Utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation for adult Ph+ALL with complete molecular remission.

This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) for Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ALL) in the first complete remission (CR1) with complete molecular remission (CMR). We compared the outcomes between Ph+ALL patients who did or did not undergo allo-SCT in CR1. We included patients enrolled in the prospective clinical studies in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor era conducted by the Japan Adult Leukemia Study Group, who achieved CMR within 3 months. A total of 147 patients (allo-SCT: 101; non-SCT: 46) were eligible for this analysis. In the multivariate analyses, allo-SCT was significantly associated with both superior overall survival (OS) (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30-0.97; p = .04) and relapse-free survival (RFS) (aHR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.12-0.38; p < .001). The 5-year adjusted OS and RFS were 73% and 70% in the allo-SCT cohort, whereas they were 50% and 20% in the non-SCT cohort. Despite the higher non-relapse mortality (aHR: 3.49; 95% CI: 1.17-10.4; p = .03), allo-SCT was significantly associated with a lower relapse rate (aHR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.05-0.20; p < .001). In addition, allo-SCT was also associated with superior graft-versus-host disease-free, relapse-free survival (aHR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.25-0.74; p = .002). Propensity score-matched analyses confirmed the results of the multivariate analyses. In patients who achieved CMR within 3 months, allo-SCT in CR1 had superior survival and lower relapse compared with the non-SCT cohort.

Changes in chronic myeloid leukemia treatment modalities and outcomes after introduction of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line therapy: a multi-institutional retrospective study by the CML Cooperative Study Group.

This study investigated changes in treatment modalities and outcomes of chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase (CP-CML) after the approval of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (2G-TKIs) for first-line therapy. Patients were grouped into those who underwent TKI therapy up to December 2010 (imatinib era group, n = 185) and after January 2011 (2G-TKI era group, n = 425). All patients in the imatinib era group were initially treated with imatinib, whereas patients in the 2G-TKI era group were mostly treated with dasatinib (55%) or nilotinib (36%). However, outcomes including progression-free survival, overall survival, and CML-related death (CRD) did not differ significantly between groups. When stratified by risk scores, the prognostic performance of the ELTS score was superior to that of the Sokal score. Even though both scoring systems predicted CRD in the imatinib era, only the ELTS score predicted CRD in the 2G-TKI era. Notably, the outcome of patients classified as high-risk by ELTS score was more favorable in the 2G-TKI era group than in the imatinib era group. Thus, expanding treatment options may have improved patient outcomes in CP-CML, particularly in patients classified as high-risk by ELTS score.

Differential clinical impact of letermovir prophylaxis according to graft sources: a KSGCT multicenter retrospective analysis.

ABSTRACT: Clinically significant cytomegalovirus infection (csCMVi) is frequently observed after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and prophylaxis with letermovir is commonly adopted. However, the clinical benefit of letermovir prophylaxis according to graft sources has not been sufficiently elucidated. We retrospectively analyzed 2194 recipients of HSCT who were CMV-seropositive (236 with letermovir prophylaxis and 1958 without prophylaxis against CMV). csCMVi was significantly less frequent in patients with letermovir prophylaxis than in those without (23.7% vs 58.7% at 100 days after HSCT, P < .001) and the same trend was seen when recipients of bone marrow (BM), peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC), or cord blood (CB) transplantation were separately analyzed. In recipients of BM, nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was significantly lower in the letermovir group at 6 months after HSCT (5.0% vs 14.9%, P = .018), and the same trend was observed in recipients of PBSCs (14.7% vs 24.8%, P = .062); however, there was no statistical significance at 1 year (BM, 21.1% vs 30.4%, P = .67; PBSCs, 21.2% vs 30.4%, P = .096). In contrast, NRM was comparable between recipients of CB with and without letermovir prophylaxis throughout the clinical course (6 months, 23.6% vs 24.3%, P =.92; 1 year, 29.3% vs 31.0%, P = .77), which was confirmed by multivariate analyses. In conclusion, the impact of letermovir prophylaxis on NRM and csCMVi should be separately considered according to graft sources.