No abstract

BACKGROUND Data are lacking on whether lenalidomide maintenance therapy prolongs the time to disease progression after autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. METHODS Between April 2005 and July 2009, we randomly assigned 460 patients who were younger than 71 years of age and had stable disease or a marginal, partial, or complete response 100 days after undergoing stem-cell transplantation to lenalidomide or placebo, which was administered until disease progression. The starting dose of lenalidomide was 10 mg per day (range, 5 to 15). RESULTS The study-drug assignments were unblinded in 2009, when a planned interim analysis showed a significantly longer time to disease progression in the lenalidomide group. At unblinding, 20% of patients who received lenalidomide and 44% of patients who received placebo had progressive disease or had died (P<0.001); of the remaining 128 patients who received placebo and who did not have progressive disease, 86 crossed over to lenalidomide. At a median follow-up of 34 months, 86 of 231 patients who received lenalidomide (37%) and 132 of 229 patients who received placebo (58%) had disease progression or had died. The median time to progression was 46 months in the lenalidomide group and 27 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). A total of 35 patients who received lenalidomide (15%) and 53 patients who received placebo (23%) died (P=0.03). More grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events and grade 3 non-hematologic adverse events occurred in patients who received lenalidomide (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Second primary cancers occurred in 18 patients who received lenalidomide (8%) and 6 patients who received placebo (3%). CONCLUSIONS Lenalidomide maintenance therapy, initiated at day 100 after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, was associated with more toxicity and second cancers but a significantly longer time to disease progression and significantly improved overall survival among patients with myeloma. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114101.)

This phase 3, multicenter, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the safety and efficacy of plerixafor with granulocyte colonystimulating factor (G-CSF) in mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Patients received G-CSF (10 g/kg) subcutaneously daily for up to 8 days. Beginning on day 4 and continuing daily for up to 4 days, patients received either plerixafor (240 g/kg) or placebo subcutaneously. Starting on day 5, patients began daily apheresis for up to 4 days or until more than or equal to 6 ؋ 10 6 CD34 ؉ cells/kg were collected. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who collected more than or equal to 6 ؋ 10 6 CD34 ؉ cells/kg in less than or equal to 2 aphereses. A total of 106 of 148 (71.6%) patients in the plerixafor group and 53 of 154 (34.4%) patients in the placebo group met the primary endpoint (P < .001). A total of 54% of plerixafor-treated patients reached target after one apheresis, whereas 56% of the placebo-treated patients required 4 aphereses to reach target. The most common adverse events related to plerixafor were gastrointestinal disorders and injection site reactions. Plerixafor and G-CSF were well tolerated, and significantly more patients collected the optimal CD34 ؉ cell/kg target for transplantation earlier compared with G-CSF alone. This study is registered at www. clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00103662. (Blood. 2009;113:5720-5726)

Plerixafor and G-CSF were well tolerated and resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma achieving the optimal CD34+ cell target for transplantation in fewer apheresis days, compared with G-CSF alone.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are found in a variety of tissues, including human bone marrow; secrete hematopoietic cytokines; support hematopoietic progenitors in vitro; and possess potent immunosuppressive properties. We hypothesized that cotransplantation of culture-expanded MSCs and hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from HLA-identical sibling donors after myeloablative therapy could facilitate engraftment and lessen graft-versus-host disease (GVHD); however, the safety and feasibility of this approach needed to be established. In an open-label, multicenter trial, we coadministered culture-expanded MSCs with HLA-identical sibling-matched HSCs in hematologic malignancy patients. Patients received either bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells as the HSC source. Patients received 1 of 4 study-specified transplant conditioning regimens and methotrexate (days 1, 3, and 6) and cyclosporine as GVHD prophylaxis. On day 0, patients were given culture-expanded MSCs intravenously (1.0-5.0 x 10(6)/kg) 4 hours before infusion of either bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells. Forty-six patients (median age, 44.5 years; range, 19-61 years) received MSCs and HLA-matched sibling allografts. MSC infusions were well tolerated, without any infusion-related adverse events. The median times to neutrophil (absolute neutrophil count > or = 0.500 x 10(9)/L) and platelet (platelet count > or = 20 x 10(9)/L) engraftment were 14.0 days (range, 11.0-26.0 days) and 20 days (range, 15.0-36.0 days), respectively. Grade II to IV acute GVHD was observed in 13 (28%) of 46 patients. Chronic GVHD was observed in 22 (61%) of 36 patients who survived at least 90 days; it was extensive in 8 patients. Eleven patients (24%) experienced relapse at a median time to progression of 213.5 days (range, 14-688 days). The probability of patients attaining disease- or progression-free survival at 2 years after MSC infusion was 53%. Cotransplantation of HLA-identical sibling culture-expanded MSCs with an HLA-identical sibling HSC transplant is feasible and seems to be safe, without immediate infusional or late MSC-associated toxicities. The optimal MSC dose and frequency of administration to prevent or treat GVHD during allogeneic HSC transplantation should be evaluated further in phase II clinical trials.

Key Points The DRI successfully stratified patients in a very large allogeneic transplantation registry cohort. The DRI was refined by using this cohort to build a more inclusive and conditioning intensity–independent index.

BACKGROUND Randomized trials have shown that the transplantation of filgrastim-mobilized peripheral-blood stem cells from HLA-identical siblings accelerates engraftment but increases the risks of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), as compared with the transplantation of bone marrow. Some studies have also shown that peripheral-blood stem cells are associated with a decreased rate of relapse and improved survival among recipients with high-risk leukemia. METHODS We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial of transplantation of peripheral-blood stem cells versus bone marrow from unrelated donors to compare 2-year survival probabilities with the use of an intention-to-treat analysis. Between March 2004 and September 2009, we enrolled 551 patients at 48 centers. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to peripheral-blood stem-cell or bone marrow transplantation, stratified according to transplantation center and disease risk. The median follow-up of surviving patients was 36 months (interquartile range, 30 to 37). RESULTS The overall survival rate at 2 years in the peripheral-blood group was 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45 to 57), as compared with 46% (95% CI, 40 to 52) in the bone marrow group (P = 0.29), with an absolute difference of 5 percentage points (95% CI, −3 to 14). The overall incidence of graft failure in the peripheral-blood group was 3% (95% CI, 1 to 5), versus 9% (95% CI, 6 to 13) in the bone marrow group (P = 0.002). The incidence of chronic GVHD at 2 years in the peripheral-blood group was 53% (95% CI, 45 to 61), as compared with 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) in the bone marrow group (P = 0.01). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of acute GVHD or relapse. CONCLUSIONS We did not detect significant survival differences between peripheral-blood stem-cell and bone marrow transplantation from unrelated donors. Exploratory analyses of secondary end points indicated that peripheral-blood stem cells may reduce the risk of graft failure, whereas bone marrow may reduce the risk of chronic GVHD. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00075816.)

The optimal regimen intensity before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is unknown. We hypothesized that lower treatment-related mortality (TRM) with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) would result in improved overall survival (OS) compared with myeloablative conditioning (MAC). To test this hypothesis, we performed a phase III randomized trial comparing MAC with RIC in patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes. Patients and MethodsPatients age 18 to 65 years with HCT comorbidity index # 4 and , 5% marrow myeloblasts pre-HCT were randomly assigned to receive MAC (n = 135) or RIC (n = 137) followed by HCT from HLAmatched related or unrelated donors. The primary end point was OS 18 months post-random assignment based on an intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary end points included relapse-free survival (RFS) and TRM. ResultsPlanned enrollment was 356 patients; accrual ceased at 272 because of high relapse incidence with RIC versus MAC (48.3%; 95% CI, 39.6% to 56.4% and 13.5%; 95% CI, 8.3% to 19.8%, respectively; P , .001). At 18 months, OS for patients in the RIC arm was 67.7% (95% CI, 59.1% to 74.9%) versus 77.5% (95% CI, 69.4% to 83.7%) for those in the MAC arm (difference, 9.8%; 95% CI, 20.8% to 20.3%; P = .07). TRM with RIC was 4.4% (95% CI, 1.8% to 8.9%) versus 15.8% (95% CI, 10.2% to 22.5%) with MAC (P = .002). RFS with RIC was 47.3% (95% CI, 38.7% to 55.4%) versus 67.8% (95% CI, 59.1% to 75%) with MAC (P , .01). ConclusionOS was higher with MAC, but this was not statistically significant. RIC resulted in lower TRM but higher relapse rates compared with MAC, with a statistically significant advantage in RFS with MAC. These data support the use of MAC as the standard of care for fit patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes.