Full donor chimerism after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cells transplant for myelofibrosis: The role of the conditioning regimen.

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the rate of full donor chimerism (F-DC) in patients with myelofibrosis, prepared for an allogeneic stem cell transplant, with one or two alkylating agents. We analyzed 120 patients with myelofibrosis, for whom chimerism data were available on day +30. There were two groups: 42 patients were conditioned with one alkylating agent (ONE-ALK), either thiotepa or busulfan or melphalan, in combination with fludarabine, whereas 78 patients were prepared with two alkylating agents, thiotepa busulfan and fludarabine (TBF). Patients receiving TBF were older (57 vs 52 years), were less frequently splenectomized pre-HSCT (31% vs 59%), had more frequently intermediate-2/high DIPSS scores (90% vs 74%), were grafted more frequently from alternative donors (83% vs 33%) and received more frequently ruxolitinib pre-HSCT (26% vs 7%). The proportion of patients with F-DC on day +30, in the TBF vs the ONE-ALK group, was respectively 87% vs 45% (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 9% in the TBF group, vs 43% for the ONE-ALK group (P < .001). The 5-year actuarial disease-free survival was 63% for TBF and 38% for the ONE-ALK group (P = .004). In conclusion, early full donor chimerism is a prerequisite for long term control of disease in patients with myelofibrosis, undergoing an allogeneic HSCT. The combination of two alkylating agents in the conditioning regimen, provides a higher chance of achieving full donor chimerism on day+30, and thus a higher chance of long term disease free survival.

Short tandem repeat profiling for the authentication of cancer stem-like cells.

Colorectal and glioblastoma cancer stem-like cells (CSCs) are essential for translational research. Cell line authentication by short tandem repeat (STR) profiling ensures reproducibility of results in oncology research. This technique enables to identify mislabeling or cross-contamination of cell lines. In our study, we provide a reference dataset for a panel of colorectal and glioblastoma CSCs that allows authentication. Each cell line was entered into the cell Line Integrated Molecular Authentication database 2.1 to be compared to the STR profiles of 4485 tumor cell lines. This article also provides clinical data of patients from whom CSCs arose and data on the parent tumor stage and mutations. STR profiles and information of our CSCs are also available in the Cellosaurus database (ExPASy) as identified by unique research resource identifier codes.

Improved Outcome of Alternative Donor Transplantations in Patients with Myelofibrosis: From Unrelated to Haploidentical Family Donors.

This is a retrospective analysis of 95 patients with myelofibrosis who were allografted between 2001 and 2014. The aims of the study were to assess whether the outcome of alternative donor grafts has improved with time and how this compares with the outcome of identical sibling grafts. Patients were studied in 2 time intervals: 2000 to 2010 (n = 58) and 2011 to 2014 (n = 37). The Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System score was comparable in the 2 time periods, but differences in the most recent group included older age (58 versus 53 years, P = .004), more family haploidentical donors (54% versus 5%, P < .0001), and the introduction of the thiotepa-fludarabine-busulfan conditioning regimen (70% of patients versus 2%, P < .0001). Acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease were comparable in the 2 time periods. The 3-year transplantation-related mortality (TRM) in the 2011 to 2014 period versus the 2000 to 2010 period is 16% versus 32% (P = .10), the relapse rate 16% versus 40% (P = .06), and actuarial survival 70% versus 39% (P = .08). Improved survival was most pronounced in alternative donor grafts (69% versus 21%, P = .02), compared with matched sibling grafts (72% versus 45%, P = .40). In conclusion, the outcome of allografts in patients with myelofibrosis has improved in recent years because of a reduction of both TRM and relapse. Improvement is most significant in alternative donor transplantations, with modifications in donor type and conditioning regimen.