Outcomes following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation relapse in Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Improved first progression-free survival following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation relapse with the use of immunotherapy.

Toxicities associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor maintenance following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) offers a potential cure in Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL); nonetheless, relapses are common and the major cause of mortality. One strategy to prevent relapse is tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) maintenance post-HCT, but published clinical experience is primarily with the first-generation TKI imatinib while data with newer generation TKIs are limited. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 185 Ph+ ALL patients who underwent HCT followed by TKI maintenance from 2003 to 2021 at City of Hope. Initially, 50 (27.0%) received imatinib, 118 (63.8%) received a second-generation TKI (2G-TKI), and 17 (9.2%) received ponatinib. A total of 77 patients (41.6%) required a dose reduction of their initial TKI due to toxicity. Sixty-six patients (35.7%) did not complete maintenance due to toxicity; 69 patients (37.3%) discontinued 1 TKI, and 11 (5.9%) discontinued 2 TKIs due to toxicity. Initial imatinib versus 2G-TKI versus ponatinib maintenance was discontinued in 19 (38.0%) versus 68 (57.6%) versus 3 (17.6%) patients due to toxicity (p = .003), respectively. Patients on ponatinib as their initial TKI had a longer duration of TKI maintenance versus 2G-TKI: 576.0 days (range, 72-921) versus 254.5 days (range, 3-2740; p = .02). The most common reasons for initial TKI discontinuation include gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance (15.1%), cytopenia (8.6%), and fluid retention (3.8%). The 5-year overall survival and progression-free survival for the total population were 78% and 71%, respectively. Our findings demonstrate the challenges of delivering post-HCT TKI maintenance in a large real-world cohort as toxicities leading to TKI interruptions, discontinuation, and dose reduction were common.

Comparing the risk of severe oral mucositis associated with methotrexate as graft-versus host-disease prophylaxis to other immunosuppressive prophylactic agents in hematopoietic cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study examines the risk of severe oral mucositis (SOM) in graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis (GVHD) compared to other agents in hematopoietic cell transplantation patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search of four databases, including PubMed, Embassy, Web of Science, and Scopus, was conducted to identify studies reporting frequency and severity of oral mucositis in association with GVHD prophylactic regimens. RevMan 5.4 was used to perform the meta-analysis. Risk of bias assessment was carried out using the Rob-2 tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. RESULTS: Twenty-five papers, including 11 RCTs and 14 observational studies, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results from eight RCTs showed a higher risk of SOM in patients receiving MTX or MTX-inclusive GVHD prophylaxis versus non-MTX alternatives (RR = 1.50, 95% CI [1.20, 1.87], I2 = 36%, P = 0.0003). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and post-transplant cyclophosphamide (Pt-Cy) consistently showed lower risk of mucositis than MTX. Folinic acid (FA) rescue and mini-dosing of MTX were associated with reduced oral mucositis severity. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving MTX have a higher SOM risk compared to other approaches to prevent GVHD, which should be considered in patient care. When appropriate, MMF, FA, and a mini-dose of MTX may be an alternative that is associated with less SOM. This work also underlines the scarcity of RCTs on MTX interventions to provide the best evidence-based recommendations.

Impact of Antifungal Prophylaxis Continuation or Discontinuation After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant on the Incidence of Invasive Mold Infection.

Background: Continuing antifungal prophylaxis (AFPx) to prevent invasive mold infections (IMIs) in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) after primary hospital discharge from alloHCT admission varies among transplant centers despite recommendations to continue prophylaxis through day +75. Characteristics driving AFPx prescribing at hospital discharge and outcomes are unknown. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed patients continuing AFPx vs no AFPx at hospital discharge. We included patients with a hospital stay ≥7 days and ≤40 days. We excluded patients with a history of IMI prior to alloHCT, new IMI during admission, or death prior to discharge. Our primary objective was incidence of probable or proven IMI per the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. Our secondary objectives were nonrelapse mortality at day +100, overall survival at day +100, and characteristics driving AFPx discontinuation at hospital discharge. Results: Of the 430 patients identified, 387 met inclusion criteria. At discharge, 56% (217/387) continued AFPx, and 44% (170/387) had no AFPx. At day +100, 3 probable IMI cases occurred in the group with continued AFPx vs 1 probable IMI case in the no-AFPx group (no proven IMI). Univariate analysis showed no difference in cumulative incidence of probable IMI (P = .440), nonrelapse mortality (P = .072), and overall survival (P = .855) between groups. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that patients were less likely to continue AFPx if they had a diagnosis other than acute myeloid leukemia, a length of stay ≤30 days, acute graft-vs-host disease grade 0 or 1, and corticosteroid use ≤5 days. Conclusions: There was no difference in probable IMI at day +100 after alloHCT based on continuing vs discontinuing AFPx at hospital discharge after alloHCT admission supporting a risk-adapted prophylaxis approach.