scholarly journals Precision Medicine at Work: Genetic Profiling to Guide Stem-Cell Transplantation in Myelodysplastic Syndromes

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sioban Keel
2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 566-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio A. Giralt ◽  
Mary Horowitz ◽  
Daniel Weisdorf ◽  
Corey Cutler

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) comprise a heterogeneous group of clonal hematopoietic stem-cell disorders that result in varying degrees of cytopenia and risk of transformation into acute leukemia. Allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (SCT) is the only known cure for this disease. The treatment is routinely used for younger patients, but only a minority of patients older than the age of 60 undergo this procedure. The overall MDS incidence is 3.3 per 100,000, but the incidence in patients older than age 70 is between 15 and 50 per 100,000. The median age at presentation is 76 years. Medicare-age patients 65 or older represent 80% of the total population receiving an MDS diagnosis. In the United States, one of the obstacles to SCT for older patients with MDS has been lack of third party reimbursement. On August 4, 2010, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released their Decision Memo for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT) for Myelodysplastic Syndrome. This memo states: “Allogeneic HSCT for MDS is covered by Medicare only for beneficiaries with MDS participating in an approved clinical study that meets the criteria below…. ” In this review, we will summarize what is known regarding the role of allogeneic SCT in older patients as well as other elements that should be included within clinical trials that can provide the evidence necessary to demonstrate that allogeneic SCT should be a covered benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.


2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 25-28
Author(s):  
Fernando Barroso Duarte ◽  
Talyta Ellen de Jesus dos Santos ◽  
Maritza Cavalcante Barbosa ◽  
Jacques Kaufman ◽  
João Paulo de Vasconcelos ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT The hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the only curative alternative for Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS), but many patients are not eligible for this treatment, as there are several limiting factors, especially in the case of patients with low-risk MDS. The aim of this study is to discuss the factors that can guide the decision-making on referring or not a patient to HSCT. Three cases of MDS, two of which were submitted to HSCT are presented. We intend to report the difficulties in referring patients with MDS to transplant and the prognostic factors that contribute to define eligibility.


2014 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana L. Basquiera ◽  
Silvia Pizzi ◽  
Agustín González Correas ◽  
Pablo G. Longo ◽  
Wanda C. Goldman ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 3806-3806
Author(s):  
Yundeok Kim ◽  
Lee Je Hwang ◽  
Inho Kim ◽  
Jang Joon Ho ◽  
Hyeoung Joon Kim ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3806 Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) is the only curative modality for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Recently, treatment paradigm has changed since the introduction of hypomethylating agent (HMA) to treatment of MDS. There is little known about effect of HMA to transplant outcome and appropriate dose and schedule when used as bridging therapy to alloHCT. Therefore this retrospective multicenter study aimed to assess the effect of pre-transplant HMA on transplant outcome and aimed to determinate the patient who would benefit from pre-transplant HMA therapy. Method: Medical record of 113 patients (male n=69; female n=44) were reviewed. Patients who received alloHCT from 2007 to 2010 were enrolled regardless of pre-transplant HMA therapy. Five institutions participated. Primary endpoint event-free survival (EFS) after alloHCT. Second endpoint was engraftment after alloHCT. Analysis was done by HMA versus non-HMA. Results: Eighty-five of the 113 patients were treated with HMA before HSCT (51 with Azacitidine (AZA), 30 with Decitabine (DCT) and 4 with both alternatively). Twenty-eight patients received alloHCT without HMA bridging. The median age 47 (range 20–69) for HMA group and 42 (range 17–64) for non-HMA group (P=0.035). Distribution of WHO classification group and IPSS score were similar criteria (P=0.230 and P=0.328), For HMA group, median number of HMA administration was 5 cycles (range 1∼20). Among HMA treated patients, 21 (18.5 %) achieved complete response (CR) or marrow CR (mCR) and 4 (3.5 %) achieved partial response (PR). For all patients, median EFS was 29 ± 2 months. IPSS score at diagnosis(Low/Intermediate (INT)-1 vs. INT-2/High) affected overall survival (OS) after alloHCT (32 ± 3 vs. 25 ± 4 months, respectively; P=0.020). Pre-transplant HMA didn't affect OS (P=0.771) and there was also no difference between AZA and DCT (P=0.60). However, for patient with high blast count (>5% of bone marrow at diagnosis) pre-transplant HMA therapy had a benefit of 1-yr EFS (16.7 % for non-HMA vs. 67.9 % for HMA, P=0.126) Median time to neutrophil engraftment was 28 (range, 2∼380 days) for HMA and 12 (range, 7∼18 days) for non-HMA (P=0.031). Median time for platelet engraftment was 35 for HMA group and 19 for non-HMA group (P=0.052). Effect of HMA to graft-versus-host disease or graft failure was uncertain. Conclusion: Benefit of bridging therapy of HMA before alloHCT was not definite by this retrospective study. However for a proportion of patients with high leukemic burden, HMA tended to have benefit for post-HCT EFS. There was considerable delay of engraftment among HMA treated patients. Therefore, pre-HCT bridging HMA therapy may not be appropriate for all MDS patients. Prospective trial is required to confirm the benefit and effect of HMA bridging therapy to alloHCT. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4647-4647
Author(s):  
Jennifer Schemenau ◽  
Kathrin Nachtkamp ◽  
Blanca Xicoy ◽  
Andrea Kuendgen ◽  
Corinna Strupp ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Clinical course, prognosis, and therapy are heterogeneous in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Iron chelation, epigenetic treatment, lenalidomide, and allogeneic stem cell transplantation are the only approved therapies. As these treatments are successful only in a minority of patients, other approaches, which do not always meet the criteria of evidence-based medicine, are also used in an individualized manner. In order to get a comprehensive picture of MDS treatment we analysed 1021 patients who were treated between 2007 and 2013. We included patients with RAEB-T (5%) and CMML (10%). Treatment regimens were inititated at our department. Methods: Diagnoses were established within the Düsseldorf MDS Registry. All treatments were documented until 31 Dec 2013. Prognostic risk assessment was performed according to the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) and its revised version (IPSS-R). Results: Median age was 68 years (18-93 years), 13.5 % of patients were >80 years of age. 41% were diagnosed as RCMD, 12% as RAEB I, 15% as RAEB II, 4% as MDSdel(5q), 5% as RARS, and 9% as RCUD. Anemia was present at first diagnosis in 62.5%, hemorrhagic diathesis in 10%, and at least one comorbidity in 51%. Transfusion therapy was the only treatment in 57% of the patients. 43% (n=441) received at least one specific treatment during the course of the disease. The median number of different therapies was 2 (range 1-9). Of these, 29.9% received cytokines (Epo, G-CSF), 14.4% iron chelation, 11.0% immunomodulation (lenalidomide, thalidomide), 8.7% immuno­suppressive treatment (ATG, CSA, AntiCD52), 16.4% cytoreduction (Ara-C, hydroxyurea), and 16.4% valproic acid as a histone-deacetylating agent (HDAC), partly in combination with all-trans retinoic acid. 28.3% were treated with hypomethylating agents (5-azacytidine, decitabine), 14.6% with induction chemotherapy, and 31.1% underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation. 5,2 % of the patients were treated within clinical trials. Treatment approaches were distributed among IPSS risk groups as follows: cytokines (low: 55.6%/ intermediate-1: 32.8% /intermediate-2: 24.1%/ high: 9.1%), chelation (18.1%/20.9%/8.9%/4.5%), epigenetic treatment (HMA) (6.9%/19.4%/48.1%/54.5%), immunmodulation (19.4%/13.4%/7.6%/2.3%), immunosuppressive treatment (5.6%/17.2%/2.5%/0.0%), HDA (26.4%/16.4% /11.4%/13.6%), induction chemotherapy (5.6%/9.7%/20.3%/34.1%), cyto-reduction (9.7%/13.4%/20.3%/13.6%), and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (13.9%/32.8%/48.1%/54.5%). Using the IPSS-R, results were similar: cytokines (very low: 62.5%/low: 38.0%/intermediate:25.3%/high: 29.6%/very high:11.5%), chelation (15.6%/26.0%/10.1%/14.8%/5.8%), epigenetic treatment (HMA)(6.3%/8.0%/ 30.4%/40.7%/44.2%), immunmodulation (9.4%/18.0%/7.6%/7.4%/5.8%), immunosuppression (9.4%/11.0%/16.5%/3.7%/3.8%), HDA (21.9%/26.0% /13.9 %/11.1%/15.4%), induction chemotherapy (6.3%/7.0%/17.7%/20.4%/26.9%), cytoreduction (12.5%/11.0%/20.3%/14.8%/15.4%) and allogeneic transplan-tation (15.6%/22.0%/36.7%/48.1%/50.0%). More than 96% of the patients who were treated with HMA, induction chemotherapy or allogeneic transplantation had high-risk MDS (at least IPSS intermediate II) either at diagnosis or during the course of the disease. Conclusions: Our survey shows that off-label treatment is frequent in MDS because there is still a lack of efficient therapies for many patients. During the observation period several treatment modalities were employed, varying in number and type according to IPSS and IPSS-R risk groups.Although numerous clinical trials with new compounds were initiated over the last few years, only a minority of MDS patients were eligible to participate. In the future, a further increase in clinical trial activity will hopefully allow a greater proportion of MDS patients to get access to effective treatment. Disclosures Xicoy: Celgene: Honoraria. Kuendgen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kobbe:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medac: Other; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii: Other. Gattermann:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Germing:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document