Single Centre, Retrospective Analysis of Extracorporeal Photopheresis (ECP) Therapy in the Patients Who Are Heavily Pre-Treated for Steroid Resistant Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GVHD)

Abstract *DB and DK contributed to the work equally. Background Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a recommended second or later line of therapy for chronic GVHD (cGVHD), and is beneficial not only because of increased response but also for its lack of adverse effects, specifically systemic immune suppression, mainly from steroids. In this single centre study, we attempted to evaluate not only therapeutic efficacy of ECP, but also its steroid-sparing effect by regularly analyzing steroid dose per body weight. We also attempted to identify any predictors of response or survival after ECP, which was not well defined before. Patients and methods A total of 75 cGVHD patients (pts) who received ECP for cGVHD from 2007 to 2021 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre were included and evaluated retrospectively. Patients and disease characteristics are as follows: median age 48.5 years (range 17-70); male 42/75 (56%); organ involvement at the time of ECP: skin (93%), oral (53%), eye (51%), gastrointestinal (25%), liver (49%), lung (57%), and musculoskeletal (n=50, 67%). Sixty-eight (91%) and 7 pts (9%) had severe and moderate grade cGVHD, respectively. Sixty-eight pts (91%) received ECP as 4 th line or beyond. They were heavily pretreated with prednisone (98%), cyclosporine (57%), tacrolimus (24%), mycophenolate mofetil (64%), azathioprine (65%), rituximab (7%), imatinib (8%), ibrunitib (3%) and ruxolitinib (1%). ECP was started twice weekly for the first 12 weeks, then twice every 2 weeks in 2012-2021, while the schedule was twice every 2 weeks from 2007-2012. If there was no response or clinical benefit noted in first 24 treatments, then ECP was discontinued. In general, we attempted to provide up to around 60 sessions based on the clinicians' discretion. The overall response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit (CB) were assessed at months 3, 6 and 12 after staring ECP. As part of standard clinical practice, NIH consensus criteria were used for grading and response assessment. CB was assessed considering clinical response as well as steroid dose reduction. Treatment failure was defined as 1) resistance to ECP requiring treatment switch, 2) non-relapse mortality (NRM), 3) relapse, 4) intolerance to ECP. Failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS)were calculated from the day of ECP initiation until the endpoints of failure or death, respectively. Results ECP was started a median of 28 months (range 1-125) after development of cGVHD. ECP was performed a median of 35 times (range 6-174) with a median duration of 11 months (range 1-53). Out of 75 pts, 48 completed planned ECP successfully and 27 stopped due to no response or benefit including, of whom 14 required additional therapy, 1 stopped due to line infection, and 1 stopped due to relapse of AML. With a median 72 months of follow-up, ORR was attained in 21% (16/75), 57% (36/63) and 70% (32/46) at month 3, 6 and 12, respectively. At 6 months, ORR was observed in 47-64% across all organs assessed. No difference in ORR was noted according to the cGVHD grade; at 6 months, severe cGVHD showed similar ORR (57%) to those with moderate cGVHD (60%) (p=0.893). CB was noted in 23% (17/75), 62% (39/63), and 76% (35/46) at month 3, 6 and 12, respectively. A total of 27/75 failures (36%) and 20/75 death (27%) occurred, due to the following: ECP resistance requiring switch to other therapy (n=14, 19%), NRM (n=11, 15%), relapse of primary disease (n=1, 1%) or ECP-related complication (n=1, 1%, line infection). In the overall cohort, FFS and OS at 12 months were 68.3% and 85.9%, respectively (Figure 1). More than a half of pts stopped steroids completely within 12 months after starting ECP. The proportion of pts off steroids was 16%, 17%, 32%, and 64% at month 0, 3, 6 and 12 after starting ECP, respectively (Figure 2). Risk factor analysis did not show any predictive markers for ORR at 6 months, while prognostic factor analysis suggested the development of musculoskeletal involvement as favorable prognostic factor for FFS (p=0.003, HR 0.315 [0.147, 0.673]) even with multivariate analysis. Conclusion Our study showed that: 1) ECP is a very effective treatment for heavily pre-treated cGVHD pts who have failed other therapies; 2) More than a half of pts can stop steroids completely within 12 months after starting ECP, thus avoiding long-term toxicity risk. Further study is warranted comparing ECP with other cGVHD treatment modalities. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patriquin: BioCryst Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria. Law: Novartis: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Lipton: Bristol Myers Squibb, Ariad, Pfizer, Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mattsson: MattssonAB medical: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kim: Paladin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meier Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Propensity Score Matching Analysis Comparing Extracorporeal Photopheresis (ECP) Vs Best Available Therapy in Third Line or Later Treatment of Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease (cGVHD)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-153045 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3896-3896

Author(s):

Swe Mar Linn ◽

Igor Novitzky-Basso ◽

Elizabeth Shin ◽

Christopher J. Patriquin ◽

Ivan Pasic ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Propensity Score ◽

Dose Reduction ◽

Research Funding ◽

Extracorporeal Photopheresis ◽

Prednisone Dose ◽

Steroid Dose ◽

Previous Therapy ◽

Third Line ◽

Over Time

Abstract *DB and DK contributed to the work equally Background Prospective randomized controlled data comparing extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) to other treatments for chronic graft vs host disease (cGvHD) as third-line or later therapy are limited, despite its clinical benefit observed in patients (pts) who failed ≥ 2 lines of previous therapy. Our single-center experience has reported promising results, including 68.3% failure-free survival (FFS) and 85.9% overall survival (OS) at 12 months in 75 heavily pre-treated cGvHD pts treated with ECP (ASH 2021 Abstract ID 152640). The present study compared outcomes, using propensity-score matching (PSM), between ECP ("ECP group", n=74) and a historical cohort treated with best available therapy (BAT) as third-line or later treatment from 2007 to 2021 ("BAT group", n=132). Statistical endpoints such as FFS and OS, as well as steroid dose reduction were evaluated instead of overall response due to limited response assessment data available from retrospective chart review. Patients and methods The BAT group received MMF (n=71, 53.8%), prednisone (n=37, 28.0%), prednisone/cyclosporine (n=7, 5.3%), rituximab (n=7, 5.3%), and others (n=10, 7.6%). There was an imbalance in characteristics between the two groups, as expected; the ECP group had more pts with severe cGVHD (91.1% vs 20.5%; p<0.001), fewer with a previous history of acute GVHD (aGvHD: 60.8% vs 78.0%; p=0.008), and fewer on a prednisone dose ≥0.5mg/kg/day (37.8% vs. 90.5%; p<0.001). PSM analysis was applied to adjust risk factors imbalanced between groups, including cGVHD grade (mild/moderate vs severe), aGVHD history, and baseline prednisone dose (<0.5 vs. ≥ 0.5 mg/kg/day). A total of 54 pts (27 case-control pairs) were selected via PSM within 0.2 of a calliper difference, resulting in the balancing of risk factors between groups: cGVHD severity (p=0.941), aGVHD history (p=0.75) and prednisone dose ≥ 0.5 mg/kg/day (p=0.788). FFS and OS were calculated from the day of starting ECP or BAT, and were compared using Cox's hazard model. Daily prednisone dose at months 0, 3 and 6 were calculated divided by body weight (kg), and the proportions of pts on prednisone ≤ 0, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.5mg/kg/day were compared. Results In the overall cohort (n=206), with a median 29 months of follow-up, 114 treatment failures (55.3%) occurred. While the non-relapse mortality (NRM) was similar in both groups, the ECP group showed a lower rate of resistance requiring therapy switch. Failure was noted in 27 ECP pts (36.4%) due to causes including resistance/intolerance requiring a switch to other therapy (n=15; 20.3%), NRM (n=11, 14.8%), and relapse (n=1; 1.4%), while 87 failures (65.9%) were noted in BAT pts due to resistance requiring a switch to other therapy (n=63; 47.7%), NRM (n=7; 5.3%), and relapse (n=17; 12.9%). In the overall cohort, the 12-month FFS was 68.3% and 32.0% in ECP and BAT groups (p<0.0001; Fig 1A), while OS was 86.2% and 82.2% in ECP and BAT groups, respectively (p=0.333; Fig 1B). In the PSM cohort (n=54), the ECP group showed a survival benefit at 12 months: FFS was 65.8% in the ECP group vs. 30.5% in the BAT group (p=0.00226; Fig 2A), and OS was 76.6% in the ECP group vs. 67.1% in the BAT group (p=0.0977; Fig 2B). Multivariate analysis in the PSM cohort confirmed that ECP was superior to BAT for FFS (p=0.024, HR 0.317 [0.117-0.859]) when adjusted for other risk factors including cGVHD severity, aGvHD history, age, HCT-CI score and prednisone dose ≤0.5mg/kg/day. Prednisone doses were gradually reduced over time; the median doses of prednisone at months 0, 3, and 6 were 0.35, 0.22 and 0.11 mg/kg/day, respectively, in the ECP group vs. 0.96, 0.24 and 0.19mg/kg/day in the BAT group. ECP also showed better kinetics of steroid dose reduction over time; the proportions of pts who discontinued prednisone at months 0, 3 and 6 were 16.2, 17.6% and 32.4% in ECP group vs. 0.8%, 0% and 2.5% in BAT group (Fig 3). The differences in the proportion of pts (delta) who discontinued prednisone in the ECP vs. BAT groups were 15.4%, 17.6% and 29.9% at 0, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Conclusion In the current study using PSM analysis, use of ECP was associated with a superior FFS to BAT when used as third-line or later therapy in cGVHD patients who failed at least 2 lines of previous therapy. Use of ECP also allowed for better steroid tapering in comparison to BAT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patriquin: Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BioCryst Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria. Law: Novartis: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Lipton: Bristol Myers Squibb, Ariad, Pfizer, Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mattsson: MattssonAB medical: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kim: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Paladin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meier Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Single Centre, Retrospective Study to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes Following Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor for Chronic Gvhd Treatment Including Ruxolitinib, Ibrutinib and Imatinib

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-142182 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 17-18

Author(s):

Swe Mar Linn ◽

Omar Abduljalil ◽

Igor Nicolas Novitzky-Basso ◽

RAM V Nampoothiri ◽

Ivan Pasic ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Retrospective Study ◽

Tyrosine Kinase ◽

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor ◽

Dose Reduction ◽

Research Funding ◽

Kinase Inhibitor ◽

Single Centre ◽

Prednisone Dose ◽

Steroid Dose ◽

Heavily Pretreated

Background Chronic graft-versus-host-disease (cGVHD) is one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Tyrosine kinase inhibitor such as Ruxolitinib, Ibrutinib and Imatinib showed a promising efficacy in cGVHD treatment. Ruxolitinib is a JAK-STAT inhibitor, reducing inflammation and immune pathway. Ibrutinib is a BTK inhibitor, blocking B cell-activating factor (BAFF), while Imatinib inhibits the platelet-derived growth factor receptor pathway activated by cGvHD-induced antibodies. The present retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of 3 TKIs for cGVHD at a single-centre in terms of 1) overall response rate (ORR), 2) clinical benefit (CB), 3) dose reduction of steroid, 4) failure-free survival (FFS) and 5) overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods A total of 43 patients who developed cGVHD after HCT and treated with TKI therapy for cGVHD at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Canada from August 2014 to April 2020 were evaluated in this retrospective study. 16 patients were treated with more than one TKI drug. A total of 62 lines of TKI therapy was evaluated, including Ruxolinitib (n=18), Ibrutinib (n=13) and Imatinib (n=31). The ORRs and CBs were assessed at months 3, 6 and 12, retrospectively. Responses were evaluated according to NIH scoring/staging/response assessment as part of standard clinical practice. CB was assessed considering clinical response as well as steroid dose reduction. For systemic steroid dose reduction, prednisone dose per kg per day was captured prior to Ruxolitinib start, at months 3, 6 and 12. Treatment failure was defined as 1) resistance requiring treatment switch, 2) non-relapse mortality (NRM), 3) relapse, 4) intolerance requiring treatment discontinuation. FFS and OS were calculated from the day of starting TKI therapy for cGVHD treatment. Results The patients and disease characteristics are summarized as follow: median age was 54 years (range 16 -70); 33 patients (53%) presented with classical cGVHD, while 29 patients (47%) with overlap syndrome; 14 (23%) presented with moderate and 48 (77%) with severe grade cGVHD. There was no difference in cGVHD subtype among 3 TKI subgroups (p= 0.478). The median number of organ involvement was 3 (range 1-5), and number of previous lines of therapy was 5 (range 3-9), implying that most of the patients were heavily pretreated for cGVHD. The mean (±S.E.) dosage of TKI treatment was as follows: Ruxolitinib was started at 15±1.1mg as initial dose and 20±0.7, 19±1.5, 22±4.4 mg per day in two divided doses on months 3, 6 and 12, respectively. Ibrutinib dose was 226±37, 256±37, 308±40 and 370±33 mg per day, while Imatinib dose was 106±6, 189±18, 196±16 and 190±19 mg per day prior to TKI starts, at months 3, 6 and 12, respectively. With a median follow up duration of 12 months, 19 (31%), 20 (32%), and 17 patients (27%) responded to TKI therapy at 3, 6, and 12 months without any difference of ORR among the TKIs (p=0.126, 0.554, 0.721 at 3/6/12 months; Figure A). The CBs were achieved in 47 (76%), 34 (55%), and 23 patients (37%) at 3, 6 and 12 months without any difference of CBs among the TKIs (p=0.187, 0.499, 0.750 at 3/6/12 months; Figure B). Prednisone dose (mg/kg/day) was 0.238±0.03 prior to TKI initiation, 0.177±0.03, 0.173 ± 0.03 and 0.110 ± 0.02 at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. No difference was noted in steroid dose among the 3 TKIs at each time point. However, the Ibrutinib group tends to require higher prednisone dose over time than other 2 groups. The FFS at 12 months was higher in Imatinib (71%) or Ruxolitinib groups (67%) than Ibrutinib group (46%; Figure C). The OS rate at 12 months was similar: 100 % in Ruxolitinib and Ibrutinib, and 96% in Imatinib group (Figure D). With regard to those patients treated with TKI for sclerotic GVHD (n= 39), the ORR were 11 (28%), 15 (38%) and 13 (33%) for 3, 6 and 12 months, while CB was noted in 32 (82%), 25 (64%) and 16 patients (41%) at 3, 6 and 12 months respectively. Of interest, Ruxolitinib was as effective as Imatinib in improving PROM score of sclerotic GVHD, while no significant improvement of PROM score was observed in the patients treated with Ibrutinib. Conclusion This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of TKI drugs for cGVHD treatment in heavily pretreated patients. Ruxolitinib seems as effective as Imatinib to treat sclerotic GVHD. No difference was observed in OS at 12 months; while FFS appears better with Ruxolitinib and Imatinib over Ibrutinib. Figure Disclosures Lipton: Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation (allo-SCT) for Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia (CMML): Prognostic Factors for Survival. A Report From the Societe Francaise De Greffe De Moelle Et De Therapie Cellulaire (SFGM-TC),

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.3794.3794 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 3794-3794

Author(s):

Sophie Park ◽

Myriam Labopin ◽

Ibrahim Yakoub-Agha ◽

Jacques Delaunay ◽

Nathalie Dhedin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prognostic Factors ◽

Prognostic Factor ◽

Research Funding ◽

Chronic Gvhd ◽

Disease Status ◽

Patient Characteristics ◽

Hypomethylating Agents ◽

Monosomy 7 ◽

Negative Prognostic Factor ◽

Thérapie Cellulaire

Abstract Abstract 3794 Background: CMML is a heterogeneous disease with overall survival (OS) ranging from 12 mo to several years, where few series of allo-SCT have been published. This retrospective study aimed at determining prognostic factors for OS after allo-SCT in a group of consecutive 73 CMML patients reported to the SFGM-TC registry between 1992 and 2009. Methods: For this analysis, in addition to classical demographic and transplant characteristics, patient data at diagnosis and at transplant, including WHO classification in CMML 1 and 2, IPSS in patients with WBC <13G/L, and prognostic factors published by the Groupe Francophone des Myélodysplasies (GFM) in CMML with WBC >13G/l (unfavorable factors included: palpable splenomegaly (SPM), Hb<10g/dl, Platelets<100G/l, marrow blasts>5%, abnormal karyotype, extramedullary disease) (Wattel et al, Blood 1996, 88:2480, Braun T., Blood 2011, online), interval between diagnosis and allo-SCT, and prior treatment were analyzed. Results: Patient characteristics at diagnosis were as follows: M/F 49/26, median age 53 yrs (range, 27–66). 30% pts had palpable SPM, 70% WBC>13×10^9/L. 48/12/9 pts had good/int/poor risk karyotype according to IPSS, including normal (n=47), monosomy 7 (n= 7) and abn 8 (n= 5). 61%pts had CMML1, and 39% CMML-2. Of the 22 patients with WBC<13G/l, six had int-2 and 1 had high risk IPSS, while of the 45 patients with WBC>13G/l, 37 had at least 2 of the GFM poor prognostic factors (see above). Before allo-SCT, 26 pts had received intensive anthracycline-cytarabine chemotherapy (CT), 21 low dose CT (18 HY, 3 VP16) and, 6 hypomethylating agents. Forty pts (56%) developed infection (bacterial or fungal) between diagnosis and allo-SCT. Median interval from diagnosis to allo-SCT was 10.6 mo (range 2.8–80). At time of allo-SCT, 26 pts (49%) had responded to therapy (19 CR and 7 PR), while 42 pts were treatment failure or in relapse, or had not been treated, including 5 AML progressions, (80% CMML1 and 13% CMML 2, while, in 52 pts with WBC <13 G/L, 8 and 6 had IPSS int-2 and high respectively, and, in 16 pts with WBC>13G/l, 9 had at least 2 GFM poor prognostic factors).19 pts still had palpable SPM before allo-SCT. The donor was an HLA-identical, unrelated and haploidentical sibling in 41/31/1 cases respectively. 30pts (41%) received a myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimen, while 43pts (59%) received reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC). With a median follow-up of 23 mo (1–145), grade 0–1 acute GVHD developed in 23 pts, grade 2–4 in 21 pts. Chronic GVHD was present in 25 pts (35%) (limited:15, extensive: 10; cum incidence: 37% at 3 yrs).The 2- and 3-yr OS were 42% and 32%, respectively. 45 patients had died (23 NRM, 19 disease progression, and 3 unrelated). The 3-yr cum incidence of NRM was 36%. The 3-yr relapse-free survival was 30%. OS was not influenced by the disease status at allo-SCT, including CMML1 vs CMML2, IPSS score (WBC<13G/l) and GFM score (WBC>13G/L), the number of prior treatments, HLA matching, cGVHD. However, palpable SPM at diagnosis was a negative prognostic factor for OS (2-yr OS: 57% vs.15%, p=0.009). 3-yr OS was 33% after MAC conditioning vs 49% after RIC conditioning (p=0.17). In multivariate analysis, the strongest prognostic factor for OS was palpable SPM at diagnosis (HR=2.79 95% CI: 1.38–5.68; p=0.005). Conclusion: Allo-SCT is a valid treatment option for CMML patients eligible to this treatment. Palpable SPM at diagnosis was the only independent negative prognostic factor. Most pts were however treated before the advent of hypomethylating agents. The use of RIC regimens combined to those agents (and possibly to other novel agents) prior and after allo-SCT may further improve outcome. Disclosures: Park: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Yakoub-Agha:celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cephalon: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Cytogenetics on the Outcome of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Survey from the Acute Leukemia Working Party (ALWP) of EBMT

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113799 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4639-4639

Author(s):

Monica Poiani ◽

Myriam Labopin ◽

Dietrich W. Beelen ◽

Johanna Tischer ◽

Jürgen Finke ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Stem Cell ◽

Prognostic Factor ◽

Stem Cell Transplantation ◽

Research Funding ◽

Risk Group ◽

Chronic Gvhd ◽

Risk Groups ◽

Intermediate Risk ◽

Free Survival

Abstract Introduction: Diagnostic karyotype is one of the most important determinants of initial response to treatment, remission duration and overall survival in Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML). Moreover, risk stratification of AML based on cytogenetic abnormalities is a key parameter for the success rate and outcome of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) in AML. However, while the prognostic significance of chromosomal abnormalities is well established during frontline therapy, its influence at time of salvage therapy in Primary Refractory (Ref) and Relapsed (Rel) AML and the role of allo-SCT in this subset, remains uncertain. Patients and methods: This was a survey from the EBMT registry which included adult AML patients undergoing allo-SCT for Ref/Rel AML from HLA-matched related or 9/10 - 10/10 unrelated donor (UD) between 2000 and 2017. Patients were stratified according to cytogenetic risk as defined by Grimwade et al. (Blood 2010). Primary endpoint was Leukemia-Free Survival (LFS). Secondary endpoints were relapse cumulative incidence (RI), non-relapse mortality (NRM), overall survival (OS), acute and chronic GVHD and GVHD-relapse-free Survival (GRFS). Results: 2089 patients with Ref AML (n=972) and Rel AML (n=1117) were analyzed: 154 patients had a favorable risk, 1283 were in intermediate risk and 652 had an adverse cytogenetic risk. Median follow-up was 49 months. Patients and transplant characteristics are summarized in table 1. Patients in the favorable risk group were younger and transplanted more frequently in first or second relapse. Patients in the adverse risk group received more frequently transplants from 9/10 UD. FLT3-ITD mutation was present in 18%, 43% and 16% of the favorable, intermediate and adverse risk groups, respectively (p<10-3). The 3 groups were not significantly different in terms of Karnosfky score, patient and CMV serology status and conditioning intensity (myeloablative or reduced). Outcome correlated with cytogenetic category, with a percentage of complete remission within 100 days after transplant of 79%, 69% and 61% (p<10-3), RI at 2 years were 42%, 51% and 61% (p<10-5), LFS and OS rates were 34%, 27%, 18% and 41%, 33%, 22% in favorable, intermediate and adverse risk group (p<10-5 for both LFS and OS), respectively. Non-relapse mortality, on the contrary, did not differ among the three groups (24%, 21% and 21%, respectively; p=NS). We performed a multivariate analysis adjusting for all factors differing between risk groups and factors known as influencing outcome of AML patients after allograft. Compared to the favorable risk group, intermediate risk group was associated with a higher RI (HR=1.58; 95% CI: 1.17-2.14; p=0.003), lower LFS (HR=1.39; 95% CI: 1.09-1.77; p=0.008), lower OS (HR=1;47; 95% CI: 1.14-1.90; p=0.003) and lower GRFS (HR=1;29; 95% CI: 1.03-1.61; p=0.03). The adverse risk group was associated with a higher RI (HR=2.27; 95% CI: 1.65-3.10; p<10-5), lower LFS (HR=1.86; 95% CI: 1.44-2.40; p<10-5), lower OS (HR=1.89; 95% CI: 1.44-2.47; p<10-5) and lower GRFS (HR=1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.06; p<10-4; Figure1). In a subgroup analysis of patients in intermediate or adverse risk groups with available information on FLT3-ITD status, adverse cytogenetics remained an important prognostic factor for RI (HR=1.55; 95% CI: 1.22-1.97; p=0.0004), LFS (HR=1.37; 95% CI: 1.12-1.68; p=0.002), OS (HR=1.38; 95% CI: 1.11-1.70; p=0.003) and GRFS (HR=1.31; 95% CI: 1.08-1.59; p=0.006) compared to the intermediate risk group. Other poor prognostic factors in this population were presence of FLT3-ITD mutation, Rel vs Ref status at transplant, Karnofsky score <80%, use of bone marrow as stem cell source and patient CMV serology positivity. In vivo T cell depletion was associated with a lower risk of acute and chronic GVHD and a better GRFS. Conclusion: In Rel and Ref AML karyotype remains an important prognostic factor for those patients undergoing allo-SCT in active disease phase, allowing to separate patients into different risk groups. Moreover, FLT3-ITD mutation remains a negative prognostic factor in this population. Disclosures Beelen: Medac: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support. Tischer:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Jazz Advisory Board. Finke:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Medac: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Neovii: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ganser:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mohty:MaaT Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Multicenter, Retrospective Evaluation of Therapeutic Efficacy of Ruxolitinib for Chronic Gvhd Treatment

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-136164 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 45-47

Author(s):

Jennifer White ◽

Nada Hamad ◽

Swe Mar Linn ◽

Igor Nicolas Novitzky-Basso ◽

Omar Abduljalil ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Retrospective Study ◽

Dose Reduction ◽

Clinical Benefit ◽

Acute Gvhd ◽

Chronic Gvhd ◽

Median Number ◽

Steroid Resistant ◽

Prednisone Dose ◽

Steroid Dose ◽

Heavily Pretreated

Background Several agents have been investigated for beyond second-line treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Ruxolitinib has been recently approved for steroid-refractory acute GVHD, while a prospective randomized study is ongoing to examine its efficacy in steroid-resistant chronic GVHD (cGVHD). The present study evaluated the efficacy of Ruxolitinib in terms of 1) overall response rate (ORR), 2) clinical benefit (CB), 3) dose reduction of corticosteroid exposure, 4) failure-free survival (FFS) and 5) overall survival (OS), in patients heavily pretreated for steroid-resistant cGVHD. Patients and methods A total of 47 patients who developed cGVHD after HCT and treated with Ruxolitinib for cGVHD from March 2016 to April 2020, at three different sites (Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Canada; Vancouver General Hospital, Canada and Saint Vincent Hospital, Australia), were evaluated in the retrospective study. Patients and disease characteristics are as follows: median age 52 years; classical 35 (71%), overlap syndrome 14 (29%). Of note, 27 patients (57.4%) had a previous history of acute GVHD. The ORR and CB were assessed at months 3, 6 and 12, retrospectively. Responses were evaluated according to NIH scoring/staging/response assessment as part of standard clinical practice. CB was assessed considering clinical response as well as steroid dose reduction. For systemic steroid dose reduction, prednisone dose per kg per day was captured prior to Ruxolitinib start, at months 3, 6 and 12. Treatment failure was defined as 1) resistance requiring treatment switch, 2) non-relapse mortality (NRM), 3) relapse, 4) intolerance to treatment. FFS and OS were calculated from the day of starting Ruxolitinib therapy for cGVHD treatment. Results A total of 47 patients had moderate (11/47, 24.4%) to severe (33/47, 73.3%) cGVHD except one who had mild grade cGVHD with a high-risk feature (thrombocytopenia at the time of Ruxolitinib start). The median number of organ involvement was 3 (range 1-7). Over half of patients (63.8%) received Ruxolitinib as 4th line or beyond for cGVHD treatment, while median number of previous lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-9). All 47 patients (100%) had been previously treated with systemic steroids; other previous treatments included ECP therapy (53.2%), Imatinib (29.8%), Ibrutinib (23.4%), Rituximab (21.3%). Ruxolitinib was started at 10-15 mg daily as initial dose, then maintained at 20mg daily in two divided doses on months 3, 6 and 12.With a median follow-up duration of 12 months, ORR was attained in 35.7%, 36.0% and 35.0% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively (Figure A). Of note, ORR in patients with sclerotic changes was 56%, and 61.5% in those with lung involvement. Patients resistant to TKI (i.e. Imatinib or Ibrutinib) for cGVHD treatment showed similar ORR compared to those naïve to TKI therapy.The CB was observed in 53.5%, 66.7% and 72.2% at months 3, 6 and 12, respectively (Figure B). Patients resistant to TKI for cGVHD treatment did not show any difference in CB compared to those naïve to TKI therapy.In terms of prednisone dose reduction, by 12 months , half of patients (50.0%) could taper prednisone doses below 0.1mg/kg/day, while the proportion of patients on prednisone dose below 0.1mg/kg/day was 9.3%, 20.0%, 17.4%, and 50.0% at month 0, 3, 6 and 12, respectively (Figure C). The group who achieved CB at 3 months showed a significantly lower dose of prednisone at 12 months (0.078mg/kg/day) compared to those without clinical benefit at 3 months (0.197mg/kg/day; p=0.033; Figure D).Out of 37 patients evaluated, 11 failures (29.7%) were noted, including resistance requiring a switch to other therapy (n=7), NRM (n=2) and intolerance (n=2). The FFS rate at 1 year in the overall population was 68.5% (Figure E). The FFS at 1 year in those having CB at 3 months vs not was 86.5% vs 51.4% (p=0.025).The OS at 1 year was 90.9% (Figure F). The OS at 1 year in those having a CB at 3 months vs not was 100% vs 78.8% (p=0.053). Conclusion: This multicenter retrospective study revealed that Ruxolitinib is an effective treatment option for patients with cGVHD, with good ORR and CB. The achievement of CB in the first 3 months correlated well with steroid dose reduction. It suggests that Ruxolitinib is a feasible GVHD treatment option, even for patients who were heavily pretreated for cGVHD or failed previous TKI drug. Figure 1 Disclosures Hamad: Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Ruxolitinib treatment for steroid resistant chronic GVHD

Download Full-text