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 < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 0.39, P < .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 < .0001; DIPSS-Int-2 and higher: HR, 2.55, P < .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.
Survival Advantage to Allogeneic Transplant in Patients with Myelofibrosis with Intermediate-1 or Higher DIPSS Score
Abstract Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative therapy for myelofibrosis (MF). Consideration of HCT is recommended by international working groups and national guidelines for MF patients (pts) age <70 with intermediate-1 with adverse indicators, intermediate-2 or high-risk disease by the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) for MF- a recommendation made in the absence of clear data indicating the optimal timing of HCT for MF. In this large multicenter retrospective study, we analyze overall survival in MF pts treated with and without HCT. Methods: Disease characteristics, treatments, and outcome data from MF pts receiving non-transplant therapy at 14 US academic medical centers between 2000-2014 were retrospectively collected. MF pts who underwent HCT were identified from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). The Cox proportional hazards model was used. The reference time point (time zero) was time of referral for the non-transplant (non-HCT) arm and the time of transplant for the HCT arm. The main effect variable (HCT vs. non-HCT) violated the proportionality assumption where comparing to non-HCT, mortality was higher with HCT in early time period from time zero but then was lower in late time period; therefore, the comparison is presented as early time period and late time period. The Cox model identified 14 months from time zero as the ideal cut point to define early and late time periods. The proportionality assumption is satisfied within each of these two periods. Results: A total of 1377 and 551 pts were included in the non-HCT and HCT arms, respectively (Table 1). In the overall cohort, survival was higher with non-HCT vs. HCT in early time period (relative risk [RR]: 0.34, P< .0001, Figure 1D), but in late time period survival was lower with non-HCT vs. HCT (RR: 2.37, P< 0.001) (Table 2). In the DIPSS low-risk MF group, while survival was higher with non-HCT vs. HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.19, P=0.007, Figure 1A), survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period, but the latter did not reach statistical significance (RR: 1.45, P=0.39). In the DIPSS intermediate-1 risk group, a survival advantage was present with non-HCT treatments vs. HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.27, P < .0001, Figure 1B), however survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period (RR: 3.13, P < .0001). Similarly, in those with DIPSS intermediate-2 and high-risk MF, survival advantage was observed with non-HCT in the early time period (RR: 0.41, P< .0001, Figure IC), but survival was lower with non-HCT in the late time period (RR: 2.82, P < .0001). Conclusion: A long-term survival advantage with transplant was observed for pts with intermediate-1 or higher risk MF, but at the cost of potential early mortality. The magnitude of benefit increased as DIPSS risk score increased. Although this retrospective study has limitations, the results have an impact on clinical practice by suggesting that transplantation could be considered earlier in the disease course and supports the recommendation for consideration of HCT in the setting of intermediate-1 risk MF. Disclosures Gowin: Incyte: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Verstovsek:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ali:Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy.
Tacrolimus/Sirolimus Vs. Tacrolimus/Methotrexate for Graft-Vs.-Host Disease Prophylaxis After HLA-Matched, Related Donor Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Results of Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Trial 0402
Abstract Abstract 739 The combination of a calcineurin inhibitor and methotrexate has been the standard of care in graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis for over 25 years, with resultant rates of grade II-IV acute GVHD between 30–50%. The mTOR inhibitor, sirolimus, has demonstrated promise in a number of Phase II trials as an immunosuppressant used for GVHD prophylaxis. The BMT CTN, sponsored by the NHLBI and NCI, conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of tacrolimus and sirolimus (Tac/Sir) with tacrolimus and methotrexate (Tac/Mtx) as GVHD prophylaxis after matched, related donor (MRD) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Methods: Eligible patients were between ages 2 – 60 years, and had acute leukemia in remission, myelodysplasia or chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic or accelerated phase. All had adequate organ function, and a 6/6 HLA-A, B, DRB1 matched sibling donor. 304 patients were randomly assigned to either Tac/Sir (n = 151) or Tac/Mtx (n = 153) as GVHD prophylaxis after TBI-based conditioning and MRD HSCT. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed on the primary endpoint of Grade II-IV GVHD-free survival 114 days from randomization. Ten subjects who received busulfan-based conditioning and were previously reported were excluded from analysis. Three subjects who did not undergo HSCT are included in the primary analysis, but not secondary analyses. Results: Treatment groups were well balanced. The median age of participants was 44 years (range 13 – 59) and 83% had acute leukemia. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment were both faster in the Tac/Sir group (14 vs. 16 days, p < 0.001; 16 vs. 19 days, p = 0.03, respectively), but this did not affect the time to first hospital discharge (20 vs. 21 days, p = 0.37). The incidence of grade II-IV and grade III-IV acute GVHD at 100 days were lower in the Tac/Sir group (26 vs. 34%, p = 0.17; 8 vs. 15%, p = 0.05). Day 100 treatment-related mortality was no different between groups (7 vs. 7%, p = 0.43). The primary endpoint of 114-day acute GVHD-free survival was not statistically different between groups (67 vs. 62%, p = 0.38, Figure). The cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years from transplantation was not different between groups (27 vs. 30%, p = 0.81). The competing-risk cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was higher in the Tac/Sir arm (54 vs. 43%, p =0.044). Overall toxicities were not different between groups, with two notable exceptions. The peak and average OMAS oral mucositis scores were lower in the Tac/Sir arm (peak 0.70 vs. 0.96, p < 0.001; average 0.31 vs. 0.47, p < 0.001), however, there was an increased rate of the endothelial injury syndromes, veno-occlusive disease (11 vs. 4%, p = 0.03), and thrombotic microangiopathy (5 vs. 1%, p = 0.05) in the Tac/Sir arm. Causes of death were not different between groups. At 2 years from transplantation, disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were not different between study arms (DFS 53 vs. 53%, p = 0.76; OS 60 vs. 61%, p = 0.44). Conclusions: No difference in 114-day acute GVHD-free survival was noted between treatment arms. Compared with Tac/Mtx in MRD HSCT, Tac/Sir is associated with more rapid engraftment, less severe acute GVHD and oral mucositis, excess chronic GVHD and endothelial injury syndromes, and similar long-term outcomes. Understanding the trade-offs between regimens, Tac/Sir can be used as an alternative to Tac/Mtx in MRD HSCT. Disclosures: Cutler: Pfizer, inc: Research Funding; Astellas, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Sirolimus - Prevention of GVHD Tacrolimus - Prevention of GVHD. Waller:Outsuka: Research Funding.
Prognostic Score and Cytogenetic Risk Classification for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients: Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Report
Clinical Cancer Research | June 28, 2019 | Volume: 25 | Issue: 16 | Pages: 5143-5155
Abstract Purpose: To develop a prognostic model and cytogenetic risk classification for previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) undergoing reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Experimental Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes of 606 patients with CLL who underwent RIC allogeneic HCT between 2008 and 2014 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Results: On the basis of multivariable models, disease status, comorbidity index, lymphocyte count, and white blood cell count at HCT were selected for the development of prognostic model. Using the prognostic score, we stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk [4-year progression-free survival (PFS) 58%, 42%, 33%, and 25%, respectively, P < 0.0001; 4-year overall survival (OS) 70%, 57%, 54%, and 38%, respectively, P < 0.0001]. We also evaluated karyotypic abnormalities together with del(17p) and found that del(17p) or ≥5 abnormalities showed inferior PFS. Using a multivariable model, we classified cytogenetic risk into low, intermediate, and high (P < 0.0001). When the prognostic score and cytogenetic risk were combined, patients with low prognostic score and low cytogenetic risk had prolonged PFS (61% at 4 years) and OS (75% at 4 years). Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with previously treated CLL who underwent RIC HCT, we developed a robust prognostic scoring system of HCT outcomes and a novel cytogenetic-based risk stratification system. These prognostic models can be used for counseling patients, comparing data across studies, and providing a benchmark for future interventions. For future study, we will further validate these models for patients receiving targeted therapies prior to HCT.
Myeloablative vs reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for chronic myeloid leukemia
Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a potentially curative treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Optimal conditioning intensity for allo-HCT for CML in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is unknown. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database, we sought to determine whether reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (RIC) allo-HCT and myeloablative conditioning (MAC) result in similar outcomes in CML patients. We evaluated 1395 CML allo-HCT recipients between the ages of 18 and 60 years. The disease status at transplant was divided into the following categories: chronic phase 1, chronic phase 2 or greater, and accelerated phase. Patients in blast phase at transplant and alternative donor transplants were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) after allo-HCT. MAC (n = 1204) and RIC allo-HCT recipients (n = 191) from 2007 to 2014 were included. Patient, disease, and transplantation characteristics were similar, with a few exceptions. Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference in OS between MAC and RIC groups. In addition, leukemia-free survival and nonrelapse mortality did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Compared with MAC, the RIC group had a higher risk of early relapse after allo-HCT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; P = .001). The cumulative incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) was lower with RIC than with MAC (HR, 0.77; P = .02). RIC provides similar survival and lower cGVHD compared with MAC and therefore may be a reasonable alternative to MAC for CML patients in the TKI era.
Scoring System Prognostic of Outcome in Patients Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Myelodysplastic Syndrome
Journal of Clinical Oncology | April 5, 2016 | Volume: 34 | Issue: 16 | Pages: 1864-1871
Purpose To develop a system prognostic of outcome in those undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo HCT) for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Patients and Methods We examined 2,133 patients with MDS undergoing HLA-matched (n = 1,728) or -mismatched (n = 405) allo HCT from 2000 to 2012. We used a Cox multivariable model to identify factors prognostic of mortality in a training subset (n = 1,151) of the HLA-matched cohort. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to the remaining patients undergoing HLA-matched allo HCT (validation cohort; n = 577) as well as to patients undergoing HLA-mismatched allo HCT. Results Blood blasts greater than 3% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.85), platelets 50 × 109/L or less at transplantation (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.61), Karnofsky performance status less than 90% (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.28), comprehensive cytogenetic risk score of poor or very poor (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.80), and age 30 to 49 years (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.35) were associated with increased hazard of death and assigned 1 point in the scoring system. Monosomal karyotype (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.65 to 2.45) and age 50 years or older (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.36 to 2.83) were assigned 2 points. The 3-year overall survival after transplantation in patients with low (0 to 1 points), intermediate (2 to 3), high (4 to 5) and very high (≥ 6) scores was 71% (95% CI, 58% to 85%), 49% (95% CI, 42% to 56%), 41% (95% CI, 31% to 51%), and 25% (95% CI, 4% to 46%), respectively (P < .001). Increasing score was predictive of increased relapse (P < .001) and treatment-related mortality (P < .001) in the HLA-matched set and relapse (P < .001) in the HLA-mismatched cohort. Conclusion The proposed system is prognostic of outcome in patients undergoing HLA-matched and -mismatched allo HCT for MDS.
Tacrolimus/sirolimus vs tacrolimus/methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis after matched, related donor allogeneic HCT
Key Points Tac/Sir prophylaxis provides equivalent GVHD-free survival when compared with Tac/Mtx in MRD transplantation. Tac/Sir is associated with more rapid engraftment and reduced oropharyngeal mucositis after MRD transplantation.