Kröger, Nicolaus

Abstract “Nonclassical” myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPNs) represent a heterogeneous group of malignancies characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations. Unlike classical MPNs, there is no standardized management approach for these conditions, particularly concerning the indications for and management of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. To address this gap, the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Practice Harmonization and Guidelines (PH&G) Committee and the Chronic Malignancies Working Party (CMWP) have collaborated to develop shared guidelines aimed at optimizing the selection and management of patients with these rare forms of neoplasms. A comprehensive review of the literature from the publication of the revised fourth edition of the (2016) World Health Organization classification onward was conducted. A multidisciplinary group of experts in the field convened to produce this document, which was developed through multiple rounds of draft circulation. Key recommendations include the early identification of potential transplant candidates, particularly in cases of chronic neutrophilic leukemia, chronic eosinophilic leukemia (CEL)/CEL, not otherwise specified (CEL-NOS), myeloid/lymphoid neoplasm with eosinophilia and tyrosine kinase gene fusions with FGFR1, JAK2, ABL1, and FLT3 rearrangements, MDS/MPN with neutrophilia/atypical chronic myeloid leukemia, and MDS/MPN, NOS. For patients with MPN, NOS/MPN unclassifiable, standard recommendations for myelofibrosis should be applied. Similarly, in MDS/MPN with thrombocytosis, transplantation is recommended on the basis of established MDS guidelines. Given the current lack of robust evidence, this document will serve as a valuable resource to guide future research activities, providing a framework for addressing critical unanswered questions and advancing the field.

SummaryOptimal donor choice for a second allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (allo‐HCT) in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) remains unknown. We compared overall survival (OS) using registry data from the Acute Leukemia Working Party (ALWP) of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) involving 455 adults who received a second allo‐HCT from a human leucocyte antigen (HLA)‐matched unrelated (MUD) (n = 320) or a haploidentical (n = 135) donor. Eligibility criteria required adults aged ≥18 years who received a second allo‐HCT for treating AML relapse between 2005 and 2019. The primary end‐point was OS. There was no statistically significant difference in the median (interquartile range) age between the groups, MUD 46 (35–58) versus haploidentical 44 (33–53) years (P = 0·07). The median OS was not different between the MUD and the haploidentical groups (10 vs. 11 months, P = 0·57). Similarly, the 2‐year OS was 31% for the MUD and 29% for the haploidentical donor groups. The OS was worse if the procedure was performed with active AML [hazard ratio (HR) 1·42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·07–1·89; P = 0·02]. Conversely, a longer time from first allo‐HCT to relapse (>13·2 months) was associated with better OS (HR 0·50, 95% CI 0·37–0·69; P < 0·0001). The results of the present analysis limit the ability to recommend one donor type over another when considering a second allo‐HCT for relapsed AML. Our findings highlight that best OS is achieved when receiving the second allo‐HCT in complete remission.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). In this large multicenter retrospective study, overall survival (OS) in MF patients treated with allogeneic HCT (551 patients) and without HCT (non-HCT) (1377 patients) was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards model. Survival analysis stratified by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) revealed that the first year of treatment arm assignment, due to upfront risk of transplant-related mortality (TRM), HCT was associated with inferior OS compared with non-HCT (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS intermediate 1 [Int-1]: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.26, P &lt; .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 0.39, P &lt; .0001). Similarly, in the DIPSS low-risk MF group, due to upfront TRM risk, OS was superior with non-HCT therapies compared with HCT in the first-year post treatment arm assignment (HR, 0.16, P = .006). However, after 1 year, OS was not significantly different (HR, 1.38, P = .451). Beyond 1 year of treatment arm assignment, an OS advantage with HCT therapy in Int-1 and higher DIPSS score patients was observed (non-HCT vs HCT: DIPSS-Int-1: HR, 2.64, P &lt; .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 2.55, P &lt; .0001). In conclusion, long-term OS advantage with HCT was observed for patients with Int-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of early TRM. The magnitude of OS benefit with HCT increased as DIPSS risk score increased and became apparent with longer follow-up.

Key Points Biomarker scores generated after 1 week of steroid treatment of GVHD are prognostic. Biomarkers reflect prognosis better than early clinical response to GVHD treatment.