Nakamura, Ryotaro

ABSTRACT Approximately 30% of patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) develop steroid-refractory disease and have very poor outcomes. Ruxolitinib has become the standard of care for steroid-refractory acute GVHD, but it is unclear which patients derive benefit. The MAGIC Composite Score (MCS), an algorithm that combines clinical symptoms and biomarkers, has been validated to predict outcomes at the start of primary GVHD treatment. Here, we evaluated its performance at the initiation of second-line treatment in 278 patients. MCS stratified patients into three risk groups (MCS1-3), with the majority (88%) classified as intermediate or high risk. Increasing MCS score was associated with progressively higher 1-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) rates (16%, 41%, and 73%; p<0.001), lower 1-year survival (77%, 56%, and 24%; p<0.001), and lower complete response (CR) rates at day 28 (47%, 38%, and 20%, respectively; p<0.01). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for 1-year NRM was significantly higher with MCS compared to clinical symptoms alone (0.70 vs. 0.63; p=0.023). Among patients treated with ruxolitinib, higher MCS similarly predicted higher NRM and lower survival and CR rates. Patients classified as MCS2/3 had poor outcomes despite ruxolitinib, underscoring the need for novel therapies in this patient population. In conclusion the MCS is an accurate predictor of outcomes for patients who require second-line treatment and may be of use as an eligibility criterion for future clinical trials in this high-risk population. Key Points MAGIC Composite Scores that integrate clinical symptoms and biomarker scores predict outcomes of second-line therapy for acute GVHD more accurately than clinical symptoms alone. MCS identifies patients with high NRM despite treatment with ruxolitinib.

Abstract Despite concerns about the toxicity of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) in older patients, prospective data characterizing prevalence or risk stratification for geriatric morbidity such as disability or frailty are limited. We prospectively assessed the prognostic impact of the novel composite health assessment risk model (CHARM), a score established to predict 1-year nonrelapse mortality (NRM), among 1105 patients aged ≥60 years enrolled on the Bone Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Study 1704. Secondary end points were assessed post-alloHCT at day 100 (D100), D180, and D365 in multivariable models adjusted with predetermined clinical variables. Among alloHCT survivors, the prevalence of disability by instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), frailty by the Physical Frailty Phenotype, and physical function impairment by Patient Reported Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was highest at D100 and lower on D180 and D365. Higher CHARM scores were independently associated with greater disability (coefficient, −0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.85 to −0.43; P&lt; .001), increased frailty (coefficient, 0.19; CI, 0.081-0.31; P&lt; .001), worse PROMIS physical function, greater PROMIS depression, increased serious organ toxicity by D100, more cognitive decline at D100, and higher mortality after acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) but not significantly associated with PROMIS anxiety or acute GVHD. Higher CHARM scores predicted worse disability-free survival (odds ratio [OR], 2.03; CI, 1.66-2.48; P&lt; .001) and lower frailty-free survival (OR, 2.00; CI, 1.61-2.49). In summary, CHARM is an independent prognostic scoring system not only for NRM but also for geriatric morbidity and functional limitation–free survival through 1 year after alloHCT. Pre-alloHCT CHARM is a novel tool to aid shared decision-making for older patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03992352.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) provide expert, multidisciplinary recommendations for autologous and allogeneic HCT based on current evidence. The NCCN Guidelines focus on pretransplant recipient evaluation, hematopoietic cell mobilization, conditioning, and the diagnosis and management of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a common complication of allogeneic HCT that is associated with significant morbidity. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for HCT focuses on the diagnosis, workup, and management of acute and chronic GVHD, as well as important supportive care considerations.

Abstract Changes in the clinical symptoms of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are currently used to assess treatment responses. The Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) consortium has recently revealed that the integration of serum biomarkers with clinical symptoms at the onset of treatment in a MAGIC composite score (MCS) more accurately predicts treatment response and 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM) than clinical symptoms alone. In this study, we evaluated whether the integration of serum biomarkers and clinical symptoms on day 28 (D28) would also better predict NRM than clinical response only (CRO). We analyzed data from 1135 patients receiving systemic treatment for acute GVHD and created a fourth MCS category for patients with complete resolution of symptoms and low-risk clinical biomarkers on D28. Using a classification and regression tree model with 6-month NRM as the end point, we identified status of MCS 0 or MCS 1 at D28 as responses, which we termed the MAGIC composite response (MCR). In the validation cohort (n = 309), MCR more accurately predicted 6-month NRM than CRO (area under the curve: 0.77 vs 0.69; P = .014) and demonstrated higher negative and positive predictive values. MCR correctly reclassified both clinical nonresponders and responders: 28 of 213 clinical responders (13%) became nonresponders with fivefold higher NRM (34.3% vs 6.8%, P &lt; .001) and a larger group (29/96, 30%) of clinical nonresponders became responders with sixfold lower NRM (7.6% vs 50.7%, P &lt; .001). These findings support the use of MCR as a superior surrogate end point for long-term GVHD control and survival in future clinical trials.

Abstract Overall response (OR) that combines complete (CR) and partial responses (PR) is the conventional end point for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) trials. Because PR includes heterogeneous clinical presentations, reclassifying PR could produce a better end point. Patients in the primary treatment cohort from the Japanese Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (JSTCT) were randomly divided into training and validation sets. In the training set, a classification and regression tree algorithm generated day 28 refined response (RR) criteria based on symptoms at treatment and day 28. We then evaluated RR for primary and second-line treatments, using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and negative predictive value (NPV) for 6-month nonrelapse mortality as performance measures. RR considered patients with grade 0/1 at day 28 without additional treatment as responders. RR for primary treatment produced higher AUCs than OR with small improvement of NPVs in both validation sets: JSTCT (AUC, 0.73 vs 0.69 [P &lt; .001]; NPV, 92.0% vs 89.6% [P &lt; .001]) and the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC; AUC, 0.71 vs 0.68 [P = .032]; NPV, 90.9% vs 89.8% [P = .009]). RR for second-line treatment produced similar AUCs but much higher NPVs than OR in both validation sets of JSTCT (AUC, 0.64 vs 0.63 [P = .775]; NPV, 74.5% vs 66.0% [P &lt; .001]) and MAGIC (AUC, 0.67 vs 0.64 [P = .105]; NPV, 86.8% vs 76.1% [P = .004]). Classifying persistent but mild skin symptoms as responses and residual lower gastrointestinal GVHD as nonresponses were major drivers in improving the prognostic performance of RR. Our externally validated day 28 RR would serve as a better end point than conventional criteria in future first- and second-line treatment trials.

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is potentially curative for older adults with hematologic malignancies. Concerns on nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in older adults limit allo-HCT utilization. We executed a prospective, observational study BMT-CTN 1704 (Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network) enrolling allo-HCT recipients aged ≥60 years from 49 centers in the United States. We analyzed associations between 13 measurements of older adult health and NRM within 1 year to construct a comprehensive health assessment risk model (primary-CHARM) using multivariate Fine-Gray model and grouped penalized variable selection. Two machine learning (ML) models (Cox and pseudo-value boosting) were also explored. Models’ performances were compared using area under the curve (AUC), with bootstrap and cross-validation sampling to correct for optimism, decision curve analysis (DCA), calibration, and Brier scores. Among 1105 patients with median age of 67 (range, 60-82) years who received allo-HCT, NRM was 14.4% and overall survival (OS) 71.7% at 1 year. Factors statistically selected for inclusion in primary-CHARM were higher comorbidity burden, lower albumin, higher C-reactive protein, older age, higher weight-loss percentage, lower patient-reported performance score, and cognitive impairment. Primary-CHARM scores were independently associated with higher NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; P &lt; .0001) and worse OS (HR, 2.09; P &lt; .0001). Bootstrap bias–corrected AUC for primary-CHARM was 0.591. Comparing primary-CHARM with HCT-comorbidity index and 2 ML-CHARM models, calibration, Brier score, and DCA analysis favored primary-CHARM. Primary-CHARM, with mostly simple and readily available parameters, risk stratifies older adults for allo-HCT. Adopting primary-CHARM in practice may promote broader use of HCT by quantifying risk and enhance the design of strategies to improve outcomes. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03992352.

Introduction: The BMT CTN 1704 study developed and validated the CHARM that stratified risk for non-relapse mortality and overall mortality among older adults, performing better than the HCT-CI alone (Artz A et al, Blood. 2023;142:109) and equally to two machine learning models. CHARM assigns a total score for 7 health variables: increasing age, higher HCT-CI scores, lower albumin, higher C-reactive protein, higher percent of weight loss over the preceding year, lower patient-reported performance status scores, and lower cognitive score per Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA). A CHARM calculator is available at:https://cibmtr.org/CIBMTR/OffNav/DevSandbox/CHARM-Risk-NRM-Calculator No multi-institutional prospective data exist on functional trajectories and morbidity after HCT in older patients. We now report on the association of CHARM to trajectories of secondary morbidity outcomes among allo-HCT survivors of this large, prospective study. Patients and Methods: Allo-HCT candidates, aged ≥60 years (yrs), were enrolled (n=1226) from 49 centers in the US between 2019 - 2021. The primary analysis includes 1105 patients proceeding to allo-HCT on study and secondary endpoints were assessed at day (D) 100, 180 and 365 except MoCA and organ toxicity were restricted to D100 and frailty had inadequate data for D100. A sequential multiple imputation strategy was implemented to impute endpoints for survivors at each time point with missing data. Analyses on multiply imputed datasets were conducted and the results combined using Rubin's rule. Associations between CHARM scores and secondary outcomes were analyzed using a multivariable Cox, Fine-Gray, Generalized Estimating Equations, and logistic regression model for survival, competing risks, continuous, and binary outcomes, respectively, with latter two focused on surviving patients. Models were adjusted for other variables including conditioning intensity, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimen, disease-risk index, donor-recipient gender match, ethnicity, baseline value of the dependent variable, and visit timepoints. Results: Higher CHARM scores were associated with development of serious organ toxicities by D100 (OR: 2.05, [1.52-2.78], p&lt;0.0001) and ≥2 worsening score on the MoCA (odds ratio (OR) 1.55 [1.16-2.1], p=0.003). Among survivors at all timepoints, higher CHARM scores were associated with greater disability by instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) (Slope -0.640 [-0.433-0.846], p&lt;0.001) and worsening Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Reporting System (PROMIS) physical function (Slope -0.981 [-0.057 - -1.904], p=0.037), depression (Slope 0.763 [0.042-1.484], p=0.038) and in a lesser magnitude anxiety (Slope 0.659, p=0.076). Among survivors at D180 and D365, higher CHARM scores were associated with worse frailty (Slope 0.193 [0.081-0.305], p&lt;0.001). CHARM scores were not associated with development of acute GVHD grades 2-4 or 3-4 but were associated with post-GVHD increased mortality (HR: 1.61, [1.25-2.08], p=0.0002). Higher CHARM scores are associated with a lower incidence of chronic GVHD (HR: 0.83, p=0.026), likely due to the effect of CHARM on the competing risk of death leaving fewer patients at risk for chronic GVHD. Conclusions: The novel primary CHARM, originally developed to predict risks of NRM, also predicts worse frailty, disability, cognitive decline, and serious organ toxicities; outcomes that are critically important to older recipients of allo-HCT. CHARM therefore informs risks of transplant morbidity, separate from risks of developing acute GVHD. Results further support adopting CHARM in practice to counsel patients, expedite HCT referrals for lower risk CHARM, and design trials for high CHARM score patients.

Background: The majority of patients respond to steroid treatment for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD), but the typically high doses and prolonged courses can cause substantial morbidity. GVHD can be classified at onset into two groups with significant differences in treatment response and non-relapse mortality (NRM) by clinical criteria (Minnesota risk) but the more favorable standard risk group still experiences high rates of treatment failure and NRM [MacMillan, BBMT 2015]. We previously validated a serum biomarker-based (ST2+REG3α) risk stratification system, MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs), that can stratify patients both at initiation and during treatment into risk groups for treatment response and NRM [Hartwell, JCI Insight 2017, Srinagesh, Blood Adv 2019]. GVHD that is Minnesota standard risk and has a low MAP (i.e., Ann Arbor 1) at start of treatment represents a low risk group with &gt;80% response rate to steroids and ~10% NRM [Etra, Blood 2023]. We hypothesized that serial monitoring of GVHD symptom severity and MAPs twice (days (d) 7 and 14) in patients with clinical and biomarker defined low risk GVHD could further stratify patients into clinically meaningful groups. Methods: We retrospectively determined MAPs at d7 and 14 in 450 patients with low risk GVHD who participated in a prospective, multi-center, observational trial and were treated with systemic steroids between 2015-2023. MAPs &lt;0.291 at days 7 and 14 were defined as low risk based on a previously validated threshold [Major-Monfried Blood 2018]. Clinical responses were scored as complete (CR), partial (PR), or non-response (NR) by standard criteria. Initiation of second line therapy was considered NR. Patients were categorized into three groups (A-C) based on clinical responses and MAPs at days d7 and 14. A: CR/PR by d14 and low MAP at both d7+14; B: stable or worse GVHD (NR) by d14 with low MAP at both d7 and 14; C: any response with a high MAP at d7 or 14. The endpoints were clinical response at day 28 (overall response rate, ORR=CR or PR), regardless of earlier response status, and 6-month NRM. Results: The median age of the study population was 54 years (range: 0-79); 19% of patients received PT-Cy for GVHD prophylaxis. Target organ involvement was skin ± upper GI (66%), lower GI (23%), isolated UGI (11%), and skin+liver (1%), and GVHD severity was grade I (35%), II (61%), and III (4%) at start of treatment. Patients in group A (n=310, 69%), clinical responders with low MAPs through day 14, had excellent d28 ORR (93%) and very low NRM (4%). GVHD in this group was considered ultra-low risk (ULR) and subset analyses revealed highly consistent d28 ORR and NRM, regardless of target organ severity, age (&lt;18, 18-59, &gt;60), HCT-CI score, conditioning intensity, and GVHD prophylaxis. Group B patients comprised clinical non-responders with low MAPs through day 14 (n=112, 25%); half of them responded by d28 and their NRM was low (8%), albeit double that of group A (p=0.079). Group C was small (n=28, 6%) and included both clinical responders (n=20, 4%) and clinical non-responders (n=8, 2%) who had at least one high MAP through day 14. Their d28 ORR was 54% but NRM increased four-fold (32%) and was significantly worse than patients who maintained low MAPs regardless of clinical response (p&lt;0.001). Conclusion: Serial monitoring by clinical response and biomarkers during the first two weeks of treatment identifies a small number of high risk patients whose GVHD is initially low risk (group C). This group experiences high NRM regardless of clinical response to steroid treatment and may benefit from treatment escalation. Patients with low risk GVHD who do not have an early clinical response to steroids but maintain low MAPs, (group B) have reasonably good long-term outcomes with standard treatment. Finally, serial monitoring identifies a very large subset of patients with ULR GVHD (group A) who respond exceptionally well to standard treatment and experience very low rates of 6-month NRM regardless of pre-transplant characteristics and GVHD prophylaxis. Such patients may benefit from treatment de-escalation strategies such as shorter courses of lower dose steroids, a strategy we are currently testing in a clinical trial (NCT05090384).

Background Endpoints for GVHD treatment trials use early response (i.e, day (D)28 of treatment) as a surrogate for long term survival. Overall response (OR) that combines complete (CR) and partial responses (PR) at day (D) 28 is the conventional endpoint for primary acute GVHD trials because of similar survival outcomes between CR and PR. D28 OR ignores symptom severity at baseline and D28, however, and the PR category encompasses a wide range of responses from minimal improvement to near complete resolution of symptoms. D28 OR is the only endpoint currently approved by the FDA for efficacy, but it has not been re-evaluated as an endpoint for primary treatment (1L) in fifteen years and little is known regarding the prognostic value of D28 OR as an endpoint for second line treatment (2L) of GVHD. We hypothesized that refinement of the current D28 OR criteria, particularly through recategorization of PR in the GI tract, the main driver of nonrelapse mortality (NRM), would more accurately reflect disease control and better predict survival outcomes than current D28 response. Methods The Japanese Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (JSTCT) collaborated with the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) to develop and validate D28 refined response (RR) criteria for 1L and 2L treatment (tx) in patients with Grades II-IV acute GVHD. To maximize the correlation between treatment success (i.e, response) with long term survival, our primary measured metric was the negative predictive value (NPV). We first randomly divided the 1L tx cohort of JSTCT into the training (n=2341) and validation sets (n=1156). In the training set we used a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm to generate RR criteria that predicted 6-month (mo) NRM based on symptoms both at tx onset and D28. We then compared the two D28 response endpoints (RR vs OR) as surrogates for 6-mo NRM in two validation sets of both 1L tx (JSTCT: n=1156; MAGIC: n=1141) and 2L tx (JSTCT: n=510; MAGIC: n=196). Results The CART algorithm defined a RR as GVHD Grades 0/I at D28 without additional tx; all other D28 grades were considered refined nonresponses. As expected, RR successfully stratified the risk of 6-mo NRM in both 1L tx validation sets (JSTCT: 8% vs 38%, p&lt;0.01; MAGIC: 9% vs 37%, p&lt;0.01). We defined a discordant nonresponse as a nonresponse by RR criteria but a response by OR criteria, which accounted for the majority (~75%) of differences between RR and OR. 6-mo NRM in discordant nonresponders was four fold higher than in responders (JSTCT: 35%; MAGIC: 30%). The large majority (&gt;80%) of discordant nonresponders had persistent GI GVHD at D28. Because the proportion of discordant nonresponders was small (&lt;7% of the total population) in the 1L setting, the improvements of an already high NPV were small (JSTCT: 93% vs 91%; MAGIC: 91% vs 90%). In the 2L tx validation sets, RR also stratified the risk of 6-mo NRM (JSTCT: 26% vs 56%, p&lt;0.01; MAGIC: 13% vs 55%, p&lt;0.01). At the time of 2L tx, the discordant nonresponders are more common and half of the discordant nonresponders experienced 6-mo NRM (JSTCT: 45%; MAGIC: 59%); as a result, RR achieved much higher NPVs than OR (JSTCT: 75% vs 66%; MAGIC: 87% vs 76%). Deaths in responders from acute GVHD (vs. other causes such as infection) were more frequent in OR than RR in both 2L tx validation sets (JSTCT: 41% vs 20%; MAGIC: 41% vs 13%) and 1L tx validation sets (JSTCT: 25% vs 18%; MAGIC: 32% vs 29%). D28 RR is superior to OR because it more accurately reflects control of serious GVHD in four independent validation cohorts, particularly in patients with GI disease. Conclusion We conclude that RR is a more accurate endpoint than OR in patients with grade II-IV GVHD primarily because it classifies persistent GI GVHD at D28 as a non-response instead of a response, which correlates with 6-mo NRM and achieves a higher NPV. This validated RR metric can serve as a better endpoint than OR in assessing treatment efficacy in both primary treatment trials that enrich for high risk GVHD, e.g. GI involvement, and second line treatment trials.

Abstract Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grading systems that use only clinical symptoms at treatment initiation such as the Minnesota risk identify standard and high-risk categories but lack a low-risk category suitable to minimize immunosuppressive strategies. We developed a new grading system that includes a low-risk stratum based on clinical symptoms alone and determined whether the incorporation of biomarkers would improve the model’s prognostic accuracy. We randomly divided 1863 patients in the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) who were treated for GVHD into training and validation cohorts. Patients in the training cohort were divided into 14 groups based on similarity of clinical symptoms and similar nonrelapse mortality (NRM); we used a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm to create three Manhattan risk groups that produced a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 6-month NRM than the Minnesota risk classification (0.69 vs 0.64, P = .009) in the validation cohort. We integrated serum GVHD biomarker scores with Manhattan risk using patients with available serum samples and again used a CART algorithm to establish 3 MAGIC composite scores that significantly improved prediction of NRM compared to Manhattan risk (AUC, 0.76 vs 0.70, P = .010). Each increase in MAGIC composite score also corresponded to a significant decrease in day 28 treatment response (80% vs 63% vs 30%, P &lt; .001). We conclude that the MAGIC composite score more accurately predicts response to therapy and long-term outcomes than systems based on clinical symptoms alone and may help guide clinical decisions and trial design.