Haploidentical Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide in Patients with Myelofibrosis: A Multi-Institutional Experience
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Primary and secondary [post-essential thrombocythemia (ET) or polycythemia vera (PV)] Myelofibrosis (MF) are clonal hematopoietic neoplasms marked by constitutive JAK-STAT activation, bone marrow fibrosis, cytopenias, and constitutional symptom burden. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the only curative option in this disease. Median overall survival (OS) after JAK inhibitor (JAKi) discontinuation is poor, ranging from 6-24 months (Harrision et al. Ann Hematol. 2020). Haploidentical (Haplo)-HCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has improved donor availability, but data on post-HCT outcomes in MF remain scarce. Herein, we describe clinical outcomes of patients (pts) with MF who underwent haplo-HCT with PTCy. Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional study where we retrospectively reviewed charts to obtain pt, disease, and treatment characteristics of MF pts who underwent haplo-HCT from 2000 to 2019. Graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD), relapse, and non-relapse mortality (NRM) were described as cumulative incidences. OS and relapse free survival (RFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate analyses were conducted with Cox or Fine and Gray regression. Results: Fifty-eight adult pts from 11 centers underwent haplo-HCT and were included in the analysis. Pt, disease, and HCT characteristics are listed in Table 1. Thirty-four (59%) pts were over 60 years of age at the time of HCT. Of the 53 pts in whom driver mutation data was available, JAK2 was reported in 34 (64%), CALR in 10 (19%), MPL in 4 (8%), and 5 (9%) were triple-negative. Twenty-two (38%) pts had HCT-CI ≥ 3. Median CD34+ cell dose was 6.81 (range: 2.3-28.6) x 106/kg. All pts received PTCy as a part of GVHD prophylaxis regimen. Median follow-up in this study was 28 (range: 3.3-75.7) months. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment was reported in 53 (91%) and 47 (81%) pts at a median time of 20 (range: 14-70) and 31 (range: 15-225) days, respectively. Five pts (9%) had graft failure. The cumulative incidences of all-grade acute and chronic GVHD were in 44% (95% CI: 31-56%) at 6 months and 31% (95% CI: 18-44%) at 2 years. Grade 3-4 acute GVHD was seen in 5 (9%) pts. Post-HCT relapse/disease persistence occurred in 12 (21%) pts with a median of 416 (range: 28-917) days. The 2-year estimates of OS, RFS, relapse and NRM were 69% (95% CI: 55-80%), 52% (95% CI: 37-65%), 21% (95% CI: 11-34%) and 27% (95% CI: 16-39%) respectively (Fig 1). On univariate analyses (Table 2), older age (HR 2.17, P=.012) and a higher HCT-CI (HR 1.4, P<.001) was associated with higher NRM. Higher HCT-CI was also associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.38, P=.003). Bone marrow as a graft source was associated with a higher risk of relapse (HR 5.04, P<0.001, Fig 2), but did not significantly affect OS (HR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.18-3.46), RFS (HR 1.89, 95% CI: 0.71-5.02) or NRM (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.09-3.84). JAKi use prior to HCT, spleen size or type of driver mutation did not significantly affect outcomes. Conclusions: Based on this study, we conclude that haplo-HCT with PTCy is a valid option in pts with MF. The graft failure rates appear to be similar to those reported with sibling and unrelated donors. Older age, higher HCT-CI and bone marrow as graft source were associated with inferior outcomes. JAKi use prior to HCT or type of driver mutation did not significantly affect outcomes. Disclosures Grunwald: Trovagene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Premier: Consultancy; Premier: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Premier: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding. Dholaria:J&J: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; bms: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding. Abedin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Helsinn Healthcare: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Helsinn Healthcare: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol MyersSquibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Gerds:Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Jain:Bristol Myer Squibb: Other: for advisory board participation; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; CareDx: Other: Advisory Board.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».