The online version of this article has a Supplementary Appendix. BackgroundThere is evidence suggesting that sirolimus, in combination with tacrolimus, is active in the prevention of graft-versus-host disease. Sirolimus-based immune suppression may suppress alloreactive T cells, while sparing the survival and function of regulatory T cells. Design and MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial to compare the impact of sirolimus/tacrolimus against that of methotrexate/tacrolimus on the prevention of graft-versus-host disease and regulatory T-cell reconstitution. ResultsSeventy-four patients were randomized 1:1 to sirolimus/tacrolimus or methotrexate/ tacrolimus, stratified for type of donor (sibling or unrelated) and the patients' age. The rate of grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease at 100 days was 43% (95% CI: 27-59%) in the sirolimus/tacrolimus group and 89% (95% CI: 72-96%) in the methotrexate/tacrolimus group (P<0.001). The rate of moderate/severe chronic graft-versus-host disease was 24% (95% CI: 7-47%) in the sirolimus/tacrolimus group and 64% (95% CI: 41-79%) in the methotrexate/tacrolimus group (P=0.008). Overall survival and patient-reported quality of life did not differ between the two groups. On days 30 and 90 post-transplant, sirolimus-treated patients had a significantly greater proportion of regulatory T cells among the CD4 + cells in the peripheral blood, and isolated regulatory T cells were functional. ConclusionsThese data demonstrate that sirolimus/tacrolimus prevents grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease and moderate-severe chronic graft-versus-host disease more effectively than does methotrexate/tacrolimus, and supports regulatory T-cell reconstitution following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. ABSTRACT© F e r r a t a S t o r t i F o u n d a t i o n

Relapse remains a leading cause for treatment failure after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in patients with intermediate-or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). To discern the impact of 5-azacitine treatment pretransplant on the risk for relapse after HCT, we analyzed the post transplant outcomes of all 54 consecutive patients with MDS or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia who received HCT from HLA-compatible donors according to pretransplant 5-azacitidine exposure. Thirty patients received a median of four (1-7) cycles of 5-azacitidine, and 24 patients did not receive 5-azacitidine before HCT. The 1-year estimates of overall survival, relapse-free survival and cumulative incidence of relapse were 47, 41 and 20%, for 5-azacitidine patients and 60, 51 and 32%, respectively, for non-5-azacytidine patients. These observations suggest that outcomes are similar in both groups with a trend toward decreased early relapse in patients receiving 5-azacitidine. 5-Azacitidine may be of value in stabilizing the disease, thereby allowing time for patients to reach transplant and does not appear to affect transplant outcomes.

No abstract

The poor prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients relapsing within 1-year of initial diagnosis after first-line rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy has created controversy about the role of autologous transplantation (auto-HCT) in this setting. We compared auto-HCT outcomes of chemosensitive DLBCL patients between 2000 and 2011 in two cohorts based on time to relapse from diagnosis. The early rituximab failure (ERF) cohort consisted of patients with primary refractory disease or those with first relapse within 1-year of initial diagnosis. The ERF cohort was compared with those relapsing >1-year after initial diagnosis (Late Rituximab Failure [LRF] cohort). ERF and LRF cohorts included 300 and 216 patients, respectively. Non-relapse mortality (NRM), progression/relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of ERF vs. LRF cohorts at 3-years were 9% (95%CI 6–13) vs. 9% (95%CI 5–13), 47% (95%CI 41–52) vs. 39% (95%CI 33–46), 44% (95%CI 38–50) vs. 52% (95%CI 45–59) and 50% (95 CI 44–56) vs. 67% (95%CI 60–74), respectively. On multivariate analysis, ERF was not associated with higher NRM (relative risk (RR) 1.31, p=0.34). ERF cohort had a higher risk of treatment failure (progression/relapse or death) (RR 2.08, p<0.001) and overall mortality (RR 3.75, p<0.001) within the first 9 months post auto-HCT. Beyond this period, PFS and OS were not significantly different between ERF and LRF cohorts. Auto-HCT provides durable disease control to a sizeable subset of DLBCL despite ERF (3-year PFS 44%), and remains the standard-of-care in chemosensitive DLBCL regardless of the timing of disease relapse.

A B S T R A C T PurposeThis clinical trial evaluated standard-dose radioimmunotherapy with a chemotherapy-based transplantation regimen followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation versus rituximab with the same regimen in patients with relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients and MethodsPatients with chemotherapy-sensitive persistent or relapsed DLBCL were randomly assigned to receive iodine-131 tositumomab (dosimetric dose of 5 mCi on day Ϫ19 and therapeutic dose of 0.75 Gy on day Ϫ12), carmustine 300 mg/m 2 (day Ϫ6), etoposide 100 mg/m 2 twice daily (days Ϫ5 to Ϫ2), cytarabine 100 mg/m 2 twice daily (days Ϫ5 to Ϫ2), and melphalan 140 mg/m 2 (day Ϫ1; B-BEAM) or rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on days Ϫ19 and Ϫ12 and the same chemotherapy regimen (R-BEAM). ResultsTwo hundred twenty-four patients were enrolled, with 113 patients randomly assigned to R-BEAM and 111 patients assigned to B-BEAM. Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates, the primary end point, were 48.6% (95% CI, 38.6% to 57.8%) for R-BEAM and 47.9% (95% CI, 38.2% to 57%; P ϭ .94) for B-BEAM, and the 2-year overall survival (OS) rates were 65.6% (95% CI, 55.3% to 74.1%) for R-BEAM and 61% (95% CI, 50.9% to 69.9%; P ϭ .38) for B-BEAM. The 100-day treatment-related mortality rates were 4.1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 8.0%) for R-BEAM and 4.9% (95% CI, 0.8% to 9.0%; P ϭ .97) for B-BEAM. The maximum mucositis score was higher in the B-BEAM arm (0.72) compared with the R-BEAM arm (0.31; P Ͻ .001). ConclusionThe B-BEAM and R-BEAM regimens produced similar 2-year PFS and OS rates for patients with chemotherapy-sensitive relapsed DLBCL. No differences in toxicities other than mucositis were noted.

Tacrolimus (Tac) plus methotrexate (MTX) is a standard regimen for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is sometimes used instead of MTX to minimize toxicity, despite the lack of controlled studies demonstrating efficacy. We conducted a single-center, randomized phase II trial comparing Tac + MMF to Tac + MTX. Intent-to-treat analyses included 42 patients randomized to Tac + MMF and 47 to Tac + MTX. Patient characteristics were not different between the study arms. Patients in the Tac + MMF arm were less likely to experience severe mucositis, require narcotic analgesia and parenteral nutrition, and had earlier hospital discharge. The Tac + MMF arm had the same time to neutrophil recovery, but earlier platelet recovery. The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD (aGVHD) at 100 days was similar (P = .8), but grade III-IV aGVHD was higher in the Tac + MMF arm (19% versus 4%; P = .03); this was predominantly seen in unrelated donor transplants (26% versus 4%; P = .04), and less in related donor transplants (11% versus 4%; P = n.s.). Moderate or severe chronic GVHD was similar (P = .71). There were no significant differences between the arms in relapse, nonrelapse mortality, or overall and relapse-free survivals. MMF was associated with less early toxicity than MTX but was not as effective in preventing severe aGVHD, especially in unrelated donor transplants.

Purpose To examine the outcomes of patients with chemotherapy-sensitive mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) following a first hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HCT), comparing outcomes with autologous (auto) versus reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic (RIC allo) HCT and with transplantation applied at different times in the disease course. Patients and Methods In all, 519 patients who received transplantations between 1996 and 2007 and were reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research were analyzed. The early transplantation cohort was defined as those patients in first partial or complete remission with no more than two lines of chemotherapy. The late transplantation cohort was defined as all the remaining patients. Results Auto-HCT and RIC allo-HCT resulted in similar overall survival from transplantation for both the early (at 5 years: 61% auto-HCT v 62% RIC allo-HCT; P = .951) and late cohorts (at 5 years: 44% auto-HCT v 31% RIC allo-HCT; P = .202). In both early and late transplantation cohorts, progression/relapse was lower and nonrelapse mortality was higher in the allo-HCT group. Overall survival and progression-free survival were highest in patients who underwent auto-HCT in first complete response. Multivariate analysis of survival from diagnosis identified a survival benefit favoring early HCT for both auto-HCT and RIC allo-HCT. Conclusion For patients with chemotherapy-sensitive MCL, the optimal timing for HCT is early in the disease course. Outcomes are particularly favorable for patients undergoing auto-HCT in first complete remission. For those unable to achieve complete remission after two lines of chemotherapy or those with relapsed disease, either auto-HCT or RIC allo-HCT may be effective, although the chance for long-term remission and survival is lower.

For diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients progressing after autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT), allogeneic HCT (alloHCT) is often considered, although limited information is available to guide patient selection. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we identified 503 patients who underwent alloHCT after disease progression/relapse following a prior autoHCT. The 3-year probabilities of non-relapse mortality, progression/relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 30%, 38%, 31% and 37% respectively. Factors associated with inferior PFS on multivariate analysis included Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <80, chemoresistance, autoHCT to alloHCT interval <1-year and myeloablative conditioning. Factors associated with worse OS on multivariate analysis included KPS<80, chemoresistance and myeloablative conditioning. Three adverse prognostic factors were used to construct a prognostic model for PFS, including KPS<80 (4 points), autoHCT to alloHCT interval <1-year (2 points) and chemoresistant disease at alloHCT (5 points). This CIBMTR prognostic model classified patients into four groups: low-risk (0 points), intermediate-risk (2–5 points), high-risk (6–9 points) or very high-risk (11points), predicting 3-year PFS of 40%, 32%, 11% and 6%, respectively, with 3-year OS probabilities of 43%, 39%, 19% and 11% respectively. In conclusion, the CIBMTR prognostic model identifies a subgroup of DLBCL patients experiencing long-term survival with alloHCT after a failed prior autoHCT.