Search

There is no established standard for selection of mismatched unrelated donors. Indirect recognition of HLA mismatches can be predicted using the model of "Predicted Indirectly ReCognizable HLA Epitopes" (PIRCHE). We performed a multicenter retrospective study evaluating the impact PIRCHE on outcome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) from single mismatched (HLA 9/10 matched) unrelated donors. The study cohort included 424 adult recipients of HLA 9/10 matched unrelated donor transplants (9/10 MUD), treated for AML or MDS at 6 transplant centers across Germany. Detection of PIRCHE was associated with lower overall survival (OS) (47 vs. 57%, p = 0.04), higher non-relapse mortality (NRM) (32 vs. 20%, p = 0.05), and higher incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) (49 vs. 31%, p = 0.04) at 2 years. Cumulative incidence of acute GVHD grade 2–4 at 6 months was not significantly different (30 vs. 23%, p = 0.2). OS for 9/10 MUD with no PIRCHE was similar to 10/10 MUD (57 vs. 55%). In multivariate analysis, PIRCHE retained negative impact on OS (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0–2.1, p = 0.03) and NRM (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0–2.9, p = 0.03). To the best of our knowledge, for the first time, we show the association of PIRCHE and survival outcome after allo-HSCT. The PIRCHE model, if validated in an independent cohort, may allow selection of permissible HLA mismatches that enable improved transplant outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: To assess current clinical practice in diagnosis and treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), we performed a survey among German, Austrian, and Swiss allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) centers. Thirty-four of 72 contacted centers (47%) completed both the diagnostic and therapeutic sections of the survey, representing 65% of allo-HSCT activity within the participating countries in 2011. Three pediatric centers answered as requested only the diagnostic part of the survey. In the presence of diarrhea and decreased oral intake after engraftment, only 4 centers (12%) do not perform any endoscopy before the start of immunosuppressive treatment. In case of a skin rash with the differential diagnosis of drug reaction, only 12 centers (35%) perform a skin biopsy up front, whereas 19 do so after failure of systemic steroids. In the presence of rapidly increasing cholestasis occurring without any other signs of aGVHD, 11 centers (32%) perform a liver biopsy up front and 14 only after failure of steroid treatment, whereas 9 centers do not perform a liver biopsy at all. Twenty centers (59%) use a percutaneous approach, 12 a transvenous approach, and 1 mini-laparoscopy for liver biopsies. First-line treatment of cutaneous aGVHD stage 1 consists of topical treatment alone in 17 of 31 responding centers (61%), whereas isolated cutaneous aGVHD stage III is treated with systemic steroids (prednisolone below 0.5 mg/kg/day n = 2, 0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg/day n = 10, above 1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day n = 19) without or with topical agents (steroids n = 10; calcineurin inhibitors n = 3). In gastrointestinal manifestations of aGVHD, 9 centers (29%) add topical to systemic steroids, and 3 consider topical steroids as the only treatment for mild gastrointestinal and cutaneous aGVHD. The choice of agent for second-line treatment as well as the sequence of administration are extremely heterogeneous, most likely due to a lack of convincing data published. Most frequently used are mycophenolate mofetil (n = 14) and extracorporeal photopheresis (n = 10). Our survey also demonstrates that clinicians chose salvage therapies for steroid-refractory aGVHD based on their centers'' own clinical experience. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Simple Summary: This study aimed to create a simple and reliable tool, the CORE HCT score, to predict the chances of non-relapse mortality (NRM) and overall survival (OS) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Using data from 1120 adult patients who had undergone this procedure at our center between 2013 and 2020, we identified specific patient factors affecting NRM: serum albumin, serum creatinine, serum C-reactive protein, heart and lung function, and age. Factors were weighted according to their impact on NRM. The resulting CORE HCT score grouped patients into low-, medium-, and high-risk categories, showing its effectiveness across different conditions and donor types. Notably, compared with the HCT Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI), the CORE HCT score performed better in predicting NRM and OS. The findings were validated in two independent cohorts, which supports the utility of the CORE HCT score in guiding risk assessment for allo-HCT in adult patients with malignant diseases. We aimed to develop a concise objectifiable risk evaluation (CORE) tool for predicting non-relapse mortality (NRM) and overall survival (OS) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT). A total of 1120 adult patients who had undergone allo-HCT at our center between 2013 and 2020 were divided into training, first, and second validation cohorts. Objectifiable, patient-related factors impacting NRM in univariate and multivariate analyses were: serum albumin, serum creatinine, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), heart function (LVEF), lung function (VC, FEV1), and patient age. Hazard ratios were assigned points (0–3) based on their impact on NRM and summed to the individual CORE HCT score. The CORE HCT score stratified patients into three distinct low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups with two-year NRM rates of 9%, 22%, and 46%, respectively, and OS rates of 73%, 55%, and 35%, respectively (p < 0.001). These findings were confirmed in a first and a second recently treated validation cohort. Importantly, the CORE HCT score remained informative across various conditioning intensities, disease-specific subgroups, and donor types, but did not impact relapse incidence. A comparison of CORE HCT vs. HCT Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) in the second validation cohort revealed better performance of the CORE HCT score with c-statistics for NRM and OS of 0.666 (SE 0.05, p = 0.001) and 0.675 (SE 0.039, p < 0.001) vs. 0.431 (SE 0.057, p = 0.223) and 0.535 (SE 0.042, p = 0.411), respectively. The CORE HCT score is a concise and objectifiable risk evaluation tool for adult patients undergoing allo-HCT for malignant disease. External multicenter validation is underway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pre‐transplant minimal residual disease (MRD) impacts negatively on post‐transplant relapse risk in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Therapeutic drug monitoring by calculating area under the curve (AUC) was developed to optimize busulfan (Bu) exposure. Here, we compared post‐transplant outcomes after individualized versus fixed busulfan dosage in intermediate‐risk AML who achieved CR prior to allograft focusing on pre‐transplant flow‐MRD. Eighty‐seven patients (median, 56 years) with intermediate‐risk AML and pre‐transplant flow‐MRD ("different from normal") were included. Thirty‐two patients received individualized busulfan; 54 fixed dosages. Individualized dosage was adjusted in 25/32 patients: increased, n = 18/25 (72%); decreased: n = 7/25 (28%). After median follow‐up of 27 months, we observed lower 3‐year relapses (6%, 2%–19% vs. 35%, 23%–49% p = 0.02), improved 3‐year leukemia‐free survival (LFS) (78%, 54%–91% vs. 55%, 40%–70% p = 0.009) and − overall survival (OS) (82%, 60%–93% vs. 69%, 54%–81% p = 0.05) after individualized compared to fixed Bu. Non‐relapsed mortality (NRM) and acute graft versus host disease (GvHD) were not different. In multivariate analysis, fixed Bu showed unfavorable impact on OS (hazard ratio [HR] 4.6, p = 0.044), LFS (HR 3.6, p = 0.018) and relapses (HR 3.6, p = 0.033). Fixed Bu also had unfavorable impact on LFS (3.6, 1.1–12.6, p = 0.041) in pre‐transplant MRD‐positive patients. Individualized, AUC‐based, busulfan is associated with lower relapses in intermediate‐risk AML patients allografted in CR and may overcome pre‐transplant MRD‐positivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. First-line treatment of cGVHD is based on steroids of 1 mg/kg/day of prednisone. The role of calcineurin inhibitors remains controversial, especially in patients with low risk for mortality (normal platelets counts), whereas patients with low platelets at diagnosis and/or high risk for steroid toxicity may be treated upfront with the combination of prednisone and a calcineurin inhibitor. Additional systemic immunosuppressive agents, like thalidomide, mycophenolic acid, and azathioprine, failed to improve treatment results in the primary treatment of cGVHD and are in part associated with higher morbidity, and in the case of azathioprine, with higher mortality. Despite advances in diagnosis of cGVHD as well as supportive care, half of the patients fail to achieve a long-lasting response to first-line treatment, and infectious morbidity continues to be significant. Therefore, immunomodulatory interventions with low infectious morbidity and mortality such as photopheresis need urgent evaluation in clinical trials. Beside systemic immunosuppression, the use of topical immunosuppressive interventions may improve local response rates and may be used as the only treatment in mild localized organ manifestations of cGVHD. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• First-line treatment is applied relatively homogeniously among German, Austrian, and Swiss transplant centers except initial treatment of progressive onset. • Second-line treatment varies considerably with new agents entering clinic through the last 10 years. • Even in the presence of evidence clinical practice in treatment of lung manifestations varies considerably. Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) remains the leading cause of late morbidity and mortality. Despite the growing number of treatment options in cGVHD, evidence remains sparse. The German-Austrian-Swiss GVHD Consortium performed a survey on clinical practice in treatment of cGVHD among transplant centers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland in 2009 and 2018 and compared the results. The survey performed in 2009 contained 20 questions on first-line treatment and related issues and 4 questions on second-line scenarios followed by a survey on all systemic and topic treatment options known and applied, with 31 of 36 transplant centers (86%) responding. The survey in 2018 repeated 7 questions on first-line treatment and 3 questions on second-line scenarios followed by an updated survey on all current systemic treatment options known and applied, with 29 of 66 centers (43%) responding. In summary, the results show a large overlap of first-line treatment practice between centers and the 2 surveys because of a lack of new data that changes practice, except significant heterogeneity of treatment of cGVHD progressive onset type, which can be explained by the lack of trials focusing on this high-risk entity. In contrast, treatment options applied to second-line therapy vary considerably, with new agents like ibrutinib and ruxolitinib entering clinical practice. Moreover, treatment of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome demonstrates heterogeneity in applied therapeutic options and sequence because of a lack of controlled data and different conclusions from already existing evidence. In summary, the survey results demonstrate an increasing number of treatment options applied to cGVHD accompanied by a significant heterogeneity in second-line treatment and underline the urgent need for clinical trials and registry analyses on rare entities with high mortality like progressive onset type and lung involvement of cGVHD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Toxoplasmosis and infections by other opportunistic agents such as Pneumocystis jirovecii constitute life-threatening risks for patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) has been well established for post-transplant toxoplasmosis and pneumocystis prophylaxis, but treatment may be limited due to toxicity. We explored atovaquone as an alternative and compared it with TMP-SMX regarding toxicity and efficacy during the first 100 days after transplantation in 155 consecutive adult stem cell recipients. Eight patients with a prior history of TMP-SMX intolerance received atovaquone as first-line prophylaxis. TMP-SMX was used for 141 patients as first-line strategy, but 13 patients (9.2%) were later switched to atovaquone due to TMP-SMX toxicity or gastrointestinal symptoms. No active toxoplasmosis or active P. jirovecii infection developed under continued prophylaxis with either TMP-SMX or atovaquone. However, for reasons of TMP-SMX and/or atovaquone toxicity, 7 patients were unable to tolerate any efficacious toxoplasmosis prophylaxis and therefore obtained inhalative pentamidine as P. jirovecii prophylaxis but no toxoplasmosis prophylaxis. Importantly, 2 of these patients developed severe toxoplasmosis. In summary, atovaquone appears as a valid alternative for at least some post-transplant patients who cannot tolerate TMP-SMX. This should be further confirmed by multicenter trials. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Steroid refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. Although first-line treatment of cGVHD is based on controlled trials, second-line treatment is almost solely based on phase II trials or retrospective analyses. The consensus conference on clinical practice in cGVHD held in Regensburg aimed to achieve a consensus on the current evidence of treatment options as well as to provide guidelines for daily clinical practice. Treatment modalities are the use of steroids and calcineurin inhibitors as well as immunomodulating modalities (photopheresis, mTOR-inhibitors, thalidomide, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin A analogs, clofazimine), and cytostatic agents (mycophenolate mofetil, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, pentostatin). Recent reports showed some efficacy of rituximab, alemtuzumab, and etanercept in selected patients. Moreover, tyrosine kinase inihibitors such as imatinib came into the field because of their ability to interfere with the platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF-R) pathway involved in fibrosis. An other treatment option is low-dose thoracoabdominal irradiation. Although different treatment options are available, the “trial-and-error system” remains the only way to identify the drug effective in the individual patient, and valid biomarkers are eagerly needed to identify the likelihood of response to a drug in advance. Moreover, the sparse evidence for most treatment entities indicates the urgent need for systematic evaluation of second-line treatment options in cGVHD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]