blood and marrow transplant
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

427
(FIVE YEARS 84)

H-INDEX

49
(FIVE YEARS 5)

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3917-3917
Author(s):  
Jun Zou ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Yung-Tsi Bolon ◽  
Shahinaz M. Gadalla ◽  
Steven G.E. Marsh ◽  
...  

Abstract ABSTRACT BACKGROUND The number of haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantations (haplo-HSCT) being performed has substantially increased in recent years. Single-center studies have previously used in silico algorithms to quantitively measure HLA disparity and shown an association of the number of HLA molecular mismatches with relapse protection and/or increased risk of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in haplo-HSCT. However, inconsistent results from small studies have made it difficult to understand the full clinical impact of molecular mismatch in haplo-HSCT. OBJECTIVE In the current study, we investigated the potential of the HLA class I and II mismatched eplet (ME) score measured by HLAMatchmaker, as well as ME load at a specific locus to predict outcomes in a registry-based cohort of haplo-HSCT recipients. STUDY DESIGN We analyzed data from patients (n= 1,287) who underwent their first haplo-HSCT for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome between 2013 and 2017, as reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database. ME load at each HLA locus and total Class-I and -II were scored using the HLAMatchmaker module incorporated in HLA Fusion software v4.3, which identifies predicted eplets based on the crystalized HLA molecule models and identifies ME by comparing donor and recipient eplets. RESULTS In the cohort studied, ME scores derived from total HLA Class I or Class II loci or individual HLA loci were not associated with overall survival, disease-free survival, non-relapse mortality, relapse, acute or chronic GVHD (P< .01). An unexpected strong association was identified between total class II ME load in the GVH direction and slower neutrophil engraftment (HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75 - 0.91; P < .0001) and platelet engraftment (HR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72 - 0.88; P < .0001). This was likely attributable to ME load at the HLA-DRB1 locus, which was similarly associated with slower neutrophil engraftment (HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73 - 0.92; P = .001) and slower platelet engraftment (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70 - 0.84; P < .0001). Additional analyses suggested that this effect is attributable to matched vs. mismatched in the GVH direction and not to ME load, as there was no dose effect identified. CONCLUSION These findings contradict those of prior relatively small studies reporting that ME load, as quantified by HLAMatchmaker, was associated with haplo-HSCT outcomes. As the study failed to demonstrate the predictive value of ME from HLA molecules for major clinical outcomes, other molecular mismatch algorithms in haplo-HSCT settings should be tested. Disclosures Lee: Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; National Marrow Donor Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Other; Takeda: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 417-417
Author(s):  
Matthew Mei ◽  
Raju Pillai ◽  
Soyoung Kim ◽  
Noel Estrada-Merly ◽  
Michelle Afkhami ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Somatic mutations are an important prognostic factor in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). However, limited data are available regarding their impact on outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). In this registry analysis conducted via the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) as well as its sample repository, we analyzed the landscape of somatic mutations in patients with CMML and their impact on post-HCT outcomes. Methods Using the CIBTMR database, adult patients with CMML who underwent HCT from 2001-2017 with an available specimen in the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) repository were identified; samples were collected prior to the start of conditioning. Patients who received umbilical cord blood, syngeneic, or haploidentical HCT or patients with disease transformation to acute myeloid leukemia prior to HCT were excluded. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), relapse/progression, treatment-related mortality (TRM); survival outcomes were calculated from time of HCT. A mutation analysis for 131 genes recurrently mutated in myeloid disorders was performed. Results We identified 313 patients across 78 centers who met inclusion criteria with available samples. The median age was 64, and 69% were male. By World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, 53%, 20%, and 9% of patients had CMML-0, -1, and -2, respectively. By French-American-British (FAB) criteria, 76% of patients had dysplastic (MD)-CMML and 24% had proliferative (MP)-CMML. The majority (61%) had received hypomethylating therapy prior to HCT, and 76% of HCT were from a matched unrelated donor. Distribution of patients by CMML-specific prognostic scoring system (CPSS) score was 29% low, 25% intermediate-1, 31% intermediate-2, and 4% high (11% missing). Distribution of patients by clinical/molecular CPSS (CPSS-Mol) score was 12% low, 17% intermediate-1, 38% intermediate-2, and 25% high (8% missing). Of the 313 patients studied, 290 (93%) had 1+ pathogenic mutation identified, and the median number of mutations was 3. The most frequently mutated genes were ASXL1 (62%), TET2 (35%), KRAS/NRAS (33% combined), and SRSF2 (31%); TP53 was mutated in 3% of patients (Figure 1). U2AF1 mutations were significantly correlated with MD-CMML, and ASXL1, EZH2, KIT, and SRSF2 mutations were significantly correlated with MP-CMML. The CPSS score was correlated with OS and DFS on univariate analysis, and the CPSS-Mol score was correlated with OS and TRM (Figure 2). Neither scoring system was predictive for progression/relapse. In multivariable analysis, as compared to a CPSS score of low, intermediate-2 (hazard ratio [HR]=1.46, p=0.049) or high (HR=3.22, p=0.0004) correlated significantly with overall survival (OS) (table 1a). When CPSS-Mol was applied, a high score (HR=2, p=0.0079) correlated significantly with OS (table 1b). In multivariable analysis, DNMT3A and TP53 mutations were associated with decreased OS (HR=1.70, p=0.0147; and HR=2.72, p=0.0042, respectively) while DNMT3A, JAK2, and TP53 mutations were associated with decreased DFS (HR=1.66, p=0.0138; HR=1.79, p=0.0293; and HR=2.94, p=0.0018, respectively). The only mutation associated with increased relapse was TP53 (HR =2.94, p=0.0201). DNMT3A was associated with increased TRM(HR=1.89, p=0.0388) and PTPN11 was associated with decreased TRM (HR=0.205, p=0.0300). Goodness of fit was calculated by Harrell's C-index for CPSS and CPSS-Mol for OS, DFS, relapse, and TRM. For CPSS, the results were 0.56, 0.55, 0.52, and 0.56, respectively while for the CPSS-Mol they were 0.57, 0.55, 0.55, and 0.58, respectively. Conclusion Our study is the largest analysis of CMML patients who underwent HCT with paired mutation analysis. Via registry data we have provided the mutational landscape in patients with CMML who underwent HCT and demonstrated a strong association between CPSS-Mol and transplant outcomes although without major improvement in the risk prediction beyond the CPSS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mei: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; EUSA: Honoraria; Epizyme: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Research Funding. Sobecks: CareDX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Scott: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Saber: Govt. COI: Other.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3956-3956
Author(s):  
Claudio G. Brunstein ◽  
Paul V O'Donnell ◽  
Brent R. Logan ◽  
Luciano J. Costa ◽  
Corey Cutler ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND: Our group recently reported on the results of Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) Clinical Trials Network (CTN) 1101 a randomized comparison between double umbilical cord blood (dUCB) and haploidentical bone marrow (haplo) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (ptCy) in the nonmyeloablative setting that showed similar progression free survival (PFS) between the two treatment groups, but lower non-relapse mortality (NRM) and better of overall survival (OS) in the haplo arm. In this secondary analysis we sought to investigate if transplant center experience with haplo and or cord blood HCT had an impact on outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patient randomized in BMT CTN 1101 were included. In order to determine the transplant center experience with either haplo or dUCB we queried the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) for number of transplants with each platform in the year prior to initiation of the study. Centers were then grouped as dUCB center (> 10 dUCB, n=117, 10 centers), Haplo center (>10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB, n=110, 2 centers), and ≤10 haplo and ≤10 dUCB HCTs (other center, n=140, 21 centers). Further analysis considered the alternative cut-off for haplo (> 5 vs ≤ 5) experience, and considered the outcomes based on the donor experience vs. others (e.g. dUCB > 10 vs. ≤ 10; haplo > 5 vs. ≤ 5). RESULTS: The effect of center experience on HCT outcomes shown in Figure, below . After adjusting for age, Karnofsky performance score and, disease risk index we found that there was no difference in outcomes between haplo and dUCB for centers that were experienced with dUCB or had limited to no experience with either dUCB or haplo. In contrast, in centers that were primarily experienced with haplo had better outcomes with this donor type, as compared to dUCB. The higher risk of treatment failure (relapse or death) and overall mortality in dUCB in haplo experienced centers was driven by significantly higher risk of relapse. We then considered the transplant experience with each of the donor types separately. In transplant centers that had performed > 10 dUCB, there were similar outcomes for recipients of both dUCB and haplo. Similarly, centers that had ≤ 5 haplo HCTs had no difference in outcomes between donor types suggesting an overlap with centers that had performed > 10 dUCB HCTs. Overall mortality was higher among dUCB recipients in centers that had performed ≤ 10 dUCB. Notably, the hazard ratio of non-relapse mortality favored haplo in all four donor experience type of transplant center, albeit not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Except for dUCB recipients in centers with < 10 dUCB/year had worse overall mortality, primarily driven by relapse, the transplant center experience in the year prior to the initiation of BMT CTN 1101 had limited impact on the outcomes of this randomized clinical trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Brunstein: NANT: Research Funding; FATE: Research Funding; GamidaCell: Research Funding; BlueRock: Research Funding; AlloVir: Consultancy. Costa: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cutler: Deciphera: Consultancy; Cimeio: Consultancy; Editas: Consultancy; Kadmon: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Omeros: Consultancy; Syndax: Consultancy; Mesoblast: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Horowitz: Sobi: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mesoblast: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy; Actinium: Research Funding. Horwitz: Gamida Cell: Research Funding. McGuirk: Novartis: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rezvani: US Department of Justice: Consultancy; Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding. Rybka: Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Vasu: Kiadis, Inc.: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: Travel support; Seattle Genetics: Other: travel support; Omeros, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document