eleven (29.7%) patients developed post-alloSCT mucositis, and 3 (8.1%) patients developed grade 3-4 mucositis. All the patients in the attenuated FluMel group achieved 100% CD33 donor chimerism at day +30 (n=35) and day +100 (n=28) after alloSCT. Similarly, 26 (74.3%, n = 35) patients achieved ≥ 95% CD3 donor chimerism at day +30 after alloSCT and 23 (82.1%, n = 28) patients achieved ≥ 95% CD3 donor chimerism at day +100 after alloSCT. Median follow-up of the entire cohort after alloSCT was 2.3 years (95% CI 2.1-2.5 years). Median follow-up was 1.5 years in the attenuated FluMel cohort and 2.5 years for the control cohort ( P<0.001) . Survival was similar among patients receiving attenuated FluMel vs. control cohort (2-year OS 74.7% vs. 65.0%, P = 0.28). At 2 years post-alloSCT, the attenuated FluMel and control cohort had similar non-relapse mortality (19.9% vs. 24.4%, P=0.58) and relapse (22% vs. 15.2%, P=0.51). The attenuated FluMel was not associated with an increased incidence of relapse (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.50-3.73, P=0.55) or NRM (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.28-1.95, P = 0.55). GVHD-free relapse free (GRFS) survival was also similar among the attenuated Flu/Mel and control cohort (1-year GRFS rate 41.1% vs. 45.6%, P = 0.8). Among the patients receiving PTCy for GVHD prophylaxis, the 2-year OS in patients receiving attenuated FluMel was higher than the control group, but it was not statistically significant (2-year OS rate: 90% vs. 55%, P=0.37, Figure 1). Compared to the control group, the attenuated FluMel group had similar rates of NRM at 100 days (10% vs. 12.5%), 1 year (NA vs. 25%) and at 2 years after alloSCT (NA vs. 25%, P=0.54). GRFS at 1 year was also similar between the attenuated FluMel and control group (68.6% vs. 43.8%, P = 0.69). Conclusion: The attenuated dosed FluMel conditioning is a safe and effective regimen for elderly patients with acute leukemia and MDS, and is non-inferior to regular dose FluMel. Among patients receiving PTCy for GVHD prophylaxis, the lower dose of melphalan was non-inferior to regular dose FluMel for survival outcomes. Larger studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Abstract The reduced-intensity conditioning regimen, fludarabine and melphalan, is frequently used in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Melphalan and the active metabolite of fludarabine, F-ara-A, are excreted via the kidneys. Existing methods to assess clearance in this setting are based on serum creatinine, which has known limitations for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation in patients with malignancy. Measured GFR (mGFR) may better predict drug dosing to mitigate toxicity and increase the chances of successful engraftment. The primary objective of this study was to assess the association between mGFR and risk for nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in patients who have undergone allogeneic HSCT receiving conditioning with fludarabine and melphalan. In the 109 included patients, mGFR <65 mL/min/1.73 m2 predicted a significantly higher rate of overall NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-4.35; P = 04) and 1-year incidence of infection (HR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.54-4.55; P < .001) in addition to a significantly lower 2-year survival (P = .019). Kidney function estimated via estimated GFR (eGFR) and estimated creatinine clearance did not correlate with posttransplant outcomes. These results suggest that mGFR is a promising approach for assessing clearance in patients who have undergone allogeneic HSCT and may be preferred to standard creatinine-based eGFR strategies.

De novo malignancies (DNMs) following liver transplantation (LT) have been reported as 1 of the major causes of late mortality, being the most common cause of death in the second decade after LT. The overall incidence of DNMs is reported to be in the range of 3.1% to 14.4%, and the incidence is 2- to 3-fold higher in transplant recipients than in age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Long-term immunosuppressive therapy, which is the key in maintaining host tolerance and achieving good long-term outcomes, is known to contribute to a higher risk of DNMs. However, the incidence and type of DNM also depends on different risk factors, including patient demographics, cause of the underlying chronic liver disease, behavior (smoking and alcohol abuse), and pre-existing premalignant conditions. The estimated standardized incidence ratio for different DNMs is also variable. The International Liver Transplantation Society–Spanish Society of Liver Transplantation Consensus Conference working group on DNM has summarized and discussed the current available literature on epidemiology, risk factors, management, and survival after DNMs. Recommendations for screening and surveillance for specific tumors, as well as immunosuppression and cancer-specific management in patients with DNM, are summarized.