Search

Purpose: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. SSc treatment is still challenging, and evidence is scarce. In the last decades high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HD-ASCT) has proven to be effective. However, treatment related morbidity and mortality (TRM) are high. We conducted a retrospective, single-center analysis of SSc patients following HD-ASCT focusing on TRM and risk factors., Methods: 32 patients who underwent HD-ASCT at our hospital between June 2000 and September 2020 were included. Clinical characteristics were evaluated based on chart review before and after HD-ASCT. Analyses focused on overall survival (OS), TRM, and response to HD-ASCT., Results: Median OS was 81 months (range 0-243). Within one year, 20 of 32 (76.9%) patients responded to HD-ASCT. Overall, 6 patients (18.8%) died in the context of HD-ASCT. Patients with subjective response to HD-ASCT (p = 0.024) and those with shorter time to platelet engraftment (p = 0.047) had significantly longer OS. Impaired renal function, age at HD-ASCT ≥ 55, disease duration < 12 months, high Hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) and Charlton Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores were associated with higher TRM. Patients receiving conditioning chemotherapy with thiotepa needed longer time for neutrophil (p = 0.035) and platelet engraftment (p = 0.021)., Conclusion: This study confirms the efficacy of HD-ASCT for patients with SSc in a single center real-world setting. High TRM is still a challenge. However, TRM could be reduced by exclusion of high-risk patients and attention to prognostic parameters and scores as suggested in this study., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The aim of this trial was to investigate the addition of the anti-SLAMF7 monoclonal antibody elotuzumab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) in induction and consolidation therapy as well as to lenalidomide maintenance treatment in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma., Methods: GMMG-HD6 was a phase 3, randomised trial conducted at 43 main trial sites and 26 associated trial sites throughout Germany. Adult patients (aged 18-70 years) with previously untreated, symptomatic multiple myeloma, and a WHO performance status of 0-3, with 3 being allowed only if caused by myeloma disease and not by comorbid conditions, were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to four treatment groups. Induction therapy consisted of four 21-day cycles of RVd (lenalidomide 25 mg orally on days 1-14; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m 2 subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11]; and dexamethasone 20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15 for cycles 1-2) or, RVd induction plus elotuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 for cycles 1-2, and on days 1 and 11 for cycles 3-4; E-RVd). Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation was followed by two 21-day cycles of either RVd consolidation (lenalidomide 25 mg orally on days 1-14; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m 2 subcutaneously on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) or elotuzumab plus RVd consolidation (with elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15) followed by maintenance with either lenalidomide (10 mg orally on days 1-28 for cycles 1-3; thereafter, up to 15 mg orally on days 1-28; RVd/R or E-RVd/R group) or lenalidomide plus elotuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 for cycles 1-6, and on day 1 for cycles 7-26; RVd/E-R or E-RVd/E-R group) for 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of trial medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02495922, and is completed., Findings: Between June 29, 2015, and on Sept 11, 2017, 564 patients were included in the trial. The modified ITT population comprised 559 (243 [43%] females and 316 [57%] males) patients and the safety population 555 patients. After a median follow-up of 49·8 months (IQR 43·7-55·5), there was no difference in progression-free survival between the four treatment groups (adjusted log-rank p value, p=0·86), and 3-year progression-free survival rates were 69% (95% CI 61-77), 69% (61-76), 66% (58-74), and 67% (59-75) for patients treated with RVd/R, RVd/E-R, E-RVd/R, and E-RVd/E-R, respectively. Infections (grade 3 or worse) were the most frequently observed adverse event in all treatment groups (28 [20%] of 137 for RVd/R; 32 [23%] of 138 for RVd/E-R; 35 [25%] of 138 for E-RVd/R; and 48 [34%] of 142 for E-RVd/E-R). Serious adverse events (grade 3 or worse) were observed in 68 (48%) of 142 participants in the E-RVd/E-R group, 53 (39%) of 137 in the RVd/R, 53 (38%) of 138 in the RVd/E-R, and 50 (36%) of 138 in the E-RVd/R (36%) group. There were nine treatment-related deaths during the study. Two deaths (one sepsis and one toxic colitis) in the RVd/R group were considered lenalidomide-related. One death in the RVd/E-R group due to meningoencephalitis was considered lenalidomide and elotuzumab-related. Four deaths (one pulmonary embolism, one septic shock, one atypical pneumonia, and one cardiovascular failure) in the E-RVd/R group and two deaths (one sepsis and one pneumonia and pulmonary fibrosis) in the E-RVd/E-R group were considered related to lenalidomide or elotuzumab, or both., Interpretation: Addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction or consolidation and lenalidomide maintenance in patients with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma did not provide clinical benefit. Elotuzumab-containing therapies might be reserved for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene and Chugai., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EKM reports consulting or advisory role with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS)/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi Aventis, Stemline, and Takeda; honoraria from BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi Aventis, Stemline, and Takeda; research funding from Sanofi Aventis; and travel accommodation and expenses from BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi Aventis, Stemline, and Takeda. HG reports support for the present manuscript from BMS/Celgene, Chugai, and HD6 funding; consulting or advisory role with Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, and Adaptive Biotechnology; honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and Pfizer; research funding from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, GlycoMimetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Heidelberg Pharma, Hoffmann-La Roche, Karyopharm, Janssen, Incyte Corporation, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners, Merck Sharp and Dohme, MorphoSys, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Novartis; travel accommodations and expenses from Amgen, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and grants or provision of Investigational Medicinal Products from Amgen, Array Biopharma/Pfizer, BMS/Celgene, Chugai, Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation, Janssen, Johns Hopkins University, Mundipharma, and Sanofi. MHä reports consulting or advisory role with Novartis, BMS/Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Sanofi/Aventis, Roche, Amgen, SOBI, Janssen, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Vital, and BMS. RF reports Honoraria from Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda; and travel accommodations and expenses from BMS/Celgene, Janssen, and GSK. MM reports consulting or Advisory Role with Janssen, BMS, Abbvie, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Oncopeptides, Takeda, and Stemline; honoraria from Amgen, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Takeda; and travel accommodations and expenses from Amgen. JD reports honoraria from Sanofi, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene; and travel accommodation and expenses from Amgen, BMS, Beigene, and Amgen. CM reports Consulting or Advisory Role from Celgene, BMS, and Janssen. CS reports consulting or advisory role from BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; honoraria from Amgen, BMS/GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; research funding from Janssen, and Takeda; and travel accommodation and expenses from BMS, Janssen, Sanofi Aventis, and Takeda. RS reports consulting or advisory role with BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, and Sanofi; and honoraria from Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, Sanofi, and Takeda. IvM reports consulting or advisory role with Sanofi, Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Stemline, GSK, BMS, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. PR reports honoraria from BMS and travel accommodation and expenses from BMS. UG reports consulting or advisory role with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celtrion, Ipsen, Sanofi, and MSD; and honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. SK reports travel accommodation and expenses from AbbVie. UMM reports consulting or advisory role with Sanofi-Aventis, BMS, Roche, GSK, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, MSD, and Guardant Health; and travel accommodation and expenses from Pierre Fabre, Ipsen, and Janssen. CK reports travel accommodation and expenses from European Hematology Association. KCW reports consulting or advisory role with Abbvie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, BMS/Celgene, BeiGene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, Takeda, and Menarini; honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Adaptive Biotech, Astra Zeneca, BMS/Celgene, BeiGene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Sanofi, Stemline, Takeda, and Menarini; and research funding from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Takeda. MSR reports consulting or advisory role with BMS, Amgen, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, and Roche; research funding from Sanofi; travel accommodation and expenses from BMS, AbbVie, Janssen, Sanofi, GSK; Honoraria from BMS, Janssen, GSK, AbbVie, and Sanofi; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Novartis, Sanofi. HJS reports consulting or advisory role with Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Genzyme, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Stemline; honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Genzyme, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline, and Takeda; and travel accommodation and expenses from Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Janssen Cilag, and Sanofi. 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.)

Background: Secondary central nervous system lymphoma (SCNSL) confers a dismal prognosis and treatment advances are constrained by the lack of prospective studies and real-world treatment evidence., Methods: Patients with SCNSL of all entities were included at first diagnosis and patient characteristics, treatment data, and outcomes were prospectively collected in the Secondary CNS Lymphoma Registry (SCNSL-R) (NCT05114330)., Findings: 279 patients from 47 institutions were enrolled from 2011 to 2022 and 243 patients (median age: 66 years; range: 23-86) were available for analysis. Of those, 49 (20 %) patients presented with synchronous (cohort I) and 194 (80 %) with metachronous SCNSL (cohort II). The predominant histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, 68 %). Median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis of CNS involvement was 17·2 months (95 % CI 12-27·5), with longer OS in cohort I (60·6 months, 95 % CI 45·5-not estimable (NE)) than cohort II (11·4 months, 95 % CI 7·8-17·7, log-rank test p < 0.0001). Predominant induction regimens included R-CHOP/high-dose MTX (cohort I) and high-dose MTX/cytarabine (cohort II). Rituximab was used in 166 (68 %) of B-cell lymphoma. Undergoing consolidating high-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT) in partial response (PR) or better was associated with longer OS (HR adjusted 0·47 (95 % CI 0·25-0·89), p = 0·0197)., Interpretation: This study is the largest prospective cohort of SCNSL patients providing a comprehensive overview of an international real-world treatment landscape and outcomes. Prognosis was better in patients with SCNSL involvement at initial diagnosis (cohort I) and consolidating HDT-ASCT was associated with favorable outcome in patients with PR or better., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest U.Ke. served in an advisory role for BMS/ Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Gilead/ Kite, Roche, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Pentixapharm and received travel support from BMS/ Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Abbvie, Gilead/ Kite, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Pentixapharm. S.H. served in an advisory role for Pentixapharm. Ro.S. served in an advisory role for BMS/ Celgene, Janssen, Gilead/ Kite, and Novartis. M.S-H. has an advisory role for Celgene GmbH, Amgen GmbH, Gilead/ Kite, Sanofi-Aventis, Glaxo Smith Kline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Shionogi and received financial support from Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Vifor Pharma, Celgene. P.L.R. received payment from Novartis, MSD, Abbvie, Roche, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag and travel support from Abbvie, Novartis, BMS, Janssen-Cilag and Roche. K.J. received royalties from Elsevier and Wolters Kluwer, obtained consulting fees and honoraria from Amgen, art tempi, Astra Zeneca, BD Solutions, Helsinn, Hexal, Karyopharm med update GmbH, MSD, Mundipharma, onkowissen, Riemser, Roche, Shire (Takeda), Vifor Pharma and Voluntis, B.C. received research grants from Gilead, received honoraria from BMS, Astra Zeneca, Gilead, Roche, Sandoz, Incyte, Abbvie and received travel support from Roche and Gilead. St. S. received research grants from Protherics Medicines Development Ltd., served in an advisory role for AMGEN, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, SERB SAS, received honoraria from Akademie für Infektionsmedizin e.V., AMGEN, AVIR Pharma, CSi Hamburg GmbH, Gilead Sciences, Labor28, Novartis, Persberg Group GmbH/DGIM e.V., Pfizer, Vivantes GmbH and received travel support from Gilead Sciences and Novartis. A.K. Received financial support from Riemser. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The outcome of patients with large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) who relapse or progress after CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) administered as salvage therapy beyond the second treatment line is poor. However, a minority of patients become long-term survivors despite CAR-T failure. The German Lymphoma Alliance (GLA) has proposed a hierarchical management algorithm for CAR-T failure in LBCL, aimed at allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) as definite therapy in eligible patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate characteristics, relapse patterns, and management strategies in long-term survivors after CAR-T failure, with a particular focus on the feasibility and outcome of alloHCT. This was a retrospective analysis of all evaluable patients with a relapse/progression event (REL) observed in a previously reported GLA sample between November 2018 and May 2021. REL occurred in 214 of 356 patients (60%) who underwent CAR-T for LBCL in the previous GLA study. An evaluable dataset was available for 143 of these 214 patients (67%). Twenty-six of 143 patients (18%) survived 12 months or longer from REL, 109 (76%) died within the first year after REL, and 8 (6%) were alive but had not reached the 12-month landmark. Long-term survivors had more favorable pre-CAR-T features, had a longer interval between CAR-T and REL, and had more often received a tumor biopsy after CAR-T failure, whereas the choice of the first salvage regimen had no impact. AlloHCT was feasible in 40 of 53 patients (75%) intended and resulted in a 12-month post-transplantation overall survival of 36% in those patients who underwent transplantation with sensitive or untreated REL. AlloHCT after CAR-T failure in LBCL is feasible and may be an important contributor to long-term survival, although selection bias must be taken into account. Thus, alloHCT should be considered as a reasonable treatment option for eligible patients in this setting. However, because the overall outlook after CAR-T failure remains poor, novel effective therapeutic approaches are needed, either to allow long-term disease control per se or to improve the preconditions for successful alloHCT., (Copyright © 2023 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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]

Overall, 33 patients (52%) continued treatment beyond investigator assessed PD and a total of 16 patients received additional concomitant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. The majority of patients experiencing PD during or after anti-PD1 treatment received additional therapies (21/37, 57%). Outcomes of anti-programmed death 1 treatment for relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: A German Hodgkin Study Group multicentre real-world analysis. [Extracted from the article]

Simple Summary: No standard treatment is defined for relapsed or refractory (r/r) primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL). However, high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HCT-ASCT), an efficient first line treatment in younger PCNSL patients, is commonly applied in relapsed or refractory disease, if tolerable. Here, we retrospectively analyzed 59 patients with r/r PCNSL focusing specifically on differences in long-term outcome and toxicity in patients <65 years (n = 33) and ≥65 years (n = 26) of age. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HCT-ASCT) is reportedly an effective treatment strategy in relapsed or refractory primary CNS lymphoma (r/r PCNSL); however, only selected patients are eligible for this treatment. We retrospectively analyzed outcome, prognostic factors, and toxicity in 59 patients with r/r PCNSL planned to receive HCT-ASCT at our institution between January 2005 and December 2021 (n = 33 < 65 years; n = 26 ≥ 65 years). Median follow-up was 65 months (95% CI 21–109). Median age was 63 years (range 29–76), median Karnofsky performance score (KPS) was 80 (range 30–100). In the entire cohort of 59 patients, median overall survival (OS) was 14 months (95% CI 0–37). In 50/59 (84.7%) patients who completed HCT-ASCT, median progression free survival (PFS) was 12 months (95% CI 3–21) and median OS 30 months (95% CI 0–87). 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year OS rates of 61.2%, 52.3% and 47.1%, respectively, were observed. Six patients (10.2%) died related to treatment (1 during induction treatment, 5 post HCT-ASCT). Age was not prognostic. On univariate analysis, KPS ≥ 80 (p = 0.019) and complete or partial remission before HCT-ASCT (p = 0.026) were positive prognosticators of OS; on multivariate analysis, KPS (p = 0.043) and male gender (p = 0.039) had an impact on OS. The 5-year OS rate in patients with progressive or stable disease after induction treatment was 32.7%. In summary, HCT-ASCT was effective and feasible in this cohort of r/r PCNSL patients. Clinical state, remission status before HCT-ASCT, and gender influenced survival, whereas age did not influence outcome in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]