Search

Purpose: Despite the development of novel drugs and the widespread use of hematopoietic cell transplantation, the prognosis of patients (pts) with multiple myeloma and extramedullary involvement (soft-tissue plasmacytoma, STP) is rather unfavorable. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 120 pts with STP treated between 2007 and 2022 was performed. The effects of demographic and clinical characteristics on treatment response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: The rate of serological response to first-line STP treatment (at least partial remission) was 67%, and the rate of imaging response was 59%. With a median follow-up of 84.2 months, the median PFS was 10.5 months (primary STP: 20.2 months; secondary STP: 5.8 months), and the median OS was 24.5 months (primary STP: 34.5 months; secondary STP: 12.4 months). Based on the multivariate regression analysis, secondary STP (HRPFS 2.75; HROS 2.63) and organ involvement (HRPFS 1.45; HROS 1.68) were found to be negative prognostic factors of both PFS and OS. In a prognostic model, pts with at least one of these factors had a significantly worse PFS (HRPFS 3.31) and OS (HROS 3.45) than those with none risk factor. Conclusion: In pts with STP, risk-adapted treatment strategies including immunotherapies and cell therapies are urgently required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Functional perturbations of the cohesin complex with subsequent changes in chromatin structure and replication are reported in a multitude of cancers including acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Mutations of its STAG2 subunit may predict unfavorable risk as recognized by the 2022 European Leukemia Net recommendations, but the underlying evidence is limited by small sample sizes and conflicting observations regarding clinical outcomes, as well as scarce information on other cohesion complex subunits. We retrospectively analyzed data from a multi-center cohort of 1615 intensively treated AML patients and identified distinct co-mutational patters for mutations of STAG2, which were associated with normal karyotypes (NK) and concomitant mutations in IDH2, RUNX1, BCOR, ASXL1, and SRSF2. Mutated RAD21 was associated with NK, mutated EZH2, KRAS, CBL, and NPM1. Patients harboring mutated STAG2 were older and presented with decreased white blood cell, bone marrow and peripheral blood blast counts. Overall, neither mutated STAG2, RAD21, SMC1A nor SMC3 displayed any significant, independent effect on clinical outcomes defined as complete remission, event-free, relapse-free or overall survival. However, we found almost complete mutual exclusivity of genetic alterations of individual cohesin subunits. This mutual exclusivity may be the basis for therapeutic strategies via synthetic lethality in cohesin mutated AML. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the MIFAP protocol, which had been shown to be effective in patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) or aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), to an established regimen like Dexa-BEAM. Methods: Seventy-three adult patients with HL (N = 25) or aggressive NHL (N = 48) suffering from relapse or refractory disease were randomly allocated to receive two cycles of Dexa-BEAM (dexamethasone, carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan; N = 37) or MIFAP (mitoxantrone, fludarabine, cytarabine, cisplatin; N = 36) prior to a consolidating high-dose therapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) [complete response (CR) and partial response (PR)] after two courses of salvage chemotherapy. Results: The ORR was 51% (CR 38%) and 53% (CR 36%) in the Dexa-BEAM arm and in the MIFAP arm (both not significant), respectively. There was a significantly higher grade 3–4 toxicity after MIFAP compared to Dexa-BEAM. Thirty-five patients were consolidated by autologous (N = 29), allogeneic (N = 1) or sequential autologous/allogeneic (N = 5) HCT. No significant differences were found in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the Dexa-BEAM and the MIFAP arms. Conclusion: Compared to Dexa-BEAM, MIFAP is associated with a higher toxicity and does not improve the outcome of patients with recurrent HL or aggressive NHL. For those patients, innovative treatment concepts like recently developed immunotherapies are necessary. Trial registration number: EudraCT number 2021-001937-38. Date of registration: 7 April 2021, retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Correction: Dexa-BEAM versus MIFAP as salvage regimen for recurrent lymphoma: a prospective randomized multicenter phase II trial with a median follow-up of 14.4 years MIFAP (N = 24) for NHL (d), HR hazard ratio Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. MIFAP (N = 12) for HL (a) and PFS for Dexa-BEAM (N = 24) for NHL vs. [Extracted from the article]