The chemokine stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) and its receptor CXCR4 participate in the retention of normal hematopoietic stem cells within the bone marrow (BM) and their release into the circulation. Homing and engraftment of human stem cells in immunodeficient mice are dependent on cell surface CXCR4 expression and the production of BM SDF-1, which acts also as a survival factor for both human and murine stem cells. However, the role of SDF-1/CXCR4 interactions in the control of human acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) cell trafficking and disease progression is poorly understood. In this study, we report that although some AML cells do not express surface CXCR4, all AML cells tested express internal CXCR4 and SDF-1. Culture of AML cells with SDF-1 promoted their survival, whereas addition of neutralizing CXCR4 antibodies, SDF-1 antibodies, or AMD3100 significantly decreased it. Pretreatment of primary human AML cells with neutralizing CXCR4 antibodies blocked their homing into the BM and spleen of transplanted NOD/SCID/B2m null mice. Furthermore, weekly administrations of antihuman CXCR4 to mice previously engrafted with primary AML cells led to a dramatic decrease in the levels of human AML cells in the BM, blood, and spleen in a dose-and time-dependent manner. Interestingly, the same treatment did not affect significantly the levels of normal human progenitors engrafted into NOD/SCID mice. Taken together, our findings demonstrated the importance of the SDF-1/CXCR4 axis in the regulation of in vivo motility and development of human AML stem cells and identified CXCR4 neutralization as a potential treatment for AML.

Allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (SCT) with both myeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) is an effective therapy in AML/MDS. However, the relative merits of each may differ in different settings. To define the role of dose intensity, we analyzed SCT outcomes of 112 consecutive patients with AML/MDS. A total of 45 patients met eligibility criteria for standard myeloablative conditioning and were given intravenous-busulfan (12.8 mg/kg) and cyclophosphamide (ivBuCy). A total of 67 noneligible patients were given RIC with fludarabine and intravenous-busulfan (6.4 mg/kg, FB2, n ¼ 41) or a modified myeloablative regimen with fludarabine and myeloablative doses of intravenous-busulfan (12.8 mg/kg, FB4, n ¼ 26). The overall survival (OS) at 2 years was 50, 49 and 47% after ivBuCy, FB4 and FB2, respectively (P ¼ NS). Nonrelapse mortality was higher after ivBuCy, 22 vs 8% (P ¼ 0.05), but relapse rates were lower. Active disease at SCT was the most significant predictor of reduced survival in multivariable analysis (HR 4.5, P ¼ 0.0001). Myeloablative and RIC regimens had similar outcomes when leukemia was in remission at SCT; however, patients with active disease could only be salvaged by myeloablative conditioning. Among the latter, OS was 45% after ivBuCy but no FB2 recipient survived (P ¼ 0.02). Patients with active disease, ineligible for standard myeloablation, could tolerate modified myeloablation well; however, long-term outcome cannot be determined yet.

Comparison between two fludarabine-based reduced-intensity conditioning regimens before allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: fludarabine/melphalan is associated with higher incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease and non-relapse mortality and lower incidence of relapse than fludarabine/busulfan A Shimoni, I Hardan, N Shem-Tov, A Rand, C Herscovici, R Yerushalmi and A NaglerThe Division of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, IsraelReduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens are increasingly used in allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (SCT). There are no data whether any of these regimens has advantage and in what setting. We retrospectively analyzed SCT outcomes in 151 patients given fludarabine-based RIC for various hematological malignancies; 72 conditioned with fludarabine and intravenousbusulfan (FB) and 79 with fludarabine and melphalan (FM). FM was more myelosuppressive. Grade III-IV organ toxicity occurred in 31 and 53% of FB and FM recipients (P ¼ 0.005) and acute graft-versus-host disease grade II-IV in 33 and 53%, respectively (P ¼ 0.01). Non-relapse mortality rate (NRM) was 16 and 40%, respectively (P ¼ 0.003). Active disease (HR 2.2, P ¼ 0.003) and prior autologous SCT (HR 1.7, P ¼ 0.04) predicted inferior overall survival (OS). Among patients transplanted in remission, OS was 72 and 36% after FB and FM, respectively (P ¼ 0.03) due to increased NRM with FM. Similarly, patients transplanted in active disease experienced higher NRM with FM, however lower relapse rates resulted in equivalent OS. In conclusion, there are marked differences in outcome between RIC regimens that are theoretically dose-equivalent. The FM regimen is more myelosuppressive and toxic but controls disease better. FB was associated with improved survival in patients transplanted in remission. These observations merit further study in prospective studies.

Allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (SCT) with both myeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) is effective therapy in AML/MDS. However, the relative merits of each may differ in different settings. To define the role of dose-intensity we analyzed SCT outcomes of 112 consecutive patients (pts) with AML/MDS transplanted over a 5-year period. The median age was 50 years (18–70). Eighty-five patients had AML (39 secondary) and 17 had MDS (all with excess of blasts). Fifty-eight had active disease at SCT (>10% marrow blasts) and 54 were in remission. The donor was HLA-matched sibling (n=58), 1-ag mismatched related (n=6) and matched-unrelated (n=48). Forty-five pts met eligibility criteria for standard myeloablative conditioning and were given intravenous-busulfan (12.8 mg/kg) and cyclophosphamide (ivBuCy). Sixty-seven pts were considered non-eligible for standard myeloablation due to advanced age (over 55 years for sibling SCT or over 50 years for mismatched or unrelated SCT), extensive prior therapy, organ dysfunction, recent fungal infection or poor performance status. These pts were given RIC with fludarabine and intravenous-busulfan (6.4 mg/kg, FB2, n=41) or modified myeloablative regimen with fludarabine and myeloablative doses of intravenous-busulfan (12.8 mg/kg, FB4, n=26). The median age of this group was 55 years compared with 42 years in the first group, and a larger proportion had SCT from unrelated donors. With a median follow-up of 22 months (2-62), 63 pts are alive and 49 have died (34 relapse, 15 non-relapse causes). Overall survival (OS) at 2 years was 50%, 49%, and 47% after ivBuCy, FB4, and FB2, respectively (p=NS). Non-relapse mortality was higher after ivBuCy, 22% Vs 8% and 8%, respectively (p=0.05) although these patients were younger and in a better medical condition. This difference was related to higher risk of acute GVHD grade III-IV after ivBuCy while deaths due to organ toxicity were rare in all groups. Relapse rates were lower after ivBuCy but not reaching statistical significance. Active disease at SCT was the most significant predictor of reduced survival in multivariable analysis (HR 4.5, p=0.0001). SCT from unrelated donor and poor prognosis cytogenetics had borderline significance while advanced age and secondary disease had no prognostic significance. Myeloablative and RIC regimens had similar outcomes when leukemia was in remission at SCT with a trend for better outcome with RIC; estimated 2-year OS been 60%, 68% and 80% after ivBuCy, FB4, and FB2, respectively (p=NS). However patients with active disease could only be salvaged by myeloablative conditioning (classical or modified). Among the later group, OS was 45% and 39% after ivBuCy and FB4, respectively, but no FB2 recipient survived (p=0.02). These observations suggest that RIC is associated with favorable outcome and low toxicity in pts in remission at SCT and therefore can be further studied in prospective trials comparing it to myeloablative regimens even in pts eligible for the later. However, RIC is a poor option for pts with active disease. Those not eligible for standard myeloablation could still tolerate modified myeloablation and enjoy its merits. The modified myeloablative regimen has low toxicity and similar cytoreductive effect and therefore can be further studied in prospective studies comparing it to standard myeloablative regimens even in pts eligible for the later.

Summary The immunogenicity and safety of Pfizer‐BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients are unknown. We prospectively followed 152 HSCT recipients who were at least six months following transplantation and with no active acute graft‐ versus ‐host disease (GVHD). Blood samples were taken 2–4 weeks after the second vaccination and analyzed for receptor‐binding domain (RBD) antibodies and neutralizing antibodies (NA). 272 immunocompetent healthcare workers served as controls. At a median of 28 days after the second vaccination, 118 patients (77·6%) developed RBD immunoglobulin G (IgG) with a geometric mean titre (GMT) of 2·61 [95% CI (confidence interval), 2·16–3·16]. In the control group 269/272 (98·9%) developed RBD IgG, with a GMT of 5·98 (95% CI 5·70–6·28), P < 0·0001. The GMT of NA in HSCT recipients and controls was 116·0 (95% CI 76·5–175·9), and 427·9 (95% CI 354·3–516·7) respectively ( P < 0001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that HSCT recipients with no chronic GVHD and no immunosuppressive therapy at the time of vaccination had significantly higher levels of NA following the second vaccination. Adverse events were minimal and were less common than in healthy controls. In conclusion; the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination is safe and effective in HSCT recipients, especially those who are immunosuppression‐free. A significant fraction developed protecting NA.

No abstract

Although stem cell mobilization has been performed for more than 20 years, little is known about the effects of mobilizing agents on apheresis composition and the impact of graft cell subsets on patients' outcome. With the increasing use of plerixafor and the inclusion of poor mobilizers in autologous transplant procedures, new parameters other than CD34 + stem cell dose are emerging; plerixafor seems to mobilize more primitive CD34 + /CD38 − stem cells compared with G-CSF, but their correlation with stable hematopoietic engraftment is still obscure. Immune recovery is as crucial as hematopoietic reconstitution, and higher T and natural killer cells infused within the graft have been correlated with better outcome in autologous transplant; recent studies showed increased mobilization of immune effectors with plerixafor compared with G-CSF, but further data are needed to clarify the clinical impact of these findings. In the allogeneic setting, much evidence suggests that mobilized T-cell alloreactivity is tempered by G-CSF, probably with the mediation of dendritic cells, even though no clear correlation with GVL and GVHD has been found. Plerixafor is not approved in healthy donors yet; early data suggest it might mobilize a GVHD protective balance of immune effectors, but further studies are needed to define its role in allogeneic transplant.

Clinical decisions in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) are supported by the use of prognostic scores for outcome prediction. Scores vary in their features and in the composition of development cohorts. We sought to externally validate and compare the performance of 8 commonly applied scoring systems on a cohort of allo-HSCT recipients. Among 528 patients studied, acute myeloid leukemia was the leading transplant indication (44%) and 46% of patients had a matched sibling donor. Most models successfully grouped patients into higher and lower risk strata, supporting their use for risk classification. However, discrimination varied (2-year overall survival area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: revised Pretransplantation Assessment of Mortality [rPAM], 0.64; PAM, 0.63; revised Disease Risk Index [rDRI], 0.62; Endothelial Activation and Stress Index [EASIx], 0.60; combined European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation [EBMT]/Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index [HCT-CI], 0.58; EBMT, 0.58; Comorbidity-Age, 0.58; HCT-CI, 0.55); AUC ranges from 0.5 (random) to 1.0 (perfect prediction). rPAM and PAM, which had the greatest predictive capacity across all outcomes, are comprehensive models including patient, disease, and transplantation information. Interestingly, EASIx, a biomarker-driven model, had comparable performance for nonrelapse mortality (NRM; 2-year AUC, 0.65) but no predictive value for relapse (2-year AUC, 0.53). Overall, allo-HSCT prognostic systems may be useful for risk stratification, but individual prediction remains a challenge, as reflected by the scores’ limited discriminative capacity.