Sequential use of intensive chemotherapy, RIC transplantation, and pDLT represents a promising approach to the treatment of high-risk AML and MDS, particularly in patients with most unfavorable prognoses.

A sequential regimen of chemotherapy, reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT), and prophylactic donor lymphocyte transfusion (pDLT) was studied in 103 patients with refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). According to published criteria, refractoriness was defined by primary induction failure (PIF; n ‫؍‬ 37), early (n ‫؍‬ 53), refractory (n ‫؍‬ 8), or second (n ‫؍‬ 5) relapse. Chemotherapy consisted of fludarabine (4 ؋ 30 mg/m 2 ), cytarabine (4 ؋ 2 g/m 2 ), and amsacrine (4 ؋ 100 mg/ m 2 ), followed 4 days later by RIC, comprising 4 Gy total body irradiation (TBI), cyclophosphamide, and antithymocyte globulin. Patients without graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) at day ؉120 received pDLT in escalating doses. Patients' median age was 51.8 years. Before conditioning, 99 patients had active disease, 3 were aplastic, 1 was in second complete remission (CR2). Forty-one patients had family donors, 62 had unrelated donors. With a 25-month median follow-up, overall survival (OS) at 1, 2, and 4 years was 54%, 40%, and 32%; the respective leukemiafree survival (LFS) was 47%, 37%, and 30%. Patients with PIF showed a 2-year OS of 62.5%. OS was 87% in 17 patients receiving pDLT. One-year cumulative incidence of leukemic death and non-relapsemortality was 28.7% and 17.2%. In a multivariate analysis, more than 2 courses of prior chemotherapy were the strongest predictor for poor outcome (P ‫؍‬ .007; HR ‫؍‬ 3.01 [OS]; P ‫؍‬ .002; HR ‫؍‬ 3.25 [LFS]). These results indicate a high activity of the regimen in refractory AML.

PURPOSE Despite undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT), patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with internal tandem duplication mutation in the FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene ( FLT3-ITD) have a poor prognosis, frequently relapse, and die as a result of AML. It is currently unknown whether a maintenance therapy using FLT3 inhibitors, such as the multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib, improves outcome after HCT. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase II trial (SORMAIN; German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00000591), 83 adult patients with FLT3-ITD–positive AML in complete hematologic remission after HCT were randomly assigned to receive for 24 months either the multitargeted and FLT3-kinase inhibitor sorafenib (n = 43) or placebo (n = 40 placebo). Relapse-free survival (RFS) was the primary endpoint of this trial. Relapse was defined as relapse or death, whatever occurred first. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 41.8 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for relapse or death in the sorafenib group versus placebo group was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.85; log-rank P = .013). The 24-month RFS probability was 53.3% (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.68) with placebo versus 85.0% (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.93) with sorafenib (HR, 0.256; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.65; log-rank P = .002). Exploratory data show that patients with undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) before HCT and those with detectable MRD after HCT derive the strongest benefit from sorafenib. CONCLUSION Sorafenib maintenance therapy reduces the risk of relapse and death after HCT for FLT3-ITD–positive AML.

Steroid refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. Although first-line treatment of cGVHD is based on controlled trials, second-line treatment is almost solely based on phase II trials or retrospective analyses. The consensus conference on clinical practice in cGVHD held in Regensburg aimed to achieve a consensus on the current evidence of treatment options as well as to provide guidelines for daily clinical practice. Treatment modalities are the use of steroids and calcineurin inhibitors as well as immunomodulating modalities (photopheresis, mTOR-inhibitors, thalidomide, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin A analogs, clofazimine), and cytostatic agents (mycophenolate mofetil, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, pentostatin). Recent reports showed some efficacy of rituximab, alemtuzumab, and etanercept in selected patients. Moreover, tyrosine kinase inihibitors such as imatinib came into the field because of their ability to interfere with the platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF-R) pathway involved in fibrosis. An other treatment option is low-dose thoracoabdominal irradiation. Although different treatment options are available, the "trial-and-error system" remains the only way to identify the drug effective in the individual patient, and valid biomarkers are eagerly needed to identify the likelihood of response to a drug in advance. Moreover, the sparse evidence for most treatment entities indicates the urgent need for systematic evaluation of second-line treatment options in cGVHD.

Summary We studied 228 consecutive stem cell transplant recipients, screened for reactivation of human herpesvirus‐6 (HHV‐6) in peripheral blood and other specimens as clinically indicated by means of qualitative polymerase chain reaction. Among them, 197 received an allograft and 31 autograft. Ninety‐six of 228 patients (42·1%) showed HHV‐6 reactivation in peripheral blood and 129 of 228 (56·6%) demonstrated HHV‐6 in at least one of the specimens tested. 41·9% of patients were asymptomatic when HHV‐6 was identified. Clinical features, noted when HHV‐6 was detected, included interstitial or alveolar pneumonia, gastroduodenal and colorectal disease, bone marrow suppression and liver disease. However, based on clinical and histopathological criteria, HHV‐6 was considered a causal agent in only a minority of patients, in particular, those suffering from bone marrow suppression (n = 11), gastroduodenitis (five), colitis (three), interstitial/alveolar pneumonia (five), skin rash (one), pericarditis (two) and encephalitis (one). HHV‐6 reactivation was significantly associated with the occurrence of graft‐versus‐host disease [odds ratio (OR) 5·31], Epstein–Barr virus coinfection (OR 8·89) and unrelated donor transplantation (OR 5·67) indicating an increased stage of immunosuppression.

Introduction: Most patients with FLT3-ITD-positive AML, who relapse after allogenic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) die from their disease. Whether prophylactic FLT3-ITD inhibition with sorafenib can prevent AML relapse and improve outcome of patients in complete hematological remission (CHR) after allo-SCT is unknown and was tested in the SORMAIN trial. Methods: This randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study was done at 14 centers in Germany and Austria. Patients with FLT3-ITD+ AML, aged 18 years or older, who had undergone allogenic stem cell transplantation from a HLA-matched sibling donor, 10/10 or 9/10 HLA-matched unrelated donor, and who were in confirmed CHR at the time of screening between day +30 and day +100 post allo-SCT, were included. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either sorafenib (starting dose: 2 x 1 tbl. [2 x 200mg] qd, increasing every 14d to up to 2 x 2 tbl. [2 x 400mg] qd according to tolerability) or placebo (2 x 1 or 2 tbl. qd) for up to 24 months. Randomization was done centrally. In case of drug related adverse events, study medication could be interrupted, stepwise reduced to a minimum of 2 x 1 tbl. qd, temporarily withheld and recommenced at a lower dose level. FLT3-ITD diagnostics was done centrally at baseline and at time of relapse. In relapsing patients, off-label compassionate use of sorafenib was possible. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) as defined by either hematological relapse or death from any cause. The secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). We here report the final RFS analysis. The OS results will be unblinded only prior to the ASH meeting and will be reported there. The SORMAIN study was terminated prior to full recruitment because of slow accrual. SORMAIN was registered with the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2010-018539-16) and the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00000591). Results: Between October 29, 2010, and May 17, 2016, 83 patients (41 males, 42 females) were randomized and included in the primary analysis (placebo, n=40; sorafenib, n=43). Median age was 54 years (IQR 47.75 - 61.33) for the entire study population and not significantly different between sorafenib and placebo groups. With a median follow up of 41.8 months after randomization (IQR 24.1 - 42.5), median RFS was 30.9 months (lower bound of 95% CI 5.2 months) in the placebo group versus not reached in the sorafenib group, corresponding to a 2-year RFS of 53,3 % (95% CI 36.5-67.5) in the placebo versus 85.0 % (69.5-93.0) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% CI; 0.18 -0.85; P=0.0135) (Fig. 1). Overall, sorafenib was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in both groups was acute GvHD (seven [ 17.5%] in the placebo group vs. nine [20.9%] in the sorafenib group. Conclusion: Sorafenib maintenance therapy after allo-SCT is feasible and significantly reduces the risk of relapse or death in patients with FLT3-ITD positive AML. OS results will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Burchert: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Bug:Amgen: Honoraria; Neovii: Other: Travel Grant; Novartis Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Other: Travel Grant; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Grant; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel Grant. Finke:Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Neovii: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Medac: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Stelljes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; JAZZ: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Rollig:Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Wäsch:Pfizer: Honoraria. Lang:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding. Ehninger:Cellex Gesellschaft fuer Zellgewinnung mbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; GEMoaB Monoclonals GmbH: Employment, Equity Ownership; Bayer: Research Funding. Serve:Bayer: Research Funding. Kroeger:Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; JAZZ: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Götze:JAZZ Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel aid ASH 2017; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schmid:Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Speakers Bureau. Wolf:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Honoraria, Research Funding. Thiede:AgenDix: Other: Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haferlach:MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bethge:Miltenyi Biotec GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Neovii GmbH: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Summary Strategies for relapse prevention after allogeneic transplantation in acute leukaemia are warranted. A registry‐based matched‐pair analysis evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic donor lymphocyte infusion (proDLI). Adults receiving proDLI in complete remission (CR) and controls were pair‐matched for age, diagnosis, cytogenetics, stage, donor, gender, conditioning and T‐cell depletion. Eighty‐nine pairs were identified (median follow‐up: 6.9 years). Within the entire cohort, no difference was observed. However, among patients with high‐risk acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) (unfavourable cytogenetics and/or transplanted beyond first CR), proDLI recipients had improved overall survival (69.8% vs. 40.2% in controls, P = 0.027). ProDLI has moderate efficacy, but can contribute to improved outcome in high‐risk AML.

Adjuvant transfusion of donor lymphocytes (aDLT) may reduce the risk of relapse after allogeneic stem cell transplantation in high-risk AML. We performed a retrospective analysis on the safety and efficacy of aDLT in a cohort of 46 patients. To be eligible for aDLT, patients had to be in CR for at least 120 days from transplantation, off immunosuppression for ⩾ 30 days and free of GvHD. Thirty-four patients with similar disease characteristics and fulfilling the same selection criteria served as controls. Median follow-up among aDLT recipients was 7.2 years. Ten patients (22%) relapsed inspite of aDLT, as compared with 53% in the control group. Induction of GvHD was the main complication. However, non-relapse mortality was low with patients dying from infection (n = 2), severe chronic GvHD (n = 1) and secondary malignancy (n = 2). At the time of analysis, 31/46 aDLT recipients were alive in CR at a median of 5.7 years after first aDLT. Overall survival at 7 years after transplant was 67% as compared with 31% in the control group (P o 0.001). In conclusion, aDLT is safe, when given in escalating doses to a well predefined group of patients. Long-term survival can be achieved. INTRODUCTIONDespite advances in allogeneic transplantation (allogeneic stem cell transplantation; alloSCT), high-risk AML remains a disease with poor outcome, lacking optimal therapeutic strategy. In particular, patients with refractory disease or early relapse still have a poor prognosis. High-risk disease can further be defined by delayed response to chemotherapy, unfavorable karyotype or molecular genetics 1 and by a history of preceding neoplasia and/or chemotherapy.In the era of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC), high rates and a poor outcome of relapse after alloSCT (2 years overall survival (OS) 20%) 2,3 are the main causes for treatment failure in high-risk AML. Thus, effective strategies for preventing post-transplant relapse are urgently needed. As donor lymphocyte transfusion (DLT) enhances the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect, it offers an attractive therapeutic option to decrease relapse-related mortality rates. The GVL potential of donor T-lymphocytes has been described in several preclinical 4,5 and clinical studies. [6][7][8] In particular, their use in the management of post-transplant relapses of chronic myeloid leukemia has been a story of success. However, despite of its desirable GVL effects, DLT may also increase the incidence and severity of GvHD. Thus, DLT protocols have to be optimized to minimize the risk of severe GvHD and maximize the benefit of the GVL effect.The establishment of RIC provided a basis for the employment of DLT in the post-transplantation period of AML therapy. There are several clinical studies supporting the positive role of DLT in the prophylaxis 9 and treatment of post-transplant relapse in AML. 2,10 Despite these encouraging data, the efficacy and the toxicity of DLT in the management of AML is still poorly assessed,