Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for advanced mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome. An updated experience of the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is a potentially curative treatment option in advanced-stage mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS). This study presents an updated analysis of the initial experience of the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) describing the outcomes after allo-HSCT for MF and SS, with special emphasis on the impact of the use of unrelated donors (URD). METHODS AND PATIENTS: Eligible for this study were patients with advanced-stage MF or SS who underwent a first allo-HSCT from matched HLA-identical related or URD between January/1997 and December/2011. Sixty patients have been previously reported. RESULTS: 113 patients were included [77 MF (68%)]; 61 (54%) were in complete or partial remission, 86 (76%) received reduced-intensity protocols and 44 (39%) an URD allo-HSCT. With a median follow up for surviving patients of 73 months, allo-HSCT resulted in an estimated overall survival (OS) of 38% at 5 years, and a progression-free survival (PFS) of 26% at 5 years. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that advanced-phase disease (complete remission/partial remission >3, primary refractory or relapse/progression in patients that had received 3 or more lines of systemic treatment prior to transplant or the number of treatment lines was not known), a short interval between diagnosis and transplant (<18 months) were independent adverse prognostic factors for PFS; advanced-phase disease and the use of URDs were independent adverse prognostic factors for OS. CONCLUSIONS: This extended series supports that allo-HSCT is able to effectively rescue over one third of the population of patients with advanced-stage MF/SS. High relapse rate is still the major cause of failure and needs to be improved with better strategies before and after transplant. The negative impact of URD is a matter of concern and needs to be further elucidated in future studies.

Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: Update on the Mechanisms of Leukemogenesis, Resistance and on Innovative Treatment Strategies.

This review highlights new findings that have deepened our understanding of the mechanisms of leukemogenesis, therapy and resistance in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). Promyelocytic leukemia-retinoic acid receptor α (PML-RARa) sets the cellular landscape of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) by repressing the transcription of RARa target genes and disrupting PML-NBs. The RAR receptors control the homeostasis of tissue growth, modeling and regeneration, and PML-NBs are involved in self-renewal of normal and cancer stem cells, DNA damage response, senescence and stress response. The additional somatic mutations in APL mainly involve FLT3, WT1, NRAS, KRAS, ARID1B and ARID1A genes. The treatment outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed APL improved dramatically since the advent of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). ATRA activates the transcription of blocked genes and degrades PML-RARα, while ATO degrades PML-RARa by promoting apoptosis and has a pro-oxidant effect. The resistance to ATRA and ATO may derive from the mutations in the RARa ligand binding domain (LBD) and in the PML-B2 domain of PML-RARa, but such mutations cannot explain the majority of resistances experienced in the clinic, globally accounting for 5-10% of cases. Several studies are ongoing to unravel clonal evolution and resistance, suggesting the therapeutic potential of new retinoid molecules and combinatorial treatments of ATRA or ATO with different drugs acting through alternative mechanisms of action, which may lead to synergistic effects on growth control or the induction of apoptosis in APL cells.

Recommendations for screening, monitoring, prevention, prophylaxis and therapy of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with haematologic malignancies and patients who underwent haematologic stem cell transplantation-a position paper

SCOPE: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection reactivation is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with haematologic malignancy and/or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, information on this issue is limited. The scope of this position paper is to provide recommendations on HBV screening, monitoring, prophylaxis, treatment and vaccination in the patients described above. METHODS: These recommendations were developed from one meeting of experts attended by different Italian scientific societies as well as from a systematic literature review (of articles published through December 31, 2016) on HBV infection in haematologic patients and in patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation published in the same issue of the journal. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess each recommendation's quality. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED: These recommendations provide the answers to the following questions: (a) HBV screening and monitoring: Who should be screened before chemotherapy? Which screening tests should be used? Should HBV-DNA detection be used to monitor HBV reactivation before starting antivirals? What is the best timeline to monitor HBV reactivation? (b) Prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive patients: Which antiviral drugs should be used to treat HBsAg-positive patients? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided to HBsAg-positive patients? (c) Prophylaxis in patients with resolved HBV infection: Which patients with resolved HBV infection should receive antiviral prophylaxis? Which antiviral drug should be used? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided? (d) HBV infection management strategy in autologous (auto-HSCT) and allogeneic HSCT (allo-HSCT): Which HSCT recipients should receive antiviral prophylaxis? Which antiviral drug should be used? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided? (e) Choice of antiviral drugs in the treatment of HBV reactivation: Should third-generation anti-HBV drugs be preferred to first- or second-generation antiviral drugs in the treatment of HBV reactivation with or without hepatitis flare in haematologic patients? (f) Immunization against HBV in patients with haematologic malignancies and/or patients who underwent HSCT: Should these patients be vaccinated? Which HBV vaccination schedule should be adopted? RECOMMENDATIONS: Haematologic patients should be screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) plus anti-hepatitis B core protein (HBc), and HBV DNA before chemotherapy. HBV DNA levels should be monitored monthly in all HBV-positive patients who do not receive prophylaxis. HBsAg-positive haematologic patients and those undergoing HSCT should receive third-generation antiviral therapy as prophylaxis. Anti-HBc-positive lymphoma patients and those receiving HSCT should receive antiviral prophylaxis. All HBV-negative haematologic patients should be vaccinated for HBV. The acquisition of data from well-designed studies is desirable in the near future.

Recommendations for screening, monitoring, prevention, prophylaxis and therapy of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with haematologic malignancies and patients who underwent haematologic stem cell transplantation-a position paper.

SCOPE: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection reactivation is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with haematologic malignancy and/or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, information on this issue is limited. The scope of this position paper is to provide recommendations on HBV screening, monitoring, prophylaxis, treatment and vaccination in the patients described above. METHODS: These recommendations were developed from one meeting of experts attended by different Italian scientific societies as well as from a systematic literature review (of articles published through December 31, 2016) on HBV infection in haematologic patients and in patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation published in the same issue of the journal. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess each recommendation's quality. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED: These recommendations provide the answers to the following questions: (a) HBV screening and monitoring: Who should be screened before chemotherapy? Which screening tests should be used? Should HBV-DNA detection be used to monitor HBV reactivation before starting antivirals? What is the best timeline to monitor HBV reactivation? (b) Prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive patients: Which antiviral drugs should be used to treat HBsAg-positive patients? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided to HBsAg-positive patients? (c) Prophylaxis in patients with resolved HBV infection: Which patients with resolved HBV infection should receive antiviral prophylaxis? Which antiviral drug should be used? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided? (d) HBV infection management strategy in autologous (auto-HSCT) and allogeneic HSCT (allo-HSCT): Which HSCT recipients should receive antiviral prophylaxis? Which antiviral drug should be used? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided? (e) Choice of antiviral drugs in the treatment of HBV reactivation: Should third-generation anti-HBV drugs be preferred to first- or second-generation antiviral drugs in the treatment of HBV reactivation with or without hepatitis flare in haematologic patients? (f) Immunization against HBV in patients with haematologic malignancies and/or patients who underwent HSCT: Should these patients be vaccinated? Which HBV vaccination schedule should be adopted? RECOMMENDATIONS: Haematologic patients should be screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) plus anti-hepatitis B core protein (HBc), and HBV DNA before chemotherapy. HBV DNA levels should be monitored monthly in all HBV-positive patients who do not receive prophylaxis. HBsAg-positive haematologic patients and those undergoing HSCT should receive third-generation antiviral therapy as prophylaxis. Anti-HBc-positive lymphoma patients and those receiving HSCT should receive antiviral prophylaxis. All HBV-negative haematologic patients should be vaccinated for HBV. The acquisition of data from well-designed studies is desirable in the near future.

A comparison between allogeneic stem cell transplantation from unmanipulated haploidentical and unrelated donors in acute leukemia.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of a HLA-matched related or matched unrelated donor, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) from mismatched unrelated donors or haploidentical donors are potential alternatives for patients with acute leukemia with an indication to allo-SCT. The objective of this study was to compare the outcome of allo-SCT from T cell-replete haploidentical (Haplo) versus matched (MUD 10/10) or mismatched unrelated donor at a single HLA-locus (MMUD 9/10) for patients with acute leukemia in remission. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-five adult patients with de novo acute leukemia in first or second remission that received a Haplo-SCT between January 2007 and December 2013 were compared with 2490 patients receiving a MUD 10/10 and 813 receiving a MMUD 9/10. Propensity score weighted analysis was conducted in order to control for disease risk imbalances between the groups. RESULTS: The weighted 3-year non-relapse mortality and relapse incidence were 29 and 30% for Haplo, 21 and 29% for MUD 10/10, and 29 and 25% for MMUD 9/10, respectively. The weighted 3-year leukemia-free survival (LFS) and overall survival (OS) were 41 and 46% for Haplo, 50 and 56% for MUD 10/10, and 46 and 48% for MMUD 9/10, respectively. Using weighted Cox model, both LFS and OS were significantly higher in transplants from MUD 10/10 compared from those in Haplo but not different between transplants from MMUD 9/10 and Haplo. The type of donor was not significantly associated with neither acute nor chronic graft-versus-host disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acute leukemia in remission have better outcomes if transplanted from a MUD 10/10. We did not find any significant difference in outcome between transplants from MMUD 9/10 and Haplo, suggesting that both can be equally used in the absence of a 10/10 MUD. KEY POINT 1: Better outcomes using fully (10/10) matched unrelated donor for allo-SCT in acute leukemia in remission. KEY POINT 2: Similar outcomes after allo-SCT from unmanipulated haploidentical graft or mismatched (9/10) unrelated donor in acute leukemia in remission.

Factors predicting outcome after allogeneic transplant in refractory acute myeloid leukemia: a retrospective analysis of Gruppo Italiano Trapianto di Midollo Osseo (GITMO).

The clinical outcome of primary refractory (PRF) AML patients is poor and only a minor proportion of patients is rescued by allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The identification of pre-HSCT variables may help to determine PRF AML patients who can most likely benefit from HSCT. We analyzed PRF AML patients transplanted between 1999 and 2012 from a sibling, unrelated donor or a cord blood unit. Overall, 227 patients from 26 Gruppo Italiano Trapianto di Midollo Osseo e Terapia cellulare centers were included in the analysis. At 3 years, the overall survival was 14%. By multivariate analysis, the number of chemotherapy cycles, (hazard ratio (HR): 1.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.24-2.85; P=0.0028), the percentage of bone marrow or peripheral blood blasts (HR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.16-2.64; P=0.0078), the adverse cytogenetic (HR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.00-2.07; P=0.0508) and the age of patients (HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.08-2.88; P=0.0223) remained significantly associated with survival. Thus, we set up a new score predicting at 3 years after transplantation, an overall survival probability of 32% for patients with score 0 (no or 1 prognostic factor), 10% for patients with score 1 (2 prognostic factors) and 3% for patients with score 2 (3 or 4 prognostic factors).

Therapeutic efficiency of platelet gel for the treatment of oral ulcers related to chronic graft versus host disease after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Platelet (PLT) gel has been successfully used in tissue regeneration of diabetic and surgical wounds through the releasing of growth factors such as basic fibroblast and PLT-derived growth factors. Based on this background, our previous clinical trial have assessed the feasibility and efficacy of PLT gel for the treatment of muco-cutaneous lesions related to graft versus host disease (GvHD) after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantion (HSCT). The promising results reported in a small series of 6 patients, of whom 1 with oral ulcers, represent the rationale of the present study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The aim of this study was to verify the efficacy and safety of PLT gel for treating oral ulcers due to chronic GvHD. Allogeneic hemocomponents were used to obtain PLT gel with an automated system for the on-site preparation and application of patient (autologous) or healthy blood donor (allogeneic)-derived fibrin sealant or PLT-rich fibrin (Vivostat system, Vivostat A/S). Ten patients with multiple oral lesions related to chronic GvHD underwent allogeneic PLT gel as local therapy alone or in combination with systemic therapy in half of the cases. RESULTS: After the second PLT gel application, all patients resumed the feeding and a significant improvement of the oral pain was observed. After a median of five PLT gel applications (range, 2-15), 7 out of 10 patients showed a complete response. No side effects were documented. CONCLUSION: These data confirm that the PLT gel may be used as a safe and effective tool, alone or in combination with systemic therapy, for the treatment of mucosal lesions of mouth related to cGvHD.

Identification of oral risk factors for chronic graft versus host disease in haematological patients who underwent allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective observational study was to identify local risk factors for the development of clinical manifestations of oral chronic Graft versus Host Disease (cGvHD) in a cohort of patients affected by haematological malignant diseases who underwent allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the context of an active collaboration between the Rome Transplant Network of the Hematology and the Oral Pathology Division at "Policlinico Tor Vergata", in Rome, 47 haematological patients were included in this trial based on a systematic dental screening and follow-up protocol. The dental checks were planned 1 month before the transplant procedure while the subsequent follow ups were scheduled on day +100, +180, +365 and + 730 after the transplant. The tool used for the dental checks was a detailed report including all the potential oral features responsible of mechanical, chemical or infective injuries, except for the drugs. RESULTS: Overall, 64% of patients (N=30) did not perform dental hygiene during the screening pre-transplant and 53% (25/47) developed cGvHD with oral involvement. The most part of patients (84%) who experienced oral manifestations of cGvHD during the follow-up period after HSCT did not perform dental hygiene before the transplant procedure. Moreover, the comparison between the "presence" or "absence" of dental hygiene before the allogeneic HSCT showed a statistical significant increasing during the follow-up period in the occurrence of oral lesions due to the cGvHD for patients who lack pre-transplant dental care (p=0.029).On the contrary, the frequency of the other factors such as malocclusions, fractured teeth, incongruous prosthesis, food, smoke, alcol and bad habits, resulted similar between the group with or without typical oral lesions of cGvHD. CONCLUSIONS: The prevention of oral infectious complications provided by primary and secondary dental cares can result in a great benefit for haematological patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT. The combined hematological and dental management represents a clinical need before and after allogeneic HSCT for the removal of inconvenient issues with impact on the short and long-term outcome. Poor dental hygiene seems to be a local risk factor for the development of oral lesions due to cGvHD. However, a larger cohort of patients is necessary to confirm these preliminary data and to evaluate the best preventive and therapeutic oral hygiene protocol in this specific setting.

Persistent risk of HBV reactivation despite extensive lamivudine prophylaxis in haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients who are anti-HBc-positive or HBV-negative recipients with an anti-HBc-positive donor.

The overall rate of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation was evaluated in a population of 373 haematological stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients treated with lamivudine (LMV) if they were anti-HBc-positive/HBV-DNA-negative recipients or if they were HBV-negative recipients with an anti-HBc-positive donor. The incidence of HBV reactivation was calculated in two groups of autologous (auto) or allogeneic (allo) HSCT patients who were stratified according to their HBV serostatus. The former group included 57 cases: 10 auto-HSCT and 27 allo-HSCT anti-HBc-positive recipients, two auto-HSCT and three allo-HSCT inactive carriers, and 15 allo-HSCT recipients with an anti-HBc-positive donor. Forty-seven (82.4%) patients in this group received LMV prophylaxis (the median (interquartile range, IQR) of LMV treatment was 30 (20-38) months). The second group consisted of 320 anti-HBc-negative auto-HSCT and allo-HSCT recipients with anti-HBc-negative donors. None of these patients received any prophylaxis. Two patients in the first group and two in the second group experienced reactivation of HBV infection, with an incidence of 3.5% (95% CI 0.4-12.1%) and 0.6% (95% CI 0.1-2.2%), respectively. Only one out of four reactivated patients was LMV-treated. The cumulative probability of HBV reactivation at 6 years from HSCT was 15.8% (95% CI 15.2-16.4%). Three of four viral isolates obtained from the HBV-reactivated patients harboured mutations in the immune-active HBsAg-region. In a HSCT population carefully evaluated for HBV prophylaxis, a risk of HBV reactivation persisted in the group of patients who were not LMV-treated. Only one LMV-treated patient experienced reactivation of HBV with a resistant HBV isolate.

Is there a stronger graft-versus-leukemia effect using HLA-haploidentical donors compared with HLA-identical siblings?

Haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) are increasingly used, but it is unknown whether they have a stronger graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect. We analyzed 10 679 acute leukemia patients who underwent HSCT from an HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD, n=9815) or a haploidentical donor (⩾2 HLA-antigen disparity, n=864) between 2007 and 2012, reported to the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. In a Cox regression model, acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was added as time-dependent variables. There was no difference in probability of relapse between recipients of haploidentical and MSD grafts. Factors of importance for relapse after T-cell-replete grafts included remission status at HSCT, Karnofsky score ⩽80, acute GVHD of grade II or higher and chronic GVHD (P<10(-5)). Patients with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (n=194) had similar outcome as other T-cell-replete haploidentical transplants (n=369). Non-relapse mortality was significantly higher in the haploidentical group compared with that in MSD patients (P<10(-5)). Leukemia-free survival was superior in the MSD patients receiving T-cell-replete (P<10(-5)) or T-cell-depleted grafts (P=0.0006). The risk of relapse was the same in acute leukemia patients who received haploidentical donor grafts as in those given MSD transplants, suggesting a similar GVL effect.

Haploidentical, G-CSF-primed, unmanipulated bone marrow transplantation for patients with high-risk hematological malignancies: an update.

Ninety-seven patients affected by high-risk hematological malignancies underwent G-CSF primed, unmanipulated bone marrow (BM) transplantation from a related, haploidentical donor. All patients were prepared with an identical conditioning regimen including Thiotepa, Busilvex, Fludarabine (TBF) and antithymocyte globulin given at myeloablative (MAC = 68) or reduced (reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) = 29) dose intensity and received the same GvHD prophylaxis consisting of the combination of methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycofenolate-mofetil and basiliximab. Patients were transplanted in 1st or 2nd CR (early phase: n = 60) or in > 2nd CR or active disease (advanced phase: n = 37). With a median time of 21 days (range 12-38 days), the cumulative incidence (CI) of neutrophil engraftment was 94 ± 3%. The 100-day CI of III-IV grade acute GvHD and the 2-year CI of extensive chronic GvHD were 9 ± 3% and 12 ± 4%, respectively. Overall, at a median follow-up of 2.2 years (range 0.3-5.6), 44 out of 97 (45%) patients are alive in CR. The 5-year probability of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for patients in early and advanced phase was 53 ± 7 vs 24 ± 8% (P = 0.006) and 48 ± 7 vs 22 ± 8% (P = 0.01), respectively. By comparing MAC with RIC patient groups, the transplant-related mortality was equivalent (36 ± 6 vs 28 ± 9%) while the relapse risk was lower for the MAC patients (22 ± 6 vs 45 ± 11%), who showed higher OS (48 ± 7 vs 29 ± 10%) and DFS (43 ± 7 vs 26 ± 10%). However, all these differences did not reach a statistical significance. In multivariate analysis, diagnosis and recipient age were significant factors for OS and DFS. In conclusion, this analysis confirms, on a longer follow-up and higher number of patients, our previous encouraging results obtained by using MAC and RIC TBF regimen as conditioning for G-CSF primed, unmanipulated BM transplantation from related, haploidentical donor in patients with high-risk hematological malignancies, lacking an HLA-identical sibling or unrelated donor and in need to be urgently transplanted.

Comparison of outcomes after unrelated cord blood and unmanipulated haploidentical stem cell transplantation in adults with acute leukemia.

Outcomes after unmanipulated haploidentical stem cell transplantation (Haplo) and after unrelated cord blood transplantation (UCBT) are encouraging and have become alternative options to treat patients with high-risk acute leukemia without human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matched donor. We compared outcomes after UCBT and Haplo in adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Median follow-up was 24 months. Analysis was performed separately for patients with AML, n=918 (Haplo=360, UCBT=558) and ALL, n=528 (Haplo=158 and UCBT=370). UCBT was associated with delayed engraftment and higher graft failure in both AML and ALL recipients. In multivariate analysis, UCBT was associated with lower incidence of chronic graft-vs-host disease both in the AML group (hazard ratio (HR)=0.63, P=0.008) and in the ALL group (HR=0.58, P=0.01). Not statistically significant differences were observed between Haplo and UCBT for relapse incidence (HR=0.95, P=0.76 for AML and HR=0.82, P=0.31 for ALL), non-relapse mortality (HR=1.16, P=0.47 for AML and HR=1.23, P=0.23 for ALL) and leukemia-free survival (HR 0.78, P=0.78 for AML and HR=1.00, P=0.84 for ALL). There were no statistically differences on main outcomes after unmanipulated Haplo and UCBT, and both approaches are valid for acute leukemia patients lacking a HLA matched donor. Both strategies expand the donor pool for patients in need.