Optimizing autologous stem cell collections for patients with multiple myeloma receiving G-CSF and Plerixafor: A single center project.

BACKGROUND: Increasing indications for cellular therapy collections have stressed our healthcare system, with autologous collections having a longer than desired wait time until apheresis collection. This quality improvement initiative was undertaken to accommodate more patients within existing resources. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with multiple myeloma who underwent autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection from October 2022 to April 2023 were included. Demographic, mobilization, laboratory, and apheresis data were retrospectively collected from the medical record. RESULTS: This cohort included 120 patients (49.2% male), with a median age of 60 years. All received G-CSF and 95% received pre-emptive Plerixafor approximately 18 hours pre-collection. Most (79%) had collection goals of at least 8 × 106/kg CD34 cells, with 63% over 70 years old having this high collection goal (despite 20 years of institutional data showing <1% over 70 years old have a second transplant). With collection efficiencies of 55.9%, 44% of patients achieved their collection goal in a single day apheresis collection. A platelet count <150 × 103/µL on the day of collection was a predictor for poor mobilization; among 27 patients with a low baseline platelet count, 17 did not achieve the collection goal and 2 failed to collect a transplantable dose. CONCLUSIONS: With minor collection goal adjustments, 15% of all collection appointments could have been avoided over this 6-month period. Other strategies to accommodate more patients include mobilization modifications (Plerixafor timing or substituting a longer acting drug), utilizing platelet counts to predict mobilization, and modifying apheresis collection volumes or schedule templates.

Passenger pathogens on physicians.

BACKGROUND: Hospital acquired infections pose a significant risk for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Horizontal transfer of antimicrobial resistance genes contributes to prevalence of multidrug-resistant infections in this patient population. METHODS: At an academic bone marrow transplantation center, we performed whole genome DNA sequencing (WGS) on commonly used physician items, including badges, stethoscopes, soles of shoes, and smart phones from 6 physicians. Data were analyzed to determine antimicrobial resistance and virulence factor genes. RESULTS: A total of 1,126 unique bacterial species, 495 distinct bacteriophages, 91 unique DNA viruses, and 175 fungal species were observed. Every item contained bacteria with antibiotic and/or antiseptic resistance genes. Stethoscopes contained greatest frequency of antibiotic resistance and more plasmid-carriage of antibiotic resistance. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that physician examination tools and personal items possess potentially pathogenic microbes. Infection prevention policies must consider availability of resources to clean physical examination tools as well as provider awareness when enacting hospital policies. Additionally, the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance genes (eg, encoding resistance to aminoglycosides, ß-lactams, and quinolones) reinforces need for antimicrobial stewardship, including for immunocompromised patients. Further research is needed to assess whether minute quantities of microbes on physician objects detectable by WGS represents clinically significant inoculums for immunocompromised patients.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with non-myeloablative conditioning for patients with hematologic malignancies: Improved outcomes over two decades.

We have used a non-myeloablative conditioning regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for the past twenty years. During that period, changes in clinical practice have been aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from infections, organ toxicity, and graft-versus-host disease. We hypothesized that improvements in clinical practice led to better transplantation outcomes over time. From 1997-2017, 1,720 patients with hematologic malignancies received low-dose total body irradiation +/- fludarabine or clofarabine before transplantation from HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donors, followed by mycophenolate mofetil and a calcineurin inhibitor ± sirolimus. We compared outcomes in three cohorts by year of transplantation: 1997 +/- 2003 (n=562), 2004 +/- 2009 (n=594), and 2010 +/- 2017 (n=564). The proportion of patients ≥60 years old increased from 27% in 1997 +/- 2003 to 56% in 2010-2017, and with scores from the Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comborbidity Index of ≥3 increased from 25% in 1997 +/- 2003 to 45% in 2010 +/- 2017. Use of unrelated donors increased from 34% in 1997 +/- 2003 to 65% in 2010-2017. When outcomes from 2004 +/- 2009 and 2010-2017 were compared to 1997 +/- 2003, improvements were noted in overall survival (P=.0001 for 2004-2009 and P <.0001 for 2010-2017), profression-free survival (P=.002 for 2004-2009 and P <.0001 for 2010 +/- 2017), non-relapse mortality (P<.0001 for 2004 +/- 2009 and P <.0001 for 2010 +/- 2017), and in rates of grades 2 +/- 4 acute and chronic graft-vs.-host disease. For patients with hematologic malignancies who underwent transplantation with non-myeloablative conditioning, outcomes have improved during the past two decades. Trials reported are registered under ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00003145, NCT00003196, NCT00003954, NCT00005799, NCT00005801, NCT00005803, NCT00006251, NCT00014235, NCT00027820, NCT00031655, NCT00036738, NCT00045435, NCT00052546, NCT00060424, NCT00075478, NCT00078858, NCT00089011, NCT00104858, NCT00105001, NCT00110058, NCT00397813, NCT00793572, NCT01231412, NCT01252667, NCT01527045.

Allocating Scarce Health Care Resources During Pandemics: Making the Case for Patients with Advanced and Metastatic Cancer.

The oncology community is concerned that patients with cancer will be unfairly classified in pandemic allocation guidance. Past guidance either excluded patients with metastatic cancer from consideration or categorized them as having a survival of less than 1 year. Given recent improvements in treatments, we recommend that the prognosis of an individual patient with cancer be determined with input from a cancer specialist or, if this is impractical, that the presence of active metastatic solid cancer or relapsed hematologic malignancy is graded as a major comorbidity, with a likelihood that survival will be less than 5 years; severe limitation in physical functioning (3 or 4 on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) would define a patient with advanced cancer as having a severe comorbidity, with a likelihood of less than 1 year of survival. Cancer may be the "Emperor of all Maladies," but it is no longer a certain death sentence.

Gemcitabine and bendamustine is a safe and effective salvage regimen for patients with recurrent/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: Results of a phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Both gemcitabine and bendamustine have been evaluated in patients with recurrent/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma but to the authors' knowledge not as a doublet. The authors completed a phase 1/2 trial to identify the optimal dose and frequency of administration and to assess the efficacy of this combination in patients with recurrent/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: Patients were treated up to a maximum dose of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on day 1) and bendamustine (120 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2), which was determined to be the recommended phase 2 dose, administered every 21 days for up to 6 cycles. Patients could discontinue study therapy after 2 cycles to proceed with autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities were identified, but 4 patients experienced grade 3 to 5 pulmonary adverse events (toxicity was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4]). A total of 26 patients were enrolled having completed a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range, 1-7 lines), including 13 patients at the recommended phase 2 dose, in whom the overall response rate was 69% and the complete response rate was 46%. The median progression-free survival for the phase 2 patients was 11 months (95% CI, 3 months to not reached), and the median overall survival for this group had not been reached at the time of last follow-up (95% CI, 4 months to not reached). CONCLUSIONS: This doublet was found to be tolerable and effective, but patients must be monitored closely for pulmonary toxicity. The authors currently are evaluating this doublet in combination with nivolumab.

Rituximab-based allogeneic transplant for chronic lymphocytic leukemia with comparison to historical experience.

Relapse of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains a clinical challenge. We studied in a phase II trial whether the addition of peri-transplant rituximab would reduce the relapse risk compared with historical controls (n = 157). Patients (n = 55) received fludarabine and low-dose total body irradiation combined with rituximab on days -3, + 10, + 24, + 36. Relapse rate at 3 years was significantly lower among rituximab-treated patients versus controls (17% versus 31%; P = 0.04). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and nonrelapse mortality (NRM) were statistically similar: (53% versus 50%; P = 0.8), (44% versus 42%; P = 0.63), and (38% versus 28%; P = 0.2), respectively. In multivariate analysis, rituximab treatment was associated with lower relapse rates both in the overall cohort [hazard ratio (HR): 0.34, P = 0.006] and in patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR: 0.21, P = 0.0003). Patients with no comorbidities who received rituximab conditioning had an OS rate of 100% and 75% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, with no NRM. Peri-transplant rituximab reduced relapse rates regardless of high-risk cytogenetics. HCT is associated with minimal NRM in patients without comorbidities and is a viable option for patients with high-risk CLL. Clinical trial information: NCT00867529.

Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Young Adults: Does Everyone Need a Transplant?

With the exception of the minority of patients with acute myelocytic leukemia who are considered potentially cured by chemotherapy, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has traditionally been the recommended approach for those patients achieving complete remission who meet the criteria for HCT and have an appropriate stem-cell donor. This decision has become more complex with the discovery of new risk factors, such as genomic abnormalities and minimal residual disease, especially in younger populations. Patients younger than age 60 years who are considered fit and who do not harbor poor prognostic features are felt still to have a high likelihood of cure without having to undergo HCT. Here, we discuss the role that these emerging risk factors play in the decision to undergo transplantation, but emphasize that this remains a decision made jointly by the patient, the treating hematologist, and the transplant physician.

Addition of sirolimus to standard cyclosporine plus mycophenolate mofetil-based graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis for patients after unrelated non-myeloablative haemopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) after non-myeloablative human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched, unrelated donor, allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding sirolimus to the standard cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil prophylaxis therapy for preventing acute GVHD in this setting. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial took place at nine HSCT centres based in the USA, Denmark, and Germany. Eligible patients were diagnosed with advanced haematological malignancies treatable by allogeneic HSCT, had a Karnofsky score greater than or equal to 60, were aged older than 50 years, or if they were aged 50 years or younger, were considered at high risk of regimen-related toxicity associated with a high-dose pre-transplantation conditioning regimen. Patients were randomly allocated by an adaptive randomisation scheme stratified by transplantation centre to receive either the standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen (cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil) or the triple-drug combination regimen (cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and sirolimus). Patients and physicians were not masked to treatment. All patients were prepared for HSCT with fludarabine (30 mg/m2 per day) 4, 3, and 2 days before receiving 2 or 3 Gy total body irradiation on the day of HSCT (day 0). In both study groups, 5·0 mg/kg of cyclosporine was administered orally twice daily starting 3 days before HSCT, and (in the absence of GVHD) tapered from day 96 through to day 150. In the standard GVHD prophylaxis group, 15 mg/kg of mycophenolate mofetil was given orally three times daily from day 0 until day 30, then twice daily until day 150, and (in the absence of GVHD) tapered off by day 180. In the triple-drug group, mycophenolate mofetil doses were the same as in the standard group, but the drug was discontinued on day 40. Sirolimus was started 3 days before HSCT, taken orally at 2 mg once daily and adjusted to maintain trough concentrations between 3-12 ng/mL through to day 150, and (in the absence of GVHD) tapered off by day 180. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 acute GVHD at day 100 post-transplantation. Secondary endpoints were non-relapse mortality, overall survival, progression-free survival, cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 acute GVHD, and cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD. Efficacy and safety analyses were per protocol, including all patients who received conditioning treatment and underwent transplantation. Toxic effects were measured according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The current study was closed prematurely by recommendation of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board on July 27, 2016, after 168 patients received the allocated intervention, based on the results of a prespecified interim analysis for futility. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01231412. FINDINGS: Participants were recruited between Nov 1, 2010, and July 27, 2016. Of 180 patients enrolled in the study, 167 received the complete study intervention and were included in safety and efficacy analyses: 77 patients in the standard GVHD prophylaxis group and 90 in the triple-drug group. At the time of analysis, median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 31-60). The cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 acute GVHD at day 100 was lower in the triple-drug group compared with the standard GVHD prophylaxis group (26% [95% CI 17-35] in the triple-drug group vs 52% [41-63] in the standard group; HR 0·45 [95% CI 0·28-0·73]; p=0·0013). After 1 and 4 years, non-relapse mortality increased to 4% (95% CI 0-9) and 16% (8-24) in the triple-drug group and 16% (8-24) and 32% (21-43) in the standard group (HR 0·48 [0·26-0·90]; p=0·021). Overall survival at 1 year was 86% (95% CI 78-93) in the triple-drug group and 70% in the standard group (60-80) and at 4 years it was 64% in the triple-drug group (54-75) and 46% in the standard group (34-57%; HR 0·62 [0·40-0·97]; p=0·035). Progression-free survival at 1 year was 77% (95% CI 68-85) in the triple-drug group and 64% (53-74) in the standard drug group, and at 4 years it was 59% in the triple-drug group (49-70) and 41% in the standard group (30-53%; HR 0·64 [0·42-0·99]; p=0·045). We observed no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade 3-4 acute GVHD (2% [0-5] in the triple-drug group vs 8% [2-14] in the standard group; HR 0·55 [0·16-1·96]; p=0·36) and chronic GVHD (49% [39-59] in triple-drug group vs 50% [39-61] in the standard group; HR 0·94 [0·62-1·40]; p=0·74). In both groups the most common CTCAE grade 4 or higher toxic effects were pulmonary. INTERPRETATION: Adding sirolimus to cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil resulted in a significantly lower proportion of patients developing acute GVHD compared with patients treated with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil alone. Based on these results, the combination of cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and sirolimus has become the new standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen for patients treated with non-myeloablative conditioning and HLA-matched unrelated HSCT at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Safety and survival outcomes for bloodless transplantation in patients with myeloma.

High-dose therapy (HDT) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) are established components in the treatment of multiple myeloma; however, undergoing transplantation usually requires hematopoietic support, which poses a challenge among patients who are unwilling to receive blood products. Most transplant centers decline HDT/ASCT to these patients because of safety concerns. Here, the authors' institutional data on safety, engraftment parameters, and survival outcomes after bloodless ASCT (BL-ASCT) are examined among patients with myeloma. This retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent BL-ASCT and Transfusion-supported ASCT (TS-ASCT) at Emory University Hospital between August 2006 and August 2016. In total, 24 patients who underwent BL-ASCT and 70 who underwent TS-ASCT were included. The median time for neutrophil engraftment, platelet engraftment and the median length of hospital stay all were equivalent for both groups. There were no transplant-related cardiovascular complications or mortality in either the BL-ASCT group or the TS-ASCT group. The median progression-free survival was 36 months and 44 months in the BL-ASCT and TS-ASCT groups, respectively (P = .277), and the median OS was not reached in either group at a median follow-up of 59 months after ASCT (P = .627). There was no transplant-related mortality at the 100-day or 1-year mark in either group. BL-ASCT is safe and feasible; transplant-related mortality, cardiovascular and hematologic complications are similar to those associated with TS-ASCT. Furthermore, BL-ASCT can yield similar engraftment and survival parameters comparable to those observed with TS-ASCT.

Maribavir for Refractory or Resistant Cytomegalovirus Infections in Hematopoietic-cell or Solid-organ Transplant Recipients: A Randomized, Dose-ranging, Double-blind, Phase 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections that are refractory or resistant (RR) to available antivirals ([val]ganciclovir, foscarnet, cidofovir) are associated with higher mortality in transplant patients. Maribavir is active against RR CMV strains. METHODS: Hematopoietic-cell or solid-organ transplant recipients ≥12 years old with RR CMV infections and plasma CMV deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ≥1000 copies/mL were randomized (1:1:1) to twice-daily dose-blinded maribavir 400, 800, or 1200 mg for up to 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with confirmed undetectable plasma CMV DNA within 6 weeks of treatment. Safety analyses included the frequency and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: From July 2012 to December 2014, 120 patients were randomized and treated (40 per dose group): 80/120 (67%) patients achieved undetectable CMV DNA within 6 weeks of treatment (95% confidence interval, 57-75%), with rates of 70%, 63%, and 68%, respectively, for maribavir 400, 800, and 1200 mg twice daily. Recurrent on-treatment CMV infections occurred in 25 patients; 13 developed mutations conferring maribavir resistance. Maribavir was discontinued due to adverse events in 41/120 (34%) patients, and 17/41 discontinued due to CMV infections. During the study, 32 (27%) patients died, 4 due to CMV disease. Dysgeusia was the most common TEAE (78/120; 65%) and led to maribavir discontinuation in 1 patient. Absolute neutrophil counts <1000/µL were noted in 12/106 (11%) evaluable patients, with rates similar across doses. CONCLUSIONS: Maribavir ≥400 mg twice daily was active against RR CMV infections in transplant recipients; no new safety signals were identified. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01611974.

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Adult Patients With Cancer-Related Immunosuppression: ASCO and IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide an updated joint ASCO/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guideline on antimicrobial prophylaxis for adult patients with immunosuppression associated with cancer and its treatment. METHODS: ASCO and IDSA convened an update Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of relevant studies from May 2011 to November 2016. The guideline recommendations were based on the review of evidence by the Expert Panel. RESULTS: Six new or updated meta-analyses and six new primary studies were added to the updated systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS: Antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis is recommended for patients who are at high risk of infection, including patients who are expected to have profound, protracted neutropenia, which is defined as < 100 neutrophils/µL for > 7 days or other risk factors. Herpes simplex virus-seropositive patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation or leukemia induction therapy should receive nucleoside analog-based antiviral prophylaxis, such as acyclovir. Pneumocystis jirovecii prophylaxis is recommended for patients receiving chemotherapy regimens that are associated with a > 3.5% risk for pneumonia as a result of this organism (eg, those with ≥ 20 mg prednisone equivalents daily for ≥ 1 month or on the basis of purine analog usage). Treatment with a nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor (eg, entecavir or tenofovir) is recommended for patients at high risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation. Recommendations for vaccination and avoidance of prolonged contact with environments that have high concentrations of airborne fungal spores are also provided within the updated guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Outpatient Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Adults Treated for Malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To provide an updated joint ASCO/Infectious Diseases Society of American (IDSA) guideline on outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in patients with cancer. Methods ASCO and IDSA convened an Update Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of relevant studies. The guideline recommendations were based on the review of evidence by the Expert Panel. Results Six new or updated meta-analyses and six new primary studies were added to the updated systematic review. Recommendation Clinical judgment is recommended when determining which patients are candidates for outpatient management, using clinical criteria or a validated tool such as the Multinational Association of Support Care in Cancer risk index. In addition, psychosocial and logistic considerations are outlined within the guideline. The panel continued to endorse consensus recommendations from the previous version of this guideline that patients with febrile neutropenia receive initial doses of empirical antibacterial therapy within 1 hour of triage and be monitored for ≥ 4 hours before discharge. An oral fluoroquinolone plus amoxicillin/clavulanate (or clindamycin, if penicillin allergic) is recommended as empirical outpatient therapy, unless fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was used before fever developed. Patients who do not defervesce after 2 to 3 days of an initial, empirical, broad-spectrum antibiotic regimen should be re-evaluated and considered as candidates for inpatient treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Ruxolitinib: a steroid sparing agent in chronic graft-versus-host disease.

Inhibition of the Janus-associated kinases (JAK) with ruxolitinib (RUX) reduces graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in preclinical and clinical models. In total 19 allograft recipients with moderate/severe steroid-dependent chronic GVHD received RUX as ≥2nd line salvage. RUX was well tolerated, and led to complete/partial resolution of oral (92/7%), cutaneous (82/0%), hepatic (71/28%), gastro-intestinal (75/17%), musculoskeletal (33/67%), pulmonary (0/80%), scleroderma (0/75%), vaginal (0/75%), and ocular (0/100%) chronic GVHD. Overall 18 achieved partial response and 1 complete response according to NIH Consensus Criteria. Responses occurred early and were sustained which enabled discontinuation (68%) or reduction of steroids to physiologic doses (21%). We conclude that RUX is an effective steroid-sparing agent in chronic GVHD.