Search

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be more susceptible to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to age, disease, and treatment-related immunosuppression. We aimed to assess risk factors of outcome and elucidate the impact of CLL-directed treatments on the course of COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective, international study, collectively including 941 patients with CLL and confirmed COVID-19. Data from the beginning of the pandemic until March 16, 2021, were collected from 91 centers. The risk factors of case fatality rate (CFR), disease severity, and overall survival (OS) were investigated. OS analysis was restricted to patients with severe COVID-19 (definition: hospitalization with need of oxygen or admission into an intensive care unit). CFR in patients with severe COVID-19 was 38.4%. OS was inferior for patients in all treatment categories compared to untreated (p< 0.001). Untreated patients had a lower risk of death (HR = 0.54, 95% CI:0.41–0.72). The risk of death was higher for older patients and those suffering from cardiac failure (HR = 1.03, 95% CI:1.02–1.04; HR = 1.79, 95% CI:1.04–3.07, respectively). Age, CLL-directed treatment, and cardiac failure were significant risk factors of OS. Untreated patients had a better chance of survival than those on treatment or recently treated.

Management of Richter transformation (RT) is particularly challenging, with survival estimates <1 year. We report on outcomes of 66 RT patients undergoing allogeneic-HCT (allo-HCT) between 2008 and 2018 registered with the EBMT. Median age at allo-HCT was 56.2 years (interquartile range (IQR), 51.3–63.1). Median time from RT to allo-HCT was 6.9 months (IQR, 4.9–11) and 28 (42.4%) were in complete remission (CR). The majority underwent reduced intensity conditioning (66.2%) using peripheral blood derived stem cells. Eighteen (27.3%) patients had a matched sibling donor, 24 (36.4%) a matched unrelated donor and the remaining were mismatched. Median follow-up was 6.6 years; 1- and 3- year overall and progression free survival (PFS) (95% CI) was 65% (54–77) and 39% (27–51) and 53% (41–65) and 29% (18–40), respectively. Patients in CR at time of allo-HCT had significantly better 3-year PFS (39% vs.21%, p= 0.032). Cumulative incidences of grade II–IV acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) at day +100 was 41% (95% CI 29–53) and chronic GVHD at 3 years was 53% (95% CI 41–65). High rates of non-relapse mortality (NRM) were observed; 38% (95% CI, 26–50) at 3 years. Although potentially curative, approaches to reduce considerable NRM and chronic GVHD rates are required.

•Geriatric assessments can aid in identifying patients with less physical resilience who are at increased risk of grade ≥3 adverse events.•Fixed-duration Ven-O improves HRQoL in patients with CLL with and without geriatric impairments.

Allogeneic transplantation (allo-HCT) is a curative treatment in CLL whose efficacy including the most severe forms had led to the 2006 EBMT recommendations. The advent after 2014 of targeted therapies has revolutionized CLL management, allowing prolonged control to patients who have failed immunochemotherapy and/or have TP53 alterations. We analysed the pre COVID pandemic 2009–2019 EBMT registry. The yearly number of allo-HCT raised to 458 in 2011 yet dropped from 2013 onwards to an apparent plateau above 100. Within the 10 countries who were under the EMA for drug approval and performed 83.5% of those procedures, large initial differences were found but the annual number converged to 2–3 per 10 million inhabitants during the 3 most recent years suggesting that allo-HCT remains applied in selected patients. Long-term follow-up on targeted therapies shows that most patients relapse, some early, with risk factors and resistance mechanisms being described. The treatment of patients exposed to both BCL2 and BTK inhibitors and especially those with double refractory disease will become a challenge in which allo-HCT remains a solid option in competition with emerging therapies that have yet to demonstrate their long-term effectiveness.

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is the most important complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). We performed a prospective randomized, multicenter, phase 3 trial to study whether posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) combined with a short course of cyclosporine A (CsA) would result in a reduction of severe GVHD and improvement of GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) as compared with the combination of CsA and mycophenolic acid (MPA) after nonmyeloablative (NMA) matched related and unrelated peripheral blood alloHSCT. Between October 2013 and June 2018, 160 patients diagnosed with a high-risk hematological malignancy and having a matched related or at least 8 out of 8 HLA-matched unrelated donor were randomized and allocated in a 1:2 ratio to CsA/MPA or PT-Cy/CsA; a total of 151 patients were transplanted (52 vs 99 patients, respectively). The cumulative incidence of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD at 6 months was 48% in recipients of CsA/MPA vs 30% following PT-Cy/CsA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.82; P = .007). The 2-year cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was 48% vs 16% (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64; P < .001). The 1-year estimate of GRFS was 21% (11% to 32%) vs 45% (35% to 55%), P < .001. With a median follow-up of 56.4 months, relapse incidence, progression-free survival, and overall survival were not significantly different between the 2 treatment arms. PT-Cy combined with a short course of CsA after NMA matched alloHSCT significantly improves GRFS due to a significant reduction in severe acute and chronic GVHD.

Fixed-duration 12 cycles of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab is established as first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We aimed to determine the activity and safety of 12 cycles of venetoclax consolidation after fixed-duration venetoclax plus obinutuzumab for previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who were unfit for fludarabine-based treatment, and whether this could be guided by minimal residual disease status.

Clofarabine (CLO) is a nucleoside analog with efficacy in relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). This randomized phase 3 study aimed to evaluate whether CLO added to induction and whether consolidation would improve outcome in adults with newly diagnosed ALL. Treatment of younger (18-40 years) patients consisted of a pediatric-inspired protocol, and for older patients (41-70 years), a semi-intensive protocol was used. Three hundred and forty patients were randomized. After a median follow-up of 70 months, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) was 50% and 53% for arm A and B (CLO arm). For patients ≤40 years, EFS was 58% vs 65% in arm A vs B, whereas in patients >40 years, EFS was 43% in both arms. Complete remission (CR) rate was 89% in both arms and similar in younger and older patients. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed in 200 patients (60%). Fifty-four of 76 evaluable patients (71%) were MRD− after consolidation 1 in arm A vs 75/81 (93%) in arm B (P = .001). Seventy (42%) patients proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in both arms. Five-year overall survival (OS) was similar in both arms: 60% vs 61%. Among patients achieving CR, relapse rates were 28% and 24%, and nonrelapse mortality was 16% vs 17% after CR. CLO-treated patients experienced more serious adverse events, more infections, and more often went off protocol. This was most pronounced in older patients. We conclude that, despite a higher rate of MRD negativity, addition of CLO does not improve outcome in adults with ALL, which might be due to increased toxicity. This trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as #NTR2004.

•Changes in IPSS-R score between diagnosis and transplantation did not affect transplant outcome when no prior therapy was applied.•Downstaging IPSS-R scores by chemotherapy improved transplant outcome, however stable or worse IPSS-R scores after therapy correlated with worst outcome.

No studies have been reported so far on bridging treatment with idelalisib for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). To study potential carry-over effects of idelalisib and to assess the impact of pathway-inhibitor (PI) failure we performed a retrospective EBMT registry-based study. Patients with CLL who had a history of idelalisib treatment and received a first alloHCT between 2015 and 2017 were eligible. Data on 72 patients (median age 58 years) were analyzed. Forty percent of patients had TP53mut/delCLL and 64% had failed on at least one PI. No primary graft failure occurred. Cumulative incidences of acute GVHD °II–IV and chronic GVHD were 51% and 39%, respectively. Estimates for 2-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cumulative incidences of relapse/progression (CIR) and non-relapse mortality NRM were 59%, 44%, 25%, and 31%. In univariate analysis, drug sensitivity was a strong risk factor. For patients who had failed neither PI treatment nor chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) the corresponding 2-year estimates were 73%, 65%, 15%, and 20%, respectively. In conclusion, idelalisib may be considered as an option for bridging therapy prior to alloHCT. Owing to the high risk for acute GVHD intensified clinical monitoring is warranted.

Outcome after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is adversely affected by relapse to a considerable degree. To exploit the graft-versus-leukemia effect more effectively, we assessed the feasibility of early initiation of epigenetic therapy with panobinostat and decitabine after allo-HSCT and before donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) in poor-risk patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or refractory anemia with excess blasts with International Prognostic Scoring System score ≥1.5. A total of 140 poor-risk patients with AML aged 18 to 70 years were registered, and 110 proceeded to allo-HSCT. Three dose levels were evaluated for dose-limiting toxicities, including panobinostat monotherapy 20 mg at days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 4-week cycle (PNB mono group) and panobinostat combined with either decitabine 20 mg/m2 (PNB/DAC20 group) or decitabine 10 mg/m2 (PNB/DAC10 group) at days 1 to 3 of every 4-week cycle. After phase 1, the study continued as phase 2, focusing on completion of protocol treatment and treatment outcome. PNB mono and PNB/DAC10 were feasible, whereas PNB/DAC20 was not related to prolonged cytopenia. Sixty of 110 patients who underwent transplantation were eligible to receive their first DLI within 115 days after allo-HSCT. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events related to panobinostat and decitabine were observed in 23 (26%) of the 87 patients, and they received epigenetic therapy. Cumulative incidence of relapse was 35% (standard error [SE] 5), and overall survival and progression-free survival at 24 months were 50% (SE 5) and 49% (SE 5). Post–allo-HSCT epigenetic therapy with panobinostat alone or in combination with low-dose decitabine is feasible and is associated with a relatively low relapse rate. The trial was registered at the European Clinical Trial Registry, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu, as ECT2012-003344-74.

Outcome after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is adversely affected by relapse to a considerable degree. To exploit the graft-versus-leukemia effect more effectively, we assessed the feasibility of early initiation of epigenetic therapy with panobinostat and decitabine after allo-HSCT and before donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) in poor-risk patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or refractory anemia with excess blasts with International Prognostic Scoring System score ≥1.5. A total of 140 poor-risk patients with AML aged 18 to 70 years were registered, and 110 proceeded to allo-HSCT. Three dose levels were evaluated for dose-limiting toxicities, including panobinostat monotherapy 20 mg at days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 4-week cycle (PNB mono group) and panobinostat combined with either decitabine 20 mg/m2(PNB/DAC20 group) or decitabine 10 mg/m2(PNB/DAC10 group) at days 1 to 3 of every 4-week cycle. After phase 1, the study continued as phase 2, focusing on completion of protocol treatment and treatment outcome. PNB mono and PNB/DAC10 were feasible, whereas PNB/DAC20 was not related to prolonged cytopenia. Sixty of 110 patients who underwent transplantation were eligible to receive their first DLI within 115 days after allo-HSCT. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events related to panobinostat and decitabine were observed in 23 (26%) of the 87 patients, and they received epigenetic therapy. Cumulative incidence of relapse was 35% (standard error [SE] 5), and overall survival and progression-free survival at 24 months were 50% (SE 5) and 49% (SE 5). Post–allo-HSCT epigenetic therapy with panobinostat alone or in combination with low-dose decitabine is feasible and is associated with a relatively low relapse rate. The trial was registered at the European Clinical Trial Registry, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu, as ECT2012-003344-74.

The purpose of our study is to provide information on safety and efficacy of ibrutinib as salvage treatment after allo-HSCT for CLL. A total of 56 patients were included, 36 (64%) males; median age at transplantation was 48 years (range: 35–64) and the median number of treatment lines prior to transplantation was 3 (1–10). The median time between allo-HSCT and Ibrutinib was 30 months (range: 1–140). Overall, 40 (71%) patients responded to Ibrutinib; 23 (41%) PR, and 17 (30%) CR. At time of ibrutinib initiation, ten patients had active chronic GVHD that resolved under Ibrutinib, whilst a single patient developed limited de novo chronic GVHD on Ibrutinib. Fourteen patients discontinued ibrutinib, four because of toxicity and ten because of disease progression. Overall, 14 patients progressed (median PFS = 24 months) among them 10 died. Two-year OS and PFS probabilities were 72% (95% CI: 52–84) and 50% (95% CI: 32–66), respectively. Patients with late relapse after allo-HSCT (≥24 months) had a better PFS after ibrutinib. Our study shows that ibrutinib can be safely administered for CLL relapse after allo-HSCT, with comparable efficacy to non-transplanted patients with high-risk disease.

The causes and rates of late patient-mortality following alloHCT for myelodysplastic syndromes or secondary acute myeloid leukemia were studied, to assess the contribution of relapse-related, treatment-related, and population factors. Data from EBMT on 6434 adults, who received a first alloHCT from January 2000 to December 2012, were retrospectively studied using combined land-marking, relative-survival methods and multi-state modeling techniques. Median age at alloHCT increased from 49 to 58 years, and the number of patients aged ≥65 years at alloHCT increased from 5 to 17%. Overall survival probability was 53% at 2 years and 35% at 10 years post-alloHCT. Survival probability at 5 years from the 2-year landmark was 88% for patients <45-year old and 63% for patients ≥65-year old at alloHCT. Cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) for patients <45-year old at transplant was 7% rising to 25% for patients aged ≥65. For older patients, 31% of NRM-deaths could be attributed to population mortality. Favorable post-alloHCT long-term survival was seen; however, excess mortality-risk for all age groups was shown compared to the general population. A substantial part of total NRM for older patients was attributable to population mortality, information which aids the balanced explanation of post-HCT risk and helps improve long-term care.

High-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has been defined by clinical and/or genetic resistance (TP53 abnormalities) to treatment with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). With the availability of pathway inhibitors (PIs), such as kinase inhibitors and BCL2 antagonists, the outlook of CIT-resistant patients has dramatically improved. Here, we propose a revision of the concept of high-risk CLL, driven by TP53 abnormalities and response to treatment with PI. CLL high-risk-I, CIT-resistant is defined by clinically CIT-resistant disease with TP53 aberrations, but fully responsive to PI. This category is largely the domain of PI-based therapy, and cellular therapy (ie, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation) remains an option only in selected patients with low individual procedure-related risk. In CLL high-risk-II, CIT- and PI-resistant, characterized by increasing exhaustion of pharmacological treatment possibilities, cellular therapies (including chimeric antigen receptor-engineered T cells) should be considered in patients eligible for these procedures. Moreover, molecular and cellular therapies are not mutually exclusive and could be used synergistically to exploit their full potential.

High-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has been defined by clinical and/or genetic resistance (TP53abnormalities) to treatment with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). With the availability of pathway inhibitors (PIs), such as kinase inhibitors and BCL2 antagonists, the outlook of CIT-resistant patients has dramatically improved. Here, we propose a revision of the concept of high-risk CLL, driven by TP53abnormalities and response to treatment with PI. CLL high-risk-I, CIT-resistant is defined by clinically CIT-resistant disease with TP53aberrations, but fully responsive to PI. This category is largely the domain of PI-based therapy, and cellular therapy (ie, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation) remains an option only in selected patients with low individual procedure-related risk. In CLL high-risk-II, CIT- and PI-resistant, characterized by increasing exhaustion of pharmacological treatment possibilities, cellular therapies (including chimeric antigen receptor-engineered T cells) should be considered in patients eligible for these procedures. Moreover, molecular and cellular therapies are not mutually exclusive and could be used synergistically to exploit their full potential.

An international expert panel, active within the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, European LeukemiaNet, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trial Group, and the International Myelodysplastic Syndromes Foundation developed recommendations for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Disease risks scored according to the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) and presence of comorbidity graded according to the HCT Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) were recognized as relevant clinical variables for HSCT eligibility. Fit patients with higher-risk IPSS-R and those with lower-risk IPSS-R with poor-risk genetic features, profound cytopenias, and high transfusion burden are candidates for HSCT. Patients with a very high MDS transplantation risk score, based on combination of advanced age, high HCT-CI, very poor-risk cytogenetic and molecular features, and high IPSS-R score have a low chance of cure with standard HSCT and consideration should be given to treating these patients in investigational studies. Cytoreductive therapy prior to HSCT is advised for patients with ≥10% bone marrow myeloblasts. Evidence from prospective randomized clinical trials does not provide support for specific recommendations on the optimal high intensity conditioning regimen. For patients with contraindications to high-intensity preparative regimens, reduced intensity conditioning should be considered. Optimal timing of HSCT requires careful evaluation of the available effective nontransplant strategies. Prophylactic donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) strategies are recommended in patients at high risk of relapse after HSCT. Immune modulation by DLI strategies or second HSCT is advised if relapse occurs beyond 6 months after HSCT.

An international expert panel, active within the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, European LeukemiaNet, Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trial Group, and the International Myelodysplastic Syndromes Foundation developed recommendations for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). Disease risks scored according to the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) and presence of comorbidity graded according to the HCT Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) were recognized as relevant clinical variables for HSCT eligibility. Fit patients with higher-risk IPSS-R and those with lower-risk IPSS-R with poor-risk genetic features, profound cytopenias, and high transfusion burden are candidates for HSCT. Patients with a very high MDS transplantation risk score, based on combination of advanced age, high HCT-CI, very poor-risk cytogenetic and molecular features, and high IPSS-R score have a low chance of cure with standard HSCT and consideration should be given to treating these patients in investigational studies. Cytoreductive therapy prior to HSCT is advised for patients with ≥10% bone marrow myeloblasts. Evidence from prospective randomized clinical trials does not provide support for specific recommendations on the optimal high intensity conditioning regimen. For patients with contraindications to high-intensity preparative regimens, reduced intensity conditioning should be considered. Optimal timing of HSCT requires careful evaluation of the available effective nontransplant strategies. Prophylactic donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) strategies are recommended in patients at high risk of relapse after HSCT. Immune modulation by DLI strategies or second HSCT is advised if relapse occurs beyond 6 months after HSCT.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has been considered as the treatment of choice for patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (HR-CLL; ie, refractory to purine analogs, short response [<24 months] to chemoimmunotherapy, and/or presence of del[17p]/TP53mutations). Currently, treatment algorithms for HR-CLL are being challenged by the introduction of novel classes of drugs. Among them, BCR signal inhibitors (BCRi) and B-cell lymphoma 2 antagonists (BCL2a) appear particularly promising. As a result of the growing body of favorable outcome data reported for BCRi/BCL2a, uncertainty is emerging on how to advise patients with HR-CLL about indication for and timing of HSCT. This article provides an overview of currently available evidence and theoretical considerations to guide this difficult decision process. Until the risks and benefits of different treatment strategies are settled, all patients with HR-CLL should be considered for treatment with BCRi/BCL2a. For patients who respond to these agents, there are 2 treatment possibilities: (1) performing an HSCT or (2) continuing treatment with the novel drug. Individual disease-specific and transplant-related risk factors, along with patient’s preferences, should be taken into account when recommending one of these treatments over the other.

Graft versus host disease (GVHD) is the most important complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). We performed a prospective randomized, multicenter, phase III trial to study whether posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) combined with a short course of cyclosporine A (CsA) would result in a reduction of severe GVHD and improvement of GVHD-free, relapse free survival (GRFS) as compared to the combination of CsA and mycophenolic acid (MPA) after non-myeloablative (NMA) matched related and unrelated peripheral blood alloHSCT. Between October 2013 and June 2018, 160 patients diagnosed with a high-risk hematological malignancy and having a matched related or at least 8 out of 8 HLA matched unrelated donor were randomized and allocated in a 1:2 ratio to CsA/MPA or PT-Cy/CsA. A total of 151 patients was transplanted (52 versus 99 patients). The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD at six months was 48% in recipients of CsA/MPA versus 30% following PT-Cy/CsA (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.82, p=0.007). The two-year cumulative incidence of chronic extensive GVHD was 48% versus 16% (HR: 0.36, 95%CI: 0.21-0.64, p<0.001). The one-year estimate of GRFS was 21% (11%-32%) versus 45% (35%-55%), p<0.001.With a median follow-up of 56.4 months, relapse incidence, progression-freeand overall survival were not significantly different between the two treatment arms. PT-Cy combined with a short course of CsAafter NMA matched alloHSCTsignificantly improves GRFS due to a significant reduction in severe acute and chronic GVHD.The trial was registered as number NL2128 in the Dutch trial registry (www.trialregister.nl).

This paper presents a hierarchical choice model of travelers' choices for a multimodal transport system with highway access, which may be regarded as an origin-based park-and-ride system. The model is based on hierarchical information integration experiments, which involves devising three rating-based experiments to evaluate different aspects of the multimodal transport systems. In addition, an integrating choice experiment is devised, in which respondents choose between a door-to-door car alternative, a multimodal alternative, and the current public transport alternative, which varied in terms of construct evaluations and time and cost attributes. One of the main results is that time-related attributes affect multimodal transport choice more than comfort-related attributes do. Furthermore, the results indicate that only a few utility differences exist among the categories of background variables.

The use of novel small molecule inhibitors alone or in combination with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has raised a number of questions on efficacy, tolerability, long-term treatment adherence in patients with heterogeneous clinical features. To fill this gap, we designed a study focusing on treatment sequencing in patients with CLL in order to (i) compare the outcome of patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) combinations in first-line versus those receiving Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi); (ii) characterize the efficacy and tolerability of venetoclax-based regimens; (ii) understand the impact of treatment sequencing when it comes to chemo-free options including venetoclax after BTKi and vice versa. Data from consecutive sets of patients diagnosed with CLL between 2000-2020 attended at 77 institutions affiliated with ERIC were collected and analyzed. Collected variables included: demographics, clinical stage at diagnosis, IGHV gene somatic hypermutation status; cytogenetic status for chromosomes 11q, 13q 17p and 12 determined by fluorescence in situhybridization; TP53gene mutation status; treatment; treatment response; discontinuation; reason for discontinuation; death. We included 9173 patients with a diagnosis of CLL who received at least one line of treatment. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years with a male:female ratio of 1.9. The median follow-up was 78 months (IQR, 48-120 months). Regarding novel targeted agents, 1860/9173 (20.2%) patients had received at least one line of treatment with BTKi (ibrutinib, n=1788; acalabrutinib, n=72) over the disease course; 631/9173 (6.9%) with venetoclax; and, 447/9173 (4.9%) with the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib. Seventy-nine patients were treated with both BTKi and venetoclax (59 BTKi followed by BCL2i, 20 vice versa). At last follow-up, 5870/9173 patients (64.0%) were alive, 3229/9173 (35.2%) died and 74/9173 (0.8%) were lost to follow-up. Patients treated with BTKi in first-line were enriched for TP53aberrations [del(17p) 27.6%, TP53mutation 26.3%] and unmutated IGHV genes (69%) and obtained an ORR of 87.7%. Of these, 136 (26.3%) discontinued treatment after a median of 1.2 years (0.07-5.98); main reasons of discontinuation were toxicity (40.5%) and failure (26.2%). Among 631 patients treated with venetoclax at any line, 100 (15.8%) received BCL2 +/- anti-CD20 as first-line; 170 (26.9%) as second line (125 previously treated with CIT, 27 with BTKi); and, 361 as third or subsequent line. ORR ranged between 71.5% (≥3 lines) with 30.5% CR/CRi to 90.3% (first-line) with 68.1% CR/CRi. Treatment discontinuation was due to toxicity in 28.6% of patients treated in the first-line, and 17.6% and 21.8% of patients treated in second and third-or-higher-line, respectively. Disease progression led to treatment discontinuation in 14.3%, 20.6% and 33.6% in first, second and third-or-higher line, respectively. CIT was used as front-line treatment in 5465 patients (59.6%). Of these, 2070 (37.9%) and 1018 (18.6%) patients received a second and third line of treatment, respectively. The great majority (865/1086 cases, 79.7%) of patients who received a second line before 2014 were retreated with CIT, most commonly Bendamustine-Rituximab (284/1086, 26.1%) and Fludarabine-Cyclophosphamide-Rituximab (252/1086, 23.2%); alemtuzumab monotherapy was used in 55/1086 (5%) of patients. After 2014, 415/984 patients (42.1%) were retreated with BTKi; 93 (9.5%) with venetoclax; 70 (7.2%) with idelalisib; 50 (5%) with Alemtuzumab monotherapy, and 315 (32%) with CIT. Similarly, in the third-or-higher line of treatment, most patients (86.3%) were retreated with CIT before 2014, while BTKi, BCL2i, and PI3Ki were mainly used after 2014 (in 43.1%, 15.7% and 14.7% of cases, respectively). Finally, our cohort included 1075 patients with TP53aberrations. The ORR of patients receiving BTKis (n=171) as first-line of treatment was 86.5% (22.2 CR+64.3 PR), while the ORR with venetoclax +/- anti-CD20 (n=15) was 91% (45.5% CR+45.5 PR). Patients treated with CIT (n=694) had an ORR of 68.7% (28.3% CR+40.4% PR). In conclusion, in a large international study we provide real world data regarding the selection and sequencing of treatment in CLL, charting a major shift in treatment patterns before and after the introduction of novel trargeted agents and confirming their efficacy even in high-risk CLL.

Scarfo: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Iacoboni: BMS/Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, Janssen, Roche: Honoraria. Collado: Abbvie,: Other: pharmaceutical Company, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Pharmaceutical Company, Research Funding. Galimberti: AbbVie, Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. García-Serra: AbbVie: Other: Educational grands; Janssen: Other: Educational grants; Novartis: Other: Educational grants. Gozzetti: Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Hatzimichael: Amgen, Roche, Genesis, Novartis, Bristol Mayer Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Mayer Squibb, MSD, Gilead, Janssen Cilag, Genesis Pharma, Roche, Takeda: Honoraria. Herishanu: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria. Jaksic: Roche, Oktal-Pharma/Celtrion, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kater: Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding; Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee. Kotsianidis: Astellas: Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genesis: Consultancy, Other: NONE; Janssen Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kreitman: NIH: Patents & Royalties: Moxetumomab Pasudotox; Genentech: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Research Funding; Innate: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding; Array BioPharma/Pfizer: Research Funding. Laribi: BeiGene: Other: Personal Fees; Jansen: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Astellas Phama, Inc.: Other: Personal Fees; AstraZeneca: Other: Personal Fees; Le Mans Hospital: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; IQONE: Other: Personal Fees. Lopez-Garcia: Roche: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Travel and accommodation grants; Novonordisk: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Fresenius: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Abbvie: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants; Janssen: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants, Research Funding. Milosevic: Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie,: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Reda: Beigene: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Šimkovič: Janssen, Gilead, Roche, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie: Other: consultancy fees, advisory board participation fees, travel grants, and honoraria; University Hospital Hradec Kralove: Current Employment; AbbVie: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Eli Lilly: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; J&J: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Špaček: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, and Roche: Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Visentin: Italfarmaco and Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Vassilakopoulos: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Integris: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Vitale: Janssen: Honoraria. Yáñez: Gilead-Kite, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Roche, Pfizer, Jazz, BMS, and Merck: Other: Advisory board participation fees ; Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead-Kite, Roche, Pfizer, and Merck: Speakers Bureau. Antic: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche: Honoraria. Coscia: Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other. Cuneo: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Gaidano: Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Guièze: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laurenti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sportoletti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tam: Beigene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Loxo: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Trněný: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Bosch Albareda: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria. Doubek: Janssen-Cilag, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Gilead, Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chatzidimitriou: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ghia: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding. Stamatopoulos: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

This paper presents a hierarchical choice model of travelers’ choices for a multimodal transport system with highway access, which may be regarded as an origin-based park-and-ride system. The model is based on hierarchical information integration experiments, which involves devising three rating-based experiments to evaluate different aspects of the multimodal transport systems. In addition, an integrating choice experiment is devised, in which respondents choose between a door-to-door car alternative, a multimodal alternative, and the current public transport alternative, which varied in terms of construct evaluations and time and cost attributes. One of the main results is that time-related attributes affect multimodal transport choice more than comfort-related attributes do. Furthermore, the results indicate that only a few utility differences exist among the categories of background variables.

To determine the feasibility of treatment with allogeneic bone marrow for experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, we investigated the susceptibility to experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis of bone marrow chimeras using BUF, (WAG×BUF)F1 (high responder), and WAG (low responder) rats. In contrast to previous studies in which other rat strains were used, the response was largely determined by the genotype of the grafted bone marrow, but the influence of a non-bone marrow-associated factor was evident. The latter factor was identified as a low corticosterone response in BUF rats and a high corticosterone response in WAG rats. After adrenalectomy, a significant proportion of WAG rats developed clinical experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. The bone marrow-associated factor of resistance appeared to be the activity of cyclophosphamide-sensitive suppressor cells. The latter cells were found to interfere with the formation of inflammatory foci in the central nervous system, while corticosterone primarily prevents the clinical expression of lesions.

Clofarabine (CLO) is a nucleoside analogue with efficacy in relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). This randomized phase III study aimed to evaluate whether CLO added to induction and consolidation would improve outcome in adults with newly diagnosed ALL.Treatment for younger (18-40 years) patients consisted of a pediatric inspired protocol and for older patients (41-70 years) of a semi-intensive protocol was used. 340 patients were randomized. After a median follow up of 70 months,5-year EFS was 50% and 53% for arm A and B (CLO arm). For patients ≤40 years, EFS was 58% vs 65% in arm A vs B, while in patients >40 years EFS was 43% in both arms. CR rate was 89% in both arms and similar in younger and older patients.Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessedin 200 patients (60%).Fifty-fourof 76evaluable patients(71%) were MRD negative after consolidation 1 in arm A vs 75/81 (93%) in arm B (p=0.001). Seventy (42%) patients proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic stemcell transplantation in both arms. Five years OS was similar in both arms, 60% vs 61%. Among patients achieving CR, relapse rates were 28% and 24%, and non-relapse mortality was 16% vs 17% after CR. CLO treated patients experienced more serious adverse events, moreinfections, and more often went off-protocol. This was most pronounced in older patients. We conclude that, despite a higher rate of MRD-negativity, addition of CLO does not improve outcome in adults with ALL, which might be due to increased toxicity.The trial is registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR2004.

Introduction.Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has typically an indolent course but can undergo transformation into a more aggressive lymphoma so called Richter's syndrome. While the advent of novel targeted therapies is transforming the management of patients with CLL, these drugs failed to prevent the risk of RS. RS is associated with a very poor outcome and is thus becoming the main obstacle to long term CLL control. Autologous (auto-) and allogeneic (allo-) hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (-SCT) have been recommended as the treatment of choice in eligible patients with clonally related RS (Rossi Blood 2018) but previous experience is still limited to less than 50 cases. We here aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of both auto- and allo-SCT for patients with RS in a large cohort in a period overlapping the advent of novel agents.

Guièze: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Byrne:Ariad/Incyte: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Finke:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau; Medac: Honoraria, Other: research support, Speakers Bureau. Chevallier:Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria.

Nur: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Maertens:Cidara: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support; Gilead Sciences: Other: Grants, personal fees and non-financial support; Amplyx: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support; Merck: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support; Pfizer: Other: Grant and personal fees; Astellas Pharma: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support; F2G: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support. Deeren:Alexion, Amgen, Janssen, Roche, Sunesis, Takeda, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Nur: Novartis: Consultancy. Deeren:Alexion, Amgen, Janssen, Roche, Sunesis, Takeda, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Background

Background

Leppä: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Silva:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Abbvie, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche, Janssen, Celgene: Other: Travel Support; Roche, Janssen: Other: Institution's payment for consultancy. Hagberg:Roche: Honoraria. Lugtenburg:takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; servier: Consultancy, Research Funding; roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; GenMab: Research Funding. Walewski:Roche, GSK/Novartis, Takeda, and Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding; Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, and Servier: Honoraria; Roche, Celegene, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, and Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hopfinger:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jantunen:Amgen: Honoraria; Genzyme/Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Steidl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tioma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Nanostring: Patents & Royalties: patent holding; Roche: Consultancy. Gascoyne:NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding.

[§ share last authorship]