Search

BACKGROUND. Adoptive transfer of EBV-specific T cells can restore specific immunity in immunocompromised patients with EBV-associated complications. METHODS. We provide results of a personalized T cell manufacturing program evaluating donor, patient, T cell product, and outcome data. Patient-tailored clinical-grade EBV-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte (EBV-CTL) products from stem cell donors (SCDs), related third-party donors (TPDs), or unrelated TPDs from the allogeneic T cell donor registry (alloCELL) at Hannover Medical School were manufactured by immunomagnetic selection using a CliniMACS Plus or Prodigy device and the EBV PepTivators EBNA-1 and Select. Consecutive manufacturing processes were evaluated, and patient outcome and side effects were retrieved by retrospective chart analysis. RESULTS. Forty clinical-grade EBV-CTL products from SCDs, related TPDs, or unrelated TPDs were generated for 37 patients with refractory EBV infections or EBV-associated malignancies with and without a history of transplantation, within 5 days (median) after donor identification. Thirty-four patients received 1-14 EBV-CTL products (fresh and cryopreserved). EBV-CTL transfer led to a complete response in 20 of 29 patients who were evaluated for clinical response. No infusion-related toxicity was reported. EBV-specific T cells in patients' blood were detectable in 16 of 18 monitored patients (89%) after transfer, and their presence correlated with clinical response. CONCLUSION. Personalized clinical-grade manufacture of EBV-CTL products via immunomagnetic selection from SCDs, related TPDs, or unrelated TPDs in a timely manner is feasible. Overall, EBV-CTLs were clinically effective and well tolerated. Our data suggest EBV-CTL transfer as a promising therapeutic approach for immunocompromised patients with refractory EBV-associated diseases beyond HSCT, as well as patients with preexisting organ dysfunction. TRIAL REGISTRATION. Not applicable. FUNDING. This study was funded in part by the German Research Foundation (DFG, 158989968/SFB 900), the Deutsche Kinderkrebsstiftung (DKS 2013.09), Wilhelm-Sander-Stiftung (reference 2015.097.1), Ellen-Schmidt-Program of Hannover Medical School, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (reference 01E00802)., Introduction Morbidity and mortality in patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and solid organ transplant (SOT) are frequently caused by graft rejection or graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and increased by [...]

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor positive T cell (CAR-T cell) treatment became standard therapy for relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies, such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Owing to the rapidly progressing field of CAR-T cell therapy and the lack of generally accepted treatment guidelines, we hypothesized significant differences between centers in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of short- and long-term complications. Methods: To capture the current CAR-T cell management among German centers to determine the medical need and specific areas for future clinical research, the DAG-HSZT (Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Hämatopoetische Stammzelltransplantation und Zelluläre Therapie; German Working Group for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy) performed a survey among 26 German CAR-T cell centers. Results: We received answers from 17 centers (65%). The survey documents the relevance of evidence in the CAR-T cell field with a homogeneity of practice in areas with existing clinical evidence. In contrast, in areas with no – or low quality – clinical evidence, we identified significant variety in management in between the centers: management of cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-related neurotoxicity syndrome, IgG substitution, autologous stem cell backups, anti-infective prophylaxis, and vaccinations. Conclusion: The results indicate the urgent need for better harmonization of supportive care in CAR-T cell therapies including clinical research to improve clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A combined digital droplet PCR (ddPCR)/pyrosequencing assay system was developed that demonstrated advantages applicable to multiple qualitative and quantitative molecular genetic diagnostic applications. Data for characterizing this combined approach for hematologic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and allele quantification from graft-derived cell-free (cf) DNA in solid organ transplantation (SOT) is presented. ddPCR and pyrosequencing assays targeting 32 SNPs/markers were established. ddPCR results from 72 gDNAs of 55 patients after allogeneic HSCT and 107 plasma-cfDNAs of 25 liver transplant recipients were compared with established methods/markers, i.e. short-tandem-repeat PCR and ALT, respectively. The ddPCR results were in good agreement with the established marker. The limit of detection was 0.02 % minor allele fraction. The relationship between ddPCR and STR-PCR was linear with R2=0.98 allowing to transfer previously established clinical STR-PCR cut-offs to ddPCR; 50-fold higher sensitivity and a variation coefficient of <2 % enable the use of low DNA concentrations (e.g. pre-sorted cells). ddPCR detected liver allograft injury at least as sensitive as ALT suggesting that ddPCR is a reliable method to monitor the transplant integrity, especially when other biomarkers are lacking (e.g. kidney). Combining pyrosequencing for genotyping and ddPCR for minor allele quantification enhances sensitivity and precision for the patient after HSCT and SOT. The assay is designed for maximum flexibility. It is expected to be suitable for other applications (sample tracking, prenatal diagnostics, etc.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tissue sampling for gene expression analysis is usually performed under general anesthesia. Anesthetics are known to modulate hemodynamics, receptor-mediated signaling cascades, and outcome parameters. The present study determined the influence of anesthetic paradigms typically used for euthanization and tissue sampling on cerebral mRNA expression in mice. Naïve mice and animals with acute traumatic brain injury induced by controlled cortical impact (CCI) were randomized to the following euthanasia protocols ( n=10-11/group): no anesthesia (NA), 1 min of 4 vol% isoflurane in room air (ISO), 3 min of a combination of 5 mg/kg midazolam, 0.05 mg/kg fentanyl, and 0.5 mg/kg medetomidine intraperitoneally (COMB), or 3 min of 360 mg/kg chloral hydrate intraperitoneally (CH). mRNA expression of actin-1-related gene (Act1), FBJ murine osteosarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (FosB), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), heat shock protein beta-1 (HspB1), interleukin (IL)-6, tight junction protein 1 (ZO-1), IL-1 ß, cyclophilin A, micro RNA 497 (miR497), and small cajal body-specific RNA 17 were determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in hippocampus samples. In naïve animals, Act1 expression was downregulated in the CH group compared with NA. FosB expression was downregulated in COMB and CH groups compared with NA. CCI reduced Act1 and FosB expression, whereas HspB1 and TNFα expression increased. After CCI, HspB1 expression was significantly higher in ISO, COMB, and CH groups, and TNFα expression was elevated in ISO and COMB groups. MiR497, IL-6, and IL-1 ß were upregulated after CCI but not affected by anesthetics. Effects were independent of absolute mRNA copy numbers. The data demonstrate that a few minutes of anesthesia before tissue sampling are sufficient to induce immediate mRNA changes, which seem to predominate in the early-regulated gene cluster. Anesthesia-related effects on gene expression might explain limited reproduciblity of real-time PCR data between studies or research groups and should therefore be considered for quantitative PCR data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SIRT1 is an important regulator of cellular stress response and genomic integrity. Its role in tumorigenesis is controversial. Whereas sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) can act as a tumor suppressor in some solid tumors, increased expression has been demonstrated in many cancers, including hematologic malignancies. In chronic myeloid leukemia, SIRT1 promoted leukemia development, and targeting SIRT1 sensitized chronic myeloid leukemia progenitors to tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. In this study, we investigated the role of SIRT1 in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We show that SIRT1 protein, but not RNA levels, is overexpressed in AML samples harboring activating mutations in signaling pathways. In FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3-internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD)+-cells protein, expression of SIRT1 is regulated by FLT3 kinase activity. In addition, SIRT1 function is modulated via the ATM-DBC1-SIRT1 axis in a FLT3-ITD-dependent manner. In murine leukemia models driven by MLL-AF9 or AML1-ETO coexpressing FLT3-ITD, SIRT1 acts as a safeguard to counteract oncogene-induced stress, and leukemic blasts become dependent on SIRT1 activity. Pharmacologic targeting or RNAi-mediated knockdown of SIRT1 inhibited cell growth and sensitized AML cells to tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment and chemotherapy. This effect was a result of the restoration of p53 activity. Our data suggest that targeting SIRT1 represents an attractive therapeutic strategy to overcome primary resistance in defined subsets of patients with AML. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether high-dose cytarabine-based salvage chemotherapy, administered to induce complete remission in patients with poor responsive or relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia scheduled for allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) after intensive conditioning confers a survival advantage, is unclear., Methods: To test salvage chemotherapy before allogeneic HSCT, patients aged between 18 and 75 years with non-favourable-risk acute myeloid leukaemia not in complete remission after first induction or untreated first relapse were randomly assigned 1:1 to remission induction with high-dose cytarabine (3 g/m 2 intravenously, 1 g/m 2 intravenously for patients >60 years or with a substantial comorbidity) twice daily on days 1-3 plus mitoxantrone (10 mg/m 2 intravenously) on days 3-5 or immediate allogeneic HSCT for the disease control group. Block randomisation with variable block lengths was used and patients were stratified by age, acute myeloid leukaemia risk, and disease status. The study was open label. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as complete remission on day 56 after allogeneic HSCT, with the aim to show non-inferiority for disease control compared with remission induction with a non-inferiority-margin of 5% and one-sided type 1 error of 2·5%. The primary endpoint was analysed in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in the per-protocol population. The trial is completed and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02461537., Findings: 281 patients were enrolled between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 12, 2022. Of 140 patients randomly assigned to disease control, 135 (96%) proceeded to allogeneic HSCT, 97 (69%) after watchful waiting only. Of 141 patients randomly assigned to remission induction, 134 (95%) received salvage chemotherapy and 128 (91%) patients subsequently proceeded to allogeneic HSCT. In the ITT population, treatment success was observed in 116 (83%) of 140 patients in the disease control group versus 112 (79%) of 141 patients with remission induction (test for non-inferiority, p=0·036). Among per-protocol treated patients, treatment success was observed in 116 (84%) of 138 patients with disease control versus 109 (81%) of 134 patients in the remission induction group (test for non-inferiority, p=0·047). The difference in treatment success between disease control and remission induction was estimated as 3·4% (95% CI -5·8 to 12·6) for the ITT population and 2·7% (-6·3 to 11·8) for the per-protocol population. Fewer patients with disease control compared with remission induction had non-haematological adverse events grade 3 or worse (30 [21%] of 140 patients vs 86 [61%] of 141 patients, χ 2 test p<0·0001). Between randomisation and the start of conditioning, with disease control two patients died from progressive acute myeloid leukaemia and zero from treatment-related complications, and with remission induction two patients died from progressive acute myeloid leukaemia and two from treatment-related complications. Between randomisation and allogeneic HSCT, patients with disease control spent a median of 27 days less in hospital than those with remission induction, ie, the median time in hospital was 15 days (range 7-64) versus 42 days (27-121, U test p<0·0001), respectively., Interpretation: Non-inferiority of disease control could not be shown at the 2·5% significance level. The rate of treatment success was also not statistically better for patients with remission induction. Watchful waiting and immediate transplantation could be an alternative for fit patients with poor response or relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia who have a stem cell donor available. More randomised controlled intention-to-transplant trials are needed to define the optimal treatment before transplantation for patients with active acute myeloid leukaemia., Funding: DKMS and the Gert and Susanna Mayer Stiftung Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MSt has served as a consultant for Pfizer, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Incyte, Takeda, and Amgen; as a speaker for Pfizer, Medac, MSD, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Novartis, Gilead, Celgene, BMS, AbbVie, and Incyte; has received research funding from Pfizer; and has received travel support from Medac and Pfizer. JMM received research funding from Janssen, Jazz, Astellas, and Novartis; consulting fees from Janssen, Roche, Gilead, AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Astellas, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Glycostem; honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, Astellas, and BeiGene; and travel support from BeiGene. GB has received honoraria from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, BMS, and Otsuka; has served as a consultant for Novartis and Gilead Sciences; has received research funding from Novartis; and has received travel support from Gilead Sciences and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. LPM has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Amgen, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis; has received research funding from Amgen; and has received travel support from Gilead Sciences. CSchm has received honoraria for lectures, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, and educational events from Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Neovii. SWK has received honoraria from Kosmas and Eickeler; and travel support from AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. WB has received lecture fees from Medac and participated in advisory boards for Gilead, Novartis, Miltenyi, Janssen, and BMS. EJ has received honoraria for lectures from BMS, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kite (a Gilead company), and Amgen; payment for expert testimony from Pierre Fabre; and travel support from Medac. UP has received consulting fees from Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Silence, Sobi, AstraZeneca, Geron, GSK, Gilead, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Syros, Akeso, Pierre Fabre, Curis, Galapagos, and Servier; honoraria for lectures from Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, and Janssen; travel support from AbbVie, Janssen, and Jazz Pharmazeuticals; and has participated in data safety monitoring board and advisory board meetings for AbbVie, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Nanexa, BMS, and Blueprint. SAK has served as a consultant for Novartis and Pfizer. MK has received lecture fees from Servier; travel support from Janssen and Kite (a Gilead company); and has participated in data safety monitoring and advisory board meetings for Gilead. KS-E has participated in data safety monitoring and advisory board meetings for Kite (a Gilead company). BH has received travel support from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, and Kite (a Gilead company). FS has received lecture fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medac, and Pfizer; participated in advisory boards for Glycostem; and has received travel support from Servier, Medac, and Janssen. NA has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and MSD and travel support from Amgen and Pfizer. BS has received travel support from AbbVie and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. CSchl has received honoraria from Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS and Celgene, Astellas Pharma, and Laboratories Delbert; has received research funding from AngioBiomed, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; and has received travel support from Celgene, PharmaMar, Pfizer, AbbVie, and BMS and Celgene. KS received research funding from Active Biotech; has received honoraria from Novartis, BMS and Celgene, and GSK; has served as a consultant for Novartis, BMS and Celgene, and GSK; and has received travel support from Sobi. FL has received consulting fees, lecture fees, research support, and payments for expert testimony from Novartis and has participated in data safety monitoring board and advisory board meetings for Novartis, Pfizer, Incyte, and Biosciences. OK has received honoraria from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, and Pfizer and has received travel support from Jazz Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca. JScha has received travel support from Gilead and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. CRe has received travel support from Medac and Gilead Sciences. WEB holds stock and other ownership interests in Philogen; has received honoraria from Philogen; has served as a consultant for Philogen; has received research funding from Philogen; holds international patent rights for vascular targeting of tissue factor and siRNA targeting—so far without any return of money and is co-owner and CEO of two biotech start-ups, Anturec and Elvesca; has given expert testimony for Philogen; and has received travel and accommodation expenses from Philogen. HS holds stock and other ownership interests in Intellia Therapeutics, Biontech, and Arvin and Kymera; has received honoraria from Novartis, Robert-Bosch-Gesellschaft für Medizinische Forschung mbH, and Gilead Sciences; has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences, IKP Stuttgart, and AbbVie; holds patent and other intellectual properties on Samhd1 modulation for treating resistance to cancer therapy, on oncogene redirection, on companion diagnostics for leukaemia treatment, and on markers for responsiveness to an inhibitor of FLT3. GE owns Cellex Cell Professionals. MB received honoraria from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, ActiTrexx, and MSD Oncology and has received travel support from Jazz Pharmaceuticals and MSD. J-HM has received consulting fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Novartis; payments for lectures from BMS, Pfizer, Celgene, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, and Daiichi Sankyo; and participated in data safety monitoring board or advisory board meetings for Pfizer and Daiichi Sankyo. JSche participated in advisory boards for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Sanofi, Medac, MSD, and Janssen and received lecture fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Novartis, Eurocept, and Janssen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Treatment of relapse after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains a great challenge. Aiming to evaluate the combination of venetoclax and hypomethylating agents (HMAClax) for the treatment of relapse of myeloid malignancies after alloHSCT, we retrospectively collected data from 32 patients treated at 11 German centers. Venetoclax was applied with azacitidine (n = 13) or decitabine (n = 19); 11 patients received DLI in addition. HMAClax was the first salvage therapy in 8 patients. The median number of cycles per patient was 2 (1-19). All but 1 patient had grade 3/4 neutropenia. Hospital admission for grade 3/4 infections was necessary in 23 patients (72%); 5 of these were fatal. In 30 evaluable patients, overall response rate (ORR) was 47% (14/30, 3 CR MRD neg , 5 CR, 2 CRi, 1 MLFS, 3 PR). ORR was 86% in first salvage patients versus 35% in later salvage patients (p = 0.03). In 6 patients with molecular relapse (MR), ORR was 67% versus 42% in patients with hematological relapse (HR) (n = 24, p = n.s.). After a median follow-up of 8.4 months, 25 patients (78%) had died and 7 were alive. Estimated median overall survival was 3.7 months. Median survival of patients with HMAClax for first versus later salvage therapy was 5.7 and 3.4 months (p = n.s.) and for patients with MR (not reached) compared to HR (3.4 months, p = 0.024). This retrospective case series shows that venetoclax is utilized in various different combinations, schedules, and doses. Toxicity is substantial and patients who receive venetoclax/HMA combinations for MR or as first salvage therapy derive the greatest benefit.

Neural cell adhesion molecule 1 (NCAM1; CD56) is expressed in up to 20% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. NCAM1 is widely used as a marker of minimal residual disease; however, the biological function of NCAM1 in AML remains elusive. In this study, we investigated the impact of NCAM1 expression on leukemogenesis, drug resistance, and its role as a biomarker to guide therapy. Beside t(8;21) leukemia, NCAM1 expression was found in most molecular AML subgroups at highly heterogeneous expression levels. Using complementary genetic strategies, we demonstrated an essential role of NCAM1 in the regulation of cell survival and stress resistance. Perturbation of NCAM1 induced cell death or differentiation and sensitized leukemic blasts toward genotoxic agents in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, Ncam1 was highly expressed in leukemic progenitor cells in a murine leukemia model, and genetic depletion of Ncam1 prolonged disease latency and significantly reduced leukemia-initiating cells upon serial transplantation. To further analyze the mechanism of the NCAM1-associated phenotype, we performed phosphoproteomics and transcriptomics in different AML cell lines. NCAM1 expression strongly associated with constitutive activation of the MAPK-signaling pathway, regulation of apoptosis, or glycolysis. Pharmacological inhibition of MEK1/2 specifically inhibited proliferation and sensitized NCAM1 + AML cells to chemotherapy. In summary, our data demonstrate that aberrant expression of NCAM1 is involved in the maintenance of leukemic stem cells and confers stress resistance, likely due to activation of the MAPK pathway. Targeting MEK1/2 sensitizes AML blasts to genotoxic agents, indicating a role for NCAM1 as a biomarker to guide AML treatment., (© 2019 by The American Society of Hematology.)