Maziarz, Richard Thomas

Abstract The best conditioning regimen before allogeneic transplantation for high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains to be clarified. We analyzed data from 396 recipients of allotransplants for DLBCL receiving myeloablative (MAC; n = 165), reduced intensity (RIC; n = 143), or nonmyeloablative conditioning (NMAC; n = 88) regimens. Acute and chronic GVHD rates were similar across the groups. Five-year nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was higher in MAC than RIC and NMAC (56% vs 47% vs 36%; P = .007). Five-year relapse/progression was lower in MAC than in RIC/NMAC (26% vs 38% vs 40%; P = .031). Five-year progression-free survival (15%-25%) and overall survival (18%-26%) did not differ significantly between the cohorts. In multivariate analysis, NMAC and more recent transplant year were associated with lower NRM, whereas a lower Karnofsky performance score (< 90), prior relapse resistant to therapy, and use of unrelated donors were associated with higher NRM. NMAC transplants, no prior use of rituximab, and prior relapse resistant to therapy were associated with a greater risk of relapse/progression. In conclusion, allotransplantation with RIC or NMAC induces long-term progression-free survival in selected DLBCL patients with a lower risk of NRM but with higher risk of lymphoma progression or relapse.

Abstract Therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes (t-MDSs) and acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) have a poor prognosis with conventional therapy. Encouraging results are reported after allogeneic transplantation. We analyzed outcomes in 868 persons with t-AML (n = 545) or t-MDS (n = 323) receiving allogeneic transplants from 1990 to 2004. A myeloablative regimen was used for conditioning in 77%. Treatment-related mortality (TRM) and relapse were 41% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-44) and 27% (24-30) at 1 year and 48% (44-51) and 31% (28-34) at 5 years, respectively. Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 32% (95% CI, 29-36) and 37% (34-41) at 1 year and 21% (18-24) and 22% (19-26) at 5 years, respectively. In multivariate analysis, 4 risk factors had adverse impacts on DFS and OS: (1) age older than 35 years; (2) poor-risk cytogenetics; (3) t-AML not in remission or advanced t-MDS; and (4) donor other than an HLA-identical sibling or a partially or well-matched unrelated donor. Five-year survival for subjects with none, 1, 2, 3, or 4 of these risk factors was 50% (95% CI, 38-61), 26% (20-31), 21% (16-26), 10% (5-15), and 4% (0-16), respectively (P < .001). These data permit a more precise prediction of outcome and identify subjects most likely to benefit from allogeneic transplantation.

Purpose This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of plerixafor (AMD3100), a CXCR4 antagonist, in mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem-cell transplantation in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients. Patients and Methods This is a phase III, multicenter, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma requiring an autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in first or second complete or partial remission were eligible. Patients received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; 10 μg/kg) subcutaneously daily for up to 8 days. Beginning on evening of day 4 and continuing daily for up to 4 days, patients received either plerixafor (240 μg/kg) or placebo subcutaneously. Starting on day 5, patients began daily apheresis for up to 4 days or until ≥ 5 × 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg were collected. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who collected ≥ 5 × 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in 4 or fewer apheresis days. Results This report presents all data for all patients (n = 298) through 12 months follow-up. Eighty-nine (59%) of 150 patients in the plerixafor group and 29 (20%) of 148 patients in the placebo group met the primary end point (P < .001). One hundred thirty-five patients (90%) in plerixafor group and 82 patients (55%) in placebo group underwent transplantation after initial mobilization. Median time to engraftment was similar in both groups. The most common plerixafor-associated adverse events were GI disorders and injection site reactions. Conclusion Plerixafor and G-CSF were well tolerated and resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma achieving the optimal CD34+ cell target for transplantation in fewer apheresis days, compared with G-CSF alone.

Abstract This phase 3, multicenter, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the safety and efficacy of plerixafor with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients received G-CSF (10 μg/kg) subcutaneously daily for up to 8 days. Beginning on day 4 and continuing daily for up to 4 days, patients received either plerixafor (240 μg/kg) or placebo subcutaneously. Starting on day 5, patients began daily apheresis for up to 4 days or until more than or equal to 6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg were collected. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who collected more than or equal to 6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg in less than or equal to 2 aphereses. A total of 106 of 148 (71.6%) patients in the plerixafor group and 53 of 154 (34.4%) patients in the placebo group met the primary endpoint (P < .001). A total of 54% of plerixafor-treated patients reached target after one apheresis, whereas 56% of the placebo-treated patients required 4 aphereses to reach target. The most common adverse events related to plerixafor were gastrointestinal disorders and injection site reactions. Plerixafor and G-CSF were well tolerated, and significantly more patients collected the optimal CD34+ cell/kg target for transplantation earlier compared with G-CSF alone. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00103662.

Purpose Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) causes substantial morbidity and mortality after human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical sibling transplants. No large registry studies of acute GVHD risk factors have been reported in two decades. Risk factors may have changed in this interval as transplant-related techniques have evolved. Patients and Methods Acute GVHD risk factors were analyzed in 1,960 adults after HLA-identical sibling myeloablative transplant for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), or chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) reported by 226 centers worldwide to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research from 1995 to 2002. Outcome was measured as time from transplant to onset of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD, with death without acute GVHD as a competing risk. Results Cumulative incidence of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD was 35% (95% CI, 33% to 37%). In multivariable analyses, factors significantly associated with grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD were cyclophosphamide + total-body irradiation versus busulfan + cyclophosphamide (relative risk [RR] = 1.4; P < .0001), blood cell versus bone marrow grafts in patients age 18 to 39 years (RR = 1.43; P = .0023), recipient age 40 and older versus age 18 to 39 years receiving bone marrow grafts (RR = 1.44; P = .0005), CML versus AML/ALL (RR = 1.35; P = .0003), white/Black versus Asian/Hispanic race (RR = 1.54; P = .0003), Karnofsky performance score less than 90 versus 90 to 100 (RR = 1.27; P = .014), and recipient/donor cytomegalovirus-seronegative versus either positive (RR = 1.20; P = .04). Stratification by disease showed the same significant predictors of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD for CML; however, KPS and cytomegalovirus serostatus were not significant predictors for AML/ALL. Conclusion This analysis confirmed several previously reported risk factors for grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD. However, several new factors were identified whereas others are no longer significant. These new data may facilitate individualized risk estimates and raise several interesting biologic questions.

AbstractImatinib mesylate (IM, Gleevec) has largely supplanted allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) as first line therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Nevertheless, many people with CML eventually undergo HCT, raising the question of whether prior IM therapy impacts HCT success. Data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research on 409 subjects treated with IM before HCT (IM+) and 900 subjects who did not receive IM before HCT (IM−) were analyzed. Among patients in first chronic phase, IM therapy before HCT was associated with better survival but no statistically significant differences in treatment-related mortality, relapse, and leukemia-free survival. Better HLA-matched donors, use of bone marrow, and transplantation within one year of diagnosis were also associated with better survival. A matched-pairs analysis was performed and confirmed a higher survival rate among first chronic phase patients receiving IM. Among patients transplanted with advanced CML, use of IM before HCT was not associated with treatment-related mortality, relapse, leukemia-free survival, or survival. Acute graft-versus-host disease rates were similar between IM+ and IM− groups regardless of leukemia phase. These results should be reassuring to patients receiving IM before HCT.