Anti-T-lymphocyte globulin (ATLG) compared to post-transplant cyclophosphamide as GvHD prophylaxis in ALL patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

We retrospectively analyzed high-risk ALL patients in CR1 receiving total body irradiation based conditioning regimen with ATLG (n = 74) or PTCy (n = 73) for GVHD prophylaxis. The 3-year OS and LFS were similar in both groups: 65 and 60% in the ATLG group and 64 and 67% in the PTCy group (p = 0.9 and 0.5, respectively). CIR and NRM rate at three years was 12 and 21% after PTCy and 19 and 20% after ATLG (p = 0.4 and p = 0.9, respectively). Acute GvHD grades II-IV and grades III/IV at 100 days was 46 and 19% after PTCy and 33 and 10% after ATLG (p = 0.08 and p = 0.9, respectively). Chronic GvHD of all grade at two years was higher after PTCy: 55% versus 26% (p < 0.001). Based on the propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, aGvHD grades II-IV was trending higher in the PTCy group compared to the ATLG group (p = 0.07). In contrast to the PSM analysis, on multivariate analysis the receipt of PTCy compared with ATLG was associated with a reduced CIR (p = 0.026). Our retrospective single-center analysis shows a lower incidence of acute and chronic GvHD while displaying similar LFS and OS after ATLG compared to PTCy in TBI based allogeneic stem cell transplantation for high-risk ALL.

Multidisciplinary survey on use of feeding tubes in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy in Germany-the SUFEETUBE project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Data on enteral tube feeding in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy vary considerably between German institutions. This survey aims to investigate the management of feeding tubes in an interdisciplinary context across Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2022 and May 2023, 70 participants (42 radiation oncologists, 12 medical oncologists, 14 head and neck surgeons, and 2 physicians covering several specialties) responded to our web-based survey. In addition to the type of institution (university hospital, private practice, etc.), their age, and professional experience (in years), participants were asked several questions on the indication and institutional policy for tube placement and management (prophylactic/reactive nasogastric or gastrostomy tube). All questions were mandatory single- or multiple-choice questions, while additional comments were possible by email. RESULTS: Most participants were employed at a university hospital (n = 52; 74.3%) and came from a radiation oncology background (n = 42; 60%). Fifty-four contributors (77.1%) reported that no nutritional risk screening prior to chemoradiotherapy was routinely performed, and 71.4% (n = 50) stated that no standardized protocol was used at the institution to set the indication for tube placement. Generally, policies and methods of tube feeding vary considerably between the individual institutions and specialties. However, the majority (n = 56, 80%) recommended a prophylactic percutaneous enteral gastrostomy (PEG) tube to their patients before chemoradiotherapy. Still, there was no consistent trend regarding the approach for reactive tube feeding. CONCLUSION: The policies and methods of tube feeding vary considerably between the individual institutions and specialties in Germany. In the era of individualized medicine, uniform protocols are difficult to establish. However, a baseline nutritional risk screening could simplify decision-making in clinical practice.