EASIX for Prediction of Outcome in Hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and has evoked a pandemic that challenges public health-care systems worldwide. Endothelial cell dysfunction plays a key role in pathophysiology, and simple prognosticators may help to optimize allocation of limited resources. Endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX) is a validated predictor of endothelial complications and outcome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Aim of this study was to test if EASIX could predict life-threatening complications in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2-positive, hospitalized patients were enrolled onto a prospective non-interventional register study (n=100). Biomarkers were assessed at hospital admission. Primary endpoint was severe course of disease (mechanical ventilation and/or death, V/D). Results were validated in 126 patients treated in two independent institutions. RESULTS: EASIX at admission was a strong predictor of severe course of the disease (odds ratio for a two-fold change 3.4, 95%CI 1.8-6.3, p<0.001), time to V/D (hazard ratio (HR) for a two-fold change 2.0, 95%CI 1.5-2.6, p<0.001) as well as survival (HR for a two-fold change 1.7, 95%CI 1.2-2.5, p=0.006). The effect was retained in multivariable analysis adjusting for age, gender, and comorbidities and could be validated in the independent cohort. At hospital admission EASIX correlated with increased suppressor of tumorigenicity-2, soluble thrombomodulin, angiopoietin-2, CXCL8, CXCL9 and interleukin-18, but not interferon-alpha. CONCLUSION: EASIX is a validated predictor of COVID19 outcome and an easy-to-access tool to segregate patients in need for intensive surveillance.

CAR T cells or allogeneic transplantation as standard of care for advanced large B-cell lymphoma: an intent-to-treat comparison.

CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell treatment has evolved as standard of care (SOC) for multiply relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). However, its potential benefit over allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) remains unclear. We compared outcomes with both types of cellular immunotherapy (CI) by intention to treat (ITT). Eligble were all patients with R/R LBCL and institutional tumor board decision recommending SOC CAR T-cell treatment between July 2018 and February 2020, or alloHCT between January 2004 and February 2020. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) from indication. Altogether, 41 and 60 patients for whom CAR T cells and alloHCT were intended, respectively, were included. In both cohorts, virtually all patients had active disease at indication. CI was recommended as part of second-line therapy for 21 alloHCT patients but no CAR T-cell patients. Median OS from indication was 475 days with CAR T cells vs 285 days with alloHCT (P = .88) and 222 days for 39 patients for whom alloHCT beyond second line was recommended (P = .08). Of CAR T-cell and alloHCT patients, 73% and 65%, respectively, proceeded to CI. After CI, 12-month estimates for nonrelapse mortality, relapse incidence, progression-free survival, and OS for CAR T cells vs alloHCT were 3% vs 21% (P = .04), 59% vs 44% (P = .12), 39% vs 33% (P = .97), and 68% vs 54% (P = .32), respectively. In conclusion, CAR T-cell outcomes were not inferior to alloHCT outcomes, whether measured by ITT or from CI administration, supporting strategies preferring CAR T cells over alloHCT as first CI for multiply R/R LBCL.

Dose-intensified bendamustine followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell support in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma with impaired bone marrow function.

Therapeutic options in heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients are often very limited because of impaired bone marrow function. Bendamustine is effective in multiple myeloma and has a favourable toxicity profile. We hypothesized that dose-intensified bendamustine (180 mg/m2 , day 1 and 2) followed by autologous blood stem cell support (ASCS) would improve bone marrow function with low post-transplant toxicity in patients with severely impaired haematopoiesis. We analyzed 28 consecutive myeloma patients, with a median of three prior lines of therapy (range 2-7), who had relapsed from the last treatment with very limited bone marrow function and were therefore ineligible for conventional chemotherapy, novel agents or trial enrolment. Dose-intensified bendamustine with ASCS improved haematopoiesis as reflected by increased platelet counts (median 40/nl vs 94/nl, p = 0.0004) and white blood cell counts (3.0/nl vs 4.8/nl, p = 0.02) at day +100. The median time until engraftment of platelets (>50/nl) was 11 days (0-24 days) and of white cell counts (>1.0/nl) 0 days (0-24 days). At least, a minimal response was achieved in 36% of patients. The disease stabilization rate was 50% while the median progression-free survival rate was limited to 2.14 months. Most importantly, patients were once again eligible for alternative treatments including enrolment into clinical trials. We conclude that dose-intensified bendamustine followed by ASCS is safe and feasible for multiple myeloma patients with very limited bone marrow reserve. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Gemcitabine and docetaxel for metastatic soft tissue sarcoma - a single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis and survival for patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are dismal. Standard first-line systemic chemotherapy is anthracycline-based. Gemcitabine/docetaxel (GD) is a therapeutic option in the second-line setting. Here we present the data of our single center retrospective analysis, using GD in locally advanced or metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2005 and 2012, a total of 34 patients were identified. The majority of tumors were located in the extremities (19/34, 56%) and abdomen/retroperitoneum (10/34, 29%). Most frequent histologies included leiomyosarcoma (13/34, 38%), liposarcoma (7/34, 21%), and pleomorphic sarcoma (6/34, 18%). RESULTS: Objective response to treatment by RECIST criteria after 3 cycles was low with 6% partial responses (PR, 2/34), 65% stable disease (SD, 22/34), and 29% progressive disease (PD, 10/34). Progression-free survival at 3 and 6 months was 77 and 62%, respectively. Patients with a clinical benefit (defined as PR or SD after the 3rd treatment cycle) had a significantly prolonged median progression-free and overall survival with 8.6 months (p < 0.0001; hazard ratio (HR) 33.1) and 22.4 months (p < 0.0001; HR 12.9), respectively. Most common toxicities included hand-foot syndrome, edema, pancytopenia, febrile neutropenia, and mucositis. CONCLUSION: Overall, we conclude that GD is an active second-line regimen in metastatic STS, with manageable side effects.

Effective prophylaxis of thromboembolic complications with low molecular weight heparin in relapsed multiple myeloma patients treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone.

The immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide have enhanced activity in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Their efficacy is increased with the addition of dexamethasone, but significant rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are a severe side effect. Based on this evidence, it is recommended that VTE prophylaxis be prescribed in these patients. However, the optimal prophylaxis remains controversial. We analyzed 45 patients with relapsed MM who were treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone at our center. The 45 patients received a total number of 192 cycles, respectively a median of three cycles; the median dosage of dexamethasone was 240 mg per cycle. All patients received prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Moreover, 86.6% of patients had at least one additional VTE risk factor beside the myeloma-related risk. One out of 45 patients developed a deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. None of the other 44 patients had clinical signs of thrombosis or embolism and none of all patients experienced complications or side effects due to anticoagulation. Our results indicate that prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is safe and effective. Therefore, we propose LMWH should be used in patients being treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone at least for the first 3 months of treatment until randomized trials have proven the equality of other pharmacological prophylaxis.