A real-life study of daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (D-VD) in lenalidomide exposed/refractory multiple myeloma patients: a report from the Triveneto Myeloma Working Group.

Treatment of lenalidomide refractory (Len-R) multiple myeloma (MM) patients still represents an unmet clinical need. In the last years, daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone (D-VD) combination was extensively used in this setting, even though only a small fraction of Len-R patients was included in the pivotal trial. This real-life study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the D-VD regimen in a cohort that exclusively enrolled Len exposed or refractory MM patients. The study cohort included 57 patients affected by relapsed/refractory MM. All patients were previously exposed to Len, with 77.2% being refractory. The overall response rate (ORR) was 79.6% with 43% of cases obtaining at least a very good partial response (VGPR). The D-VD regimen showed a favorable safety profile, with low frequency of grade 3-4 adverse events, except for thrombocytopenia observed in 21.4% of patients. With a median follow-up of 13 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17 months. No significant PFS differences were observed according to age, ISS, LDH levels, type of relapse, and high-risk FISH. Len exposed patients displayed a PFS advantage as compared to Len refractory patients (29 vs 16 months, p = 0.2876). Similarly, patients treated after Len maintenance showed a better outcome as compared to patients who had received a full-dose Len treatment (23 vs 13 months, p = 0.1728). In conclusion, our real-world data on D-VD combination showed remarkable efficacy in Len-R patients, placing this regimen as one of the standards of care to be properly taken into account in this MM setting.

Dose/schedule-adjusted Rd-R vs continuous Rd for elderly, intermediate-fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) is standard treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM). In this randomized phase 3 study, we investigated efficacy and feasibility of dose/schedule-adjusted Rd followed by maintenance at 10 mg per day without dexamethasone (Rd-R) vs continuous Rd in elderly, intermediate-fit newly diagnosed patients with MM. Primary end point was event-free survival (EFS), defined as progression/death from any cause, lenalidomide discontinuation, or hematologic grade 4 or nonhematologic grade 3 to 4 adverse event (AE). Of 199 evaluable patients, 101 received Rd-R and 98 continuous Rd. Median follow-up was 37 months. EFS was 10.4 vs 6.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.95; P = .02); median progression-free survival, 20.2 vs 18.3 months (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.10; P = .16); and 3-year overall survival, 74% vs 63% (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37-1.03; P = .06) with Rd-R vs Rd, respectively. Rate of ≥1 nonhematologic grade ≥3 AE was 33% vs 43% (P = .14) in Rd-R vs Rd groups, with neutropenia (21% vs 18%), infections (10% vs 12%), and skin disorders (7% vs 3%) the most frequent; constitutional and central nervous system AEs mainly related to dexamethasone were more frequent with Rd. Lenalidomide was discontinued for AEs in 24% vs 30% and reduced in 45% vs 62% of patients receiving Rd-R vs Rd, respectively. In intermediate-fit patients, switching to reduced-dose lenalidomide maintenance without dexamethasone after 9 Rd cycles was feasible, with similar outcomes to standard continuous Rd. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02215980.

Antibody, cell-mediated response and infection susceptibility in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell recipients after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (allo-SCT) have reduced responses to vaccines due to immunosuppressive status linked to GvHD prophylaxis and treatment. In our study, we compared humoral responses to anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, and infection onset, according to patients and transplant features; we also evaluated cellular response in patients without seroconversion. METHODS: We tested antibodies titer after second and third vaccine doses. Antibodies were detected through an immune-enzymatic assay. In a patients' subgroup without seroconversion, we tested cell-mediated responses evaluating interferon-gamma release by T-lymphocytes exposed to virus spike protein. RESULTS: Seroconversion rate increased from 66% at 30 days to 81% at 90 days after the second dose; it was 97% at 150 days after the third dose. We found a significant association between seroconversion after the second dose and two variables: shorter interval between allo-SCT and vaccination; ongoing immunosuppression. Twelve of 19 patients (63%) without antibodies after the second dose did not show cellular responses. Nineteen percent of patients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection after the third dose, with favorable outcome in all cases. Patients within 12 months after allo-SCT showed a significantly higher infection risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that an interval shorter than 12 months between allo-SCT and first vaccine dose and/or ongoing immunosuppression were associated with humoral and cellular response deficiency after two doses. Third dose induced an increased and sustained humoral response in the majority of patients. However, patients within 1 year after allo-SCT remained at higher infection risk and may be candidate for prophylaxis with anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies.

Stem Cells mobilization and collection in allogeneic related and unrelated donors: a single center experience with focus on plerixafor.

INTRODUCTION: Poor CD34 + cells mobilization in allogeneic donors could affect transplant outcome. In a subgroup of patient mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone is unsatisfactory, and Plerixafor could be used to enhance CD34 + cells release from bone marrow niche. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center, cohort study on healthy allogeneic donors both related and unrelated, treated by Udine Transfusion Center over the last 10 years (2012-2022). In the 195 allogeneic donors treated we analyzed age, sex, body weight, BMI, comorbidities, G-CSF dosage and even baseline white blood cell count as possible predictor of insufficient CD34 + cells mobilization on day 5. In the subgroup of related donors we evaluated even baseline CD34 + cells (measured before mobilization start). Processed donor blood volume, collection efficiency and apheresis product were examined. Additionally a comparative analysis was conducted between G-CSF alone treated donors and poor mobilizing ones, in which Plerixafor was administered at a dose of 0.24 mg/kg as a pre-emptive or rescue agent. RESULTS: In 9 donors, due to poor mobilization (defined as CD34 + < 20/µL or estimated yield < 1 ×106 kg/recipient body weight), the use of plerixafor was necessary. PLX at a dose of 0.24 mg/kg was administered 5 h before collection, inducing an average increase of 5.1 (1.7-12.6) in CD34 + circulating cells. In this subgroup of patients, BMI and weight were significantly lower (p = 0.03). Interestingly, baseline CD34 + cells (measured before the onset of mobilization) also seems to predict poor mobilization (p = 0.003). In donors additionally treated with Plerixafor compared to those who received G-CSF alone, collection efficiency was higher (p = 0.02) and CD34 + cells collected were comparable (p = 0.2). Side effects related to the administration of plerixafor, if they occurred, were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Plerixafor is a safe and effective drug in the rescue and prevention of poor mobilization. New prospective studies on allogeneic donors should be performed to increase the treatable population to avoid inadequate collection and mobilization. New laboratory predictors such as baseline CD34 + cells should be investigated in larger cohorts and then used as early screening.

Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended 3-year follow-up of a multicenter, retrospective clinical experience with 319 cases outside of controlled clinical trials.

The combination of elotuzumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (EloRd) enhanced the clinical benefit over Rd with a manageable toxicity profile in the ELOQUENT-2 trial, leading to its approval in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). The present study is a 3-year follow-up update of a previously published Italian real-life RRMM cohort of patients treated with EloRd. This revised analysis entered 319 RRMM patients accrued in 41 Italian centers. After a median follow-up of 36 months (range 6-55), 236 patients experienced disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 18.4 and 34 months, respectively. The updated multivariate analyses showed a significant reduction of PFS and OS benefit magnitude only in cases with International Staging System stage III. Major adverse events included grade 3/4 neutropenia (18.5%), anemia (15.4%), lymphocytopenia (12.5%), and thrombocytopenia (10.7%), while infection rates and pneumonia were 33.9% and 18.9%, respectively. No new safety signals with longer follow-up have been observed. Of 319 patients, 245 (76.7%) reached at least a partial remission. A significantly lower response rate was found in patients previously exposed to lenalidomide. In conclusion, our study confirms that EloRd is a safe and effective regimen for RRMM patients, maintaining benefits across multiple unfavorable subgroups.

Treosulfan compared with reduced-intensity busulfan improves allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes of older acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome patients: Final analysis of a prospective randomized trial.

The phase III study was designed to compare event-free survival (EFS) after treosulfan-based conditioning with a widely applied reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) busulfan regimen in older or comorbid patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). A previously reported confirmatory interim analysis of the randomized clinical study including 476 patients demonstrated statistically significant noninferiority for treosulfan with clinically meaningful improvement in EFS. Here, the final study results and pre-specified subgroup analyses of all 570 randomized patients with completed longer-term follow-up are presented. Patients presenting HCT-specific comorbidity index >2 or aged ≥50 years were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous (IV) fludarabine with either treosulfan (30 g/m2 IV) or busulfan (6.4 mg/kg IV) after stratification by disease risk group, donor type, and participating institution. The primary endpoint was EFS with disease recurrence, graft failure, or death from any cause as events. EFS of patients (median age 60 years) was superior after treosulfan compared to RIC busulfan: 36-months-EFS rate 59.5% (95% CI, 52.2-66.1) vs. 49.7% (95% CI, 43.3-55.7) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.49-0.84), p = 0.0006. Likewise, overall survival (OS) with treosulfan was superior compared to busulfan: 36-month-OS rate 66.8% vs. 56.3%; HR 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.87), p = 0.0037. Post hoc analyses revealed that these differences were consistent with the confirmatory interim analysis, and thereby the treosulfan regimen appears particularly suitable for older AML and MDS patients.

Carfilzomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone plus autologous transplantation or carfilzomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, followed by maintenance with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (FORTE): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib-based induction followed by high-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (MEL200-ASCT) and maintenance treatment with lenalidomide alone is the current standard of care for young and fit patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different carfilzomib-based induction and consolidation approaches with or without transplantation and of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: UNITO-MM-01/FORTE was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 42 Italian academic and community practice centres. We enrolled transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma aged 65 years or younger with a Karnofsky Performance Status of 60% or higher. Patients were stratified according to International Staging System stage (I vs II/III) and age (<60 years vs 60-65 years) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to KRd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone [KRd], melphalan at 200 mg/m2 and autologous stem-cell transplantation [MEL200-ASCT], followed by four 28-day KRd consolidation cycles), KRd12 (12 28-day KRd cycles), or KCd plus ASCT (four 28-day induction cycles with carfilzomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone [KCd], MEL200-ASCT, and four 28-day KCd consolidation cycles). Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide 25 mg administered orally on days 1-21; cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg administered orally or intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, and 23. Thereafter, patients were stratified according to induction-consolidation treatment and randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone. Carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on days 1-2 and 15-16 every 28 days for up to 2 years; lenalidomide 10 mg was administered orally on days 1-21 every 28 days until progression or intolerance in both groups. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with at least a very good partial response after induction with KRd versus KCd and progression-free survival with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment, both assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02203643. Study recruitment is complete, and all patients are in the follow-up or maintenance phases. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, 474 patients were randomly assigned to one of the induction-intensification-consolidation groups (158 to KRd plus ASCT, 157 to KRd12, and 159 to KCd plus ASCT). The median duration of follow-up was 50·9 months (IQR 45·7-55·3) from the first randomisation. 222 (70%) of 315 patients in the KRd group and 84 (53%) of 159 patients in the KCd group had at least a very good partial response after induction (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·44-3·19, p=0·0002). 356 patients were randomly assigned to maintenance treatment with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide (n=178) or lenalidomide alone (n=178). The median duration of follow-up was 37·3 months (IQR 32·9-41·9) from the second randomisation. 3-year progression-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-82) with carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 65% (58-72) with lenalidomide alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·44-0·94], p=0·023). During induction and consolidation, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group vs 15 [10%] of 156 in the KRd12 group vs 18 [11%] of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group); dermatological toxicity (nine [6%] vs 12 [8%] vs one [1%]); and hepatic toxicity (13 [8%] vs 12 [8%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 18 (11%) of 158 patients in the KRd-ASCT group, 29 (19%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and 17 (11%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in seven (4%) of 158, four (3%) of 156, and five (3%) of 159 patients. Treatment-emergent deaths were reported in two (1%) of 158 patients in the KRd plus ASCT group, two (1%) of 156 in the KRd12 group, and three (2%) of 159 in the KCd plus ASCT group. During maintenance, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [20%] of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide vs 41 [23%] of 177 patients on lenalidomide alone); infections (eight [5%] vs 13 [7%]); and vascular events (12 [7%] vs one [1%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 24 (14%) of 173 patients on carfilzomib plus lenalidomide versus 15 (8%) of 177 on lenalidomide alone; the most common serious adverse event was pneumonia, in six (3%) of 173 versus five (3%) of 177 patients. One patient died of a treatment-emergent adverse event in the carfilzomib plus lenalidomide group. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that KRd plus ASCT showed superiority in terms of improved responses compared with the other two treatment approaches and support the prospective randomised evaluation of KRd plus ASCT versus standards of care (eg, daratumumab plus bortezomib plus thalidomide plus dexamethasone plus ASCT) in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib plus lenalidomide as maintenance therapy also improved progression-free survival compared with the standard-of-care lenalidomide alone. FUNDING: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb. TRANSLATION: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone in patients with advanced multiple myeloma: The EMN09 phase 1/2 study of the European Myeloma Network.

BACKGROUND: Combined therapy with carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone was evaluated in this multicenter phase 1/2 trial conducted within the European Myeloma Network (EMN09 trial). METHODS: Sixty-three patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included. The phase 1 portion of the study determined the maximum tolerated dose of carfilzomib with bendamustine set at 70 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8. After 8 cycles, responding patients received maintenance therapy with carfilzomib and dexamethasone until progression. RESULTS: On the basis of the phase 1 results, the recommended phase 2 dose for carfilzomib was 27 mg/m2 twice weekly in weeks 1, 2, and 3. Fifty-two percent of patients achieved a partial response or better, and 32% reached a very good partial response or better. The clinical benefit rate was 93%. After a median follow-up of 21.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 11.6 months, and the median overall survival was 30.4 months. The reported grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs) were lymphopenia (29%), neutropenia (25%), and thrombocytopenia (22%). The main nonhematologic grade ≥3 AEs were pneumonia, thromboembolic events (10%), cardiac AEs (8%), and hypertension (2%). CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated patients who have relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, combined carfilzomib, bendamustine, and dexamethasone is an effective treatment option administered in the outpatient setting. Infection prophylaxis and attention to patients with cardiovascular predisposition are required.

Allogeneic Hemopoietic Stem Cell Transplants in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Prepared with Busulfan and Fludarabine (BUFLU) or Thiotepa, Busulfan, and Fludarabine (TBF): A Retrospective Study.

This is a multicenter retrospective comparison of 2 myeloablative conditioning regimens in 454 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in remission: busulfan (4 days) and fludarabine (BUFLU) versus thiotepa, busulfan, and fludarabine (TBF). Eligible for this study were patients allografted between January 2008 and December 2018 in 10 transplant centers, with AML in first or second remission: 201 patients received BUFLU, whereas 253 received TBF. The 2 groups (BUFLU and TBF) were comparable for age (P = .13) and adverse AML risk factors (P = .3). The TBF group had more second remissions and more haploidentical grafts. The donor type included HLA-identical siblings, unrelated donors, and family haploidentical donors. The 5-year cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 19% for BUFLU and 22% for TBF (P = .8), and the 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 30% and 15%, respectively (P = .0004). The 5-year actuarial survival was 51% for BUFLU and 68% for TBF (P = .002). In a multivariate Cox analysis, after correcting for confounding factors, the use of TBF reduced the risk of relapse compared with BUFLU (P = .03) and the risk of death (P = .03). In a matched pair analysis of 108 BUFLU patients matched with 108 TBF patients, with the exclusion of haploidentical grafts, TBF reduced the risk of relapse (P = .006) and there was a trend for improved survival (P = .07). Superior survival of patients receiving TBF as compared with BUFLU is due to a reduced risk of relapse, with comparable NRM. The survival advantage is independent of donor type and AML risk factors.

Clofarabine and Treosulfan as Conditioning for Matched Related and Unrelated Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Results from the Clo3o Phase II Trial.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can be curative for patients with hematologic malignancies. The ideal conditioning regimen before allo-HSCT has not been established. We conducted a Phase II study to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of clofarabine and treosulfan as conditioning regimen before allo-HSCT. The primary objective was to evaluate the cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) on day +100. Forty-four patients (36 with acute myelogenous leukemia, 5 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, 3 with myelodysplastic syndromes) were enrolled. The median patient age was 47 years, and the median duration of follow-up was 27 months. The conditioning regimen was based on clofarabine 40 mg/m2 (days -6 to -2) and treosulfan 14 g/m2 (days -6 to -4). Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cells were derived from a sibling (n = 22) or a well-matched unrelated donor (n = 22). Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis consisted of antithymocyte globulin, rituximab, cyclosporine, and a short-course of methotrexate. The regimen allowed for rapid engraftment and a 100-day NRM of 18%, due mainly to bacterial infections. The incidences of grade II-IV acute GVHD and chronic GVHD were 16% and 19%, respectively. The rates of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and relapse at 2 years were 51%, 31%, and 50%, respectively. Significantly different outcomes were observed between patients with low-intermediate and patients with high-very high Disease Risk Index (DRI) scores (1-year OS, 78% and 24%, respectively). Our findings show that the use of treosulfan and clofarabine as a conditioning regimen for allo-HSCT is feasible, with a 78% 1-year OS in patients with a low-intermediate DRI score. However, 1-year NRM was 18%, and despite the intensified conditioning regimen, relapse incidence remains a major issue in patients with poor prognostic risk factors.

Bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone versus lenalidomide, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone in multiple myeloma patients at first relapse.

Bortezomib- and lenalidomide-containing regimens are well-established therapies in multiple myeloma (MM). However, despite their extensive use, head-to-head comparisons have never been performed. Therefore, we compared bortezomib and lenalidomide in fixed-duration therapies. In this open-label, phase III study, we randomized MM patients at first relapse to receive either nine cycles of bortezomib plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (VCD) or lenalidomide plus cyclophosphamide plus dexamethasone (RCD). The primary endpoint was achievement of a very good partial response (VGPR) or better at six weeks after nine treatment cycles. From March 2011 to February 2015, 155 patients were randomized. VGPR or better was achieved by 12 patients (15%) in the VCD arm and 14 patients (18%) in the RCD arm (P = 0·70). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16·3 (95% CI: 12·1-22·4) with VCD and 18·6 months (95% CI: 14·7-25·5) with RCD, and the two-year overall survival (OS) was 75% (95% CI: 66-86%) and 74% (95% CI: 64-85%) respectively. In subgroup analyses, no differences in PFS were observed in bortezomib- and lenalidomide-naïve patients, nor in patients who received a bortezomib-based regimen in first line. Adverse events were consistent with the well-established safety profiles of both drugs. Bortezomib and lenalidomide treatments were equally effective in terms of depth of response, PFS, and OS in MM patients at first relapse.

Outcome of paraosseous extra-medullary disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with new drugs.

Extramedullary disease is relatively frequent in multiple myeloma, but our knowledge on the subject is limited and mainly relies on small case series or single center experiences. Little is known regarding the role of new drugs in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis of eight trials focused on the description of extramedullary disease characteristics, clinical outcome, and response to new drugs. A total of 2,332 newly diagnosed myeloma patients have been included; 267 (11.4%) had extramedullary disease, defined as paraosseous in 243 (10.4%), extramedullary plasmocytoma in 12 (0.5%), and not classified in 12 (0.5%) patients. Median progression-free survival was 25.3 months and 25.2 in extramedullary disease and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively. In multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease did not impact on progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.15, P=0.06), while other known prognostic factors retained their significance. Patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs, mainly lenalidomide, or proteasome inhibitors had similar progression-free survival and progression-free survival-2 regardless of extramedullary disease presence. Median overall survival was 63.5 months and 79.9 months (P=0.01) in extramedullary and non-extramedullary disease patients, respectively, and in multivariate analysis the presence of extramedullary disease was associated with a reduced overall survival (hazard ratio 1.41, P<0.001), in line with other prognostic factors. With the limits of the use of low sensitivity imaging techniques, that lead to an underestimation of extramedullary disease, we conclude that in patients treated with new drugs the detrimental effect of extramedullary disease at diagnosis is limited, that lenalidomide is effective as are proteasome inhibitors, and that these patients tend to acquire a more aggressive disease in later stages. (EUDRACT2005-004714-32, NCT01063179 NCT00551928, NCT01091831, NCT01093196, NCT01190787, NCT01346787, NCT01857115).

First-line therapy with either bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone or lenalidomide-dexamethasone followed by lenalidomide for transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients: a pooled analysis of two randomized trials.

Bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) and continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) represent the standard treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). To date, no randomized trial has compared VMP to Rd, and there is no evidence of the optimal treatment for newly diagnosed MM, particularly in patients with high-risk cytogenetics [del(17p), t(4;14) or t(14;16)]. We pooled together data from patients with newly diagnosed MM treated with VMP or Rd induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance 10 mg (Rd-R) enrolled in the GIMEMA-MM-03-05 and EMN01 trials, to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in different subgroups of patients, focusing on those with standard- and high-risk cytogenetics. Overall, 474 patients were analyzed (VMP: 257 patients; Rd-R: 217 patients). No differences in progression-free survival (hazard ratio=0.96) and overall survival (hazard ratio=1.08) were observed between standard-risk patients treated with VMP or Rd-R, whereas among the high-risk patients, the probabilities of progression (hazard ratio=0.54) and death (hazard ratio=0.73) were lower in the patients treated with VMP than in those treated with Rd-R. In particular, standard-risk patients >75 years benefited less from VMP than from Rd-R (hazard ratio for progression-free survival=0.96; hazard ratio for overall survival=1.81). In this non-randomized analysis, VMP and Rd-R were equally effective in younger (≤75 years), standard-risk patients, while older ones (>75 years) benefited more from Rd-R. In high-risk patients, VMP improved progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of age. The source trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01063179 and NCT01093196).

Haploidentical related donor compared to HLA-identical donor transplantation for chemosensitive Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic stem cell transplantation from haploidentical donor using an unmanipulated graft and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) is growing. Haploidentical transplantation with PT-Cy showed a major activity in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), reducing the relapse incidence. The most important predictive factor of survival and toxicity was disease status before transplantation, which was better in patients with well controlled disease. METHODS: We included 198 HL in complete (CR) or partial remission (PR) before transplantation. Sixty-five patients were transplanted from haploidentical donor and 133 from a HLA identical donor (both sibling and unrelated donors). Survival analysis was defined according to the EBMT criteria. Survival curves were generated by using Kaplan-Meier method and differences between groups were compared by the log rank test or by the log rank test for trend when appropriated. RESULTS: The PFS, OS, and RI were significantly better in patients in CR compared to PR (55% vs 29% p = 0.001, 74% vs 55% p = 0.03, 27% vs 55% p <  0.001, respectively). The 2-year PFS was significantly better for HAPLO than HLA-id (63% vs 37%, p = 0.03), without difference in OS. The 1-year NRM was not different. The 2-year relapse incidence (RI) was lower in the HAPLO group (24% vs 44%, p = 0.008). Patients in CR receiving haplo HSCT showed higher 2-year PFS and lower 2-year RI than those allografted with HLA-id donor (75% vs 47%, p <  0.001 and 11% vs 34%, p < 0.001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, donor type and disease status before transplantation were independent predictors of PFS as well as they predict the risk of relapse. Disease status at transplantation and age were independently associated to OS. CONCLUSIONS: Nonetheless this is a retrospective study, limiting the wide applicability of results, data from this analysis suggest that HLA mismatch can induce a strong graft versus lymphoma effect leading to an enhanced PFS.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) transplant programs.

A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6 months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.

Busulfan- or Thiotepa-Based Conditioning in Myelofibrosis: A Phase II Multicenter Randomized Study from the GITMO Group.

We report a randomized study comparing fludarabine in combination with busulfan (FB) or thiotepa (FT), as conditioning regimen for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with myelofibrosis. The primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Sixty patients were enrolled with a median age of 56 years and an intermediate-2 or high-risk score in 65%, according to the Dynamic International Prognostic Staging System (DIPSS). Donors were HLA-identical sibling (n = 25), matched unrelated (n = 25) or single allele mismatched unrelated (n = 10). With a median follow-up of 22 months (range, 1 to 68 months), outcomes at 2 years after HSCT in the FB arm versus the FT arm were as follows: PFS, 43% versus 55% (P = .28); overall survival (OS), 54% versus 70% (P = .17); relapse/progression, 36% versus 24% (P = .24); nonrelapse mortality (NRM), 21% in both arms (P = .99); and graft failure, 14% versus 10% (P = .96). A better PFS was observed in patients with intermediate-1 DIPSS score (P = .03). Both neutrophil engraftment and platelet engraftment were significantly influenced by previous splenectomy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 4.51; P = .02) and splenomegaly at transplantation (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.94; P = .03). In conclusion, the clinical outcome after HSCT was comparable when using either a busulfan or thiotepa based conditioning regimen.

Antilymphocyte Globulin for Prevention of Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is the leading cause of later illness and death after allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. We hypothesized that the inclusion of antihuman T-lymphocyte immune globulin (ATG) in a myeloablative conditioning regimen for patients with acute leukemia would result in a significant reduction in chronic GVHD 2 years after allogeneic peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation from an HLA-identical sibling. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 study of ATG as part of a conditioning regimen. A total of 168 patients were enrolled at 27 centers. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive ATG or not receive ATG, with stratification according to center and risk of disease. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 24 months, the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was 32.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.1 to 46.7) in the ATG group and 68.7% (95% CI, 58.4 to 80.7) in the non-ATG group (P<0.001). The rate of 2-year relapse-free survival was similar in the ATG group and the non-ATG group (59.4% [95% CI, 47.8 to 69.2] and 64.6% [95% CI, 50.9 to 75.3], respectively; P=0.21), as was the rate of overall survival (74.1% [95% CI, 62.7 to 82.5] and 77.9% [95% CI, 66.1 to 86.1], respectively; P=0.46). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of relapse, infectious complications, acute GVHD, or adverse events. The rate of a composite end point of chronic GVHD-free and relapse-free survival at 2 years was significantly higher in the ATG group than in the non-ATG group (36.6% vs. 16.8%, P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of ATG resulted in a significantly lower rate of chronic GVHD after allogeneic transplantation than the rate without ATG. The survival rate was similar in the two groups, but the rate of a composite end point of chronic GVHD-free survival and relapse-free survival was higher with ATG. (Funded by the Neovii Biotech and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00678275.).

Assessment and prevention of cytomegalovirus infection in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant and in solid organ transplant: A multidisciplinary consensus conference by the Italian GITMO, SITO, and AMCLI societies.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients. In view of the uncertainties on the assessment and prevention of CMV infection in both transplant procedures, three Italian scientific societies for HSCT and SOT and for Clinical Microbiology appointed a panel of experts to compose a framework of recommendations. Recommendations were derived from a comprehensive analysis of the scientific literature and from a multidisciplinary consensus conference process. The lack of adequate clinical trials focused on certain diagnostic procedures, and antiviral intervention forced the panel to use the methods of consensus for shaping some recommendations. Recommendations concerning the two types of transplant were given for the following issues: assessment of pretransplant CMV serostatus, immunological monitoring after transplant, CMV prophylaxis with antivirals, CMV preemptive strategy, and CMV prophylaxis with immunoglobulin infusion and with adoptive immunotherapy. The questions raised by and the recommendations resulting from this consensus conference project may contribute to the improvement of certain crucial aspects of the management of CMV infections in allo-HSCT and in SOT populations.

Long-Term Follow-Up of a Donor versus No-Donor Comparison in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in First Relapse after Failing Autologous Transplantation.

We report the long-term clinical outcomes of a retrospective multicenter study that enrolled 169 patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in first relapse after failing autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT). After HLA typing at relapse, 79 patients with a suitable donor, 72 (91%) of whom eventually underwent salvage allogeneic SCT (allo-SCT), were compared with 90 patients without a donor who were treated with multiple lines of salvage treatment with bortezomib and/or immunomodulatory agents. At a median follow-up of 30 months (range, 2-180 months) for all patients and 110 months (range, 38-180 months) for surviving patients, 7-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 18% in the donor group and 0% in the no-donor group (hazard ratio [HR], 2.495; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.770-3.517; P < .0001). Seven-year overall survival (OS) was 31% in the donor group and 9% in the no-donor group (HR, 1.835; 95% CI, 1.306-2.577; P < .0001). By multivariate analysis, chemosensitivity to salvage treatments and presence of a suitable donor were significantly associated with better PFS and OS. The long-term follow-up of this study confirms the significant PFS benefit and provides new evidence of an OS advantage for patients with MM who have a suitable donor and undergo allo-SCT. Allo-SCT should be considered as a treatment option in young relapsed patients with high-risk disease features after first-line treatment.

Impact of New Drugs on the Long-Term Follow-Up of Upfront Tandem Autograft-Allograft in Multiple Myeloma.

Before the introduction of "new drugs," we designed a trial in which 162 newly diagnosed myeloma patients were biologically randomized to receive either an autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) followed by a nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) or a double auto-SCT. Fifty-eight patients in the allo-SCT arm and 46 in the double auto-SCT arm completed the assigned treatment. At a median follow-up of 12.3 years from allo-SCT and 12.1 years from second auto-SCT, median overall survival (OS) was 11.4 in the allo-SCT arm and 3.9 years in the auto-SCT -arm (P = .007), whereas event-free survival was 3.6 and 1.5 years (P < .001), respectively. A subset of allo-SCT patients showed persistent molecular remission. Two-year cumulative incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease was 67.2%. At 5 years, 39% of these patients were alive, disease-free, and off immunosuppression; 36.6% had relapsed and 12.2% were still on immunosuppression. Thirty-three of 58 patients (allo-SCT arm) and 39 of 46 (auto-SCT arm) relapsed at least once and were rescued with new drugs. In the allo-SCT arm, 2 patients in biochemical relapse did not reach clinical criteria for treatment. Overall 28 (90%) were treated with new drugs and 14 (45%) received donor lymphocyte infusions (DLIs). In 28 of 31 patients (90%) DLIs were given with new drugs. Median OS from first relapse was 7.5 years in the allo-SCT arm and 2 years in the auto-SCT arm (P = .01). Patients who received DLI showed significantly longer OS (hazard ratio, .38; P = .042) as compared with auto-SCT patients. This difference was slightly lower when only allo-SCT patients who did not receive DLIs were considered (hazard ratio, .56; P = .154). In summary, long-term disease-free survival and survival outcomes after treating relapse with new drugs with or without DLIs were better in allo-SCT patients.