MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3214311634 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-152640

Single Centre, Retrospective Analysis of Extracorporeal Photopheresis (ECP) Therapy in the Patients Who Are Heavily Pre-Treated for Steroid Resistant Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GVHD)

2021· article· en· W3214311634 sur OpenAlexaff
Swe Mar Linn, Igor Novitzky‐Basso, Christopher J. Patriquin, Ivan Pašić, Wilson Lam, Arjun Law, Fotios V. Michelis, Armin Gerbitz, Auro Viswabandya, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Rajat Kumar, Jonas Mattsson, David Barth, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineExtracorporeal PhotopheresisAzathioprineGraft-versus-host diseaseRituximabPrednisoneInternal medicineGastroenterologyTacrolimusAdverse effectSurgeryTransplantationLymphomaDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract *DB and DK contributed to the work equally. Background Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a recommended second or later line of therapy for chronic GVHD (cGVHD), and is beneficial not only because of increased response but also for its lack of adverse effects, specifically systemic immune suppression, mainly from steroids. In this single centre study, we attempted to evaluate not only therapeutic efficacy of ECP, but also its steroid-sparing effect by regularly analyzing steroid dose per body weight. We also attempted to identify any predictors of response or survival after ECP, which was not well defined before. Patients and methods A total of 75 cGVHD patients (pts) who received ECP for cGVHD from 2007 to 2021 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre were included and evaluated retrospectively. Patients and disease characteristics are as follows: median age 48.5 years (range 17-70); male 42/75 (56%); organ involvement at the time of ECP: skin (93%), oral (53%), eye (51%), gastrointestinal (25%), liver (49%), lung (57%), and musculoskeletal (n=50, 67%). Sixty-eight (91%) and 7 pts (9%) had severe and moderate grade cGVHD, respectively. Sixty-eight pts (91%) received ECP as 4 th line or beyond. They were heavily pretreated with prednisone (98%), cyclosporine (57%), tacrolimus (24%), mycophenolate mofetil (64%), azathioprine (65%), rituximab (7%), imatinib (8%), ibrunitib (3%) and ruxolitinib (1%). ECP was started twice weekly for the first 12 weeks, then twice every 2 weeks in 2012-2021, while the schedule was twice every 2 weeks from 2007-2012. If there was no response or clinical benefit noted in first 24 treatments, then ECP was discontinued. In general, we attempted to provide up to around 60 sessions based on the clinicians' discretion. The overall response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit (CB) were assessed at months 3, 6 and 12 after staring ECP. As part of standard clinical practice, NIH consensus criteria were used for grading and response assessment. CB was assessed considering clinical response as well as steroid dose reduction. Treatment failure was defined as 1) resistance to ECP requiring treatment switch, 2) non-relapse mortality (NRM), 3) relapse, 4) intolerance to ECP. Failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS)were calculated from the day of ECP initiation until the endpoints of failure or death, respectively. Results ECP was started a median of 28 months (range 1-125) after development of cGVHD. ECP was performed a median of 35 times (range 6-174) with a median duration of 11 months (range 1-53). Out of 75 pts, 48 completed planned ECP successfully and 27 stopped due to no response or benefit including, of whom 14 required additional therapy, 1 stopped due to line infection, and 1 stopped due to relapse of AML. With a median 72 months of follow-up, ORR was attained in 21% (16/75), 57% (36/63) and 70% (32/46) at month 3, 6 and 12, respectively. At 6 months, ORR was observed in 47-64% across all organs assessed. No difference in ORR was noted according to the cGVHD grade; at 6 months, severe cGVHD showed similar ORR (57%) to those with moderate cGVHD (60%) (p=0.893). CB was noted in 23% (17/75), 62% (39/63), and 76% (35/46) at month 3, 6 and 12, respectively. A total of 27/75 failures (36%) and 20/75 death (27%) occurred, due to the following: ECP resistance requiring switch to other therapy (n=14, 19%), NRM (n=11, 15%), relapse of primary disease (n=1, 1%) or ECP-related complication (n=1, 1%, line infection). In the overall cohort, FFS and OS at 12 months were 68.3% and 85.9%, respectively (Figure 1). More than a half of pts stopped steroids completely within 12 months after starting ECP. The proportion of pts off steroids was 16%, 17%, 32%, and 64% at month 0, 3, 6 and 12 after starting ECP, respectively (Figure 2). Risk factor analysis did not show any predictive markers for ORR at 6 months, while prognostic factor analysis suggested the development of musculoskeletal involvement as favorable prognostic factor for FFS (p=0.003, HR 0.315 [0.147, 0.673]) even with multivariate analysis. Conclusion Our study showed that: 1) ECP is a very effective treatment for heavily pre-treated cGVHD pts who have failed other therapies; 2) More than a half of pts can stop steroids completely within 12 months after starting ECP, thus avoiding long-term toxicity risk. Further study is warranted comparing ECP with other cGVHD treatment modalities. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patriquin: BioCryst Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria. Law: Novartis: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Lipton: Bristol Myers Squibb, Ariad, Pfizer, Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mattsson: MattssonAB medical: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kim: Paladin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meier Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationTravaux en français237 207