Induction chemotherapy followed by allogeneic HCT versus upfront allogeneic HCT for advanced myelodysplastic syndrome: A propensity score matched analysis

Outcomes of transplant-eligible patients with myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts registered in an observational study: The JALSG-CS11-MDS-SCT

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) is the sole curative therapy for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). However, whether bridging therapy (BRT) including azacitidine (AZA) and combination chemotherapy (CCT) prior to allo-SCT should be performed is unclear. We analyzed BRT and the outcomes of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts (MDS-EB) who were ≤ 70 years old at the time of registration for a prospective observational study to clarify the optimal allo-SCT strategy for high-risk MDS. A total of 371 patients were included in this study. Among 188 patients (50.7%) who were considered for allo-SCT, 141 underwent allo-SCT. Among the patients who underwent allo-SCT, 64 received AZA, 29 received CCT, and 26 underwent allo-SCT without BRT as the initial treatment. Multivariate analysis identified BRT as an independent factor influencing overall survival (AZA vs. without BRT, hazard ratio [HR] 3.33, P = 0.005; CCT vs. without BRT, HR 3.82, P = 0.003). In multivariate analysis, BRT was independently associated with progression-free survival (AZA vs. without BRT: HR, 2.23; P = 0.041; CCT vs. without BRT: HR, 2.94; P = 0.010). Transplant-eligible patients with MDS-EB should undergo allo-SCT when clinically acceptable, and upfront allo-SCT without BRT may be superior to AZA or CCT.

Impact of treatments before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to evaluate pre-allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) treatment, compare the endpoints related to disease management between pre-HSCT cytoreduction patients and upfront transplantation patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

METHODS

A total of 90 higher-risk MDS patients administered allo-HSCT in the Hematology Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University were retrospectively analyzed, which included 28 patients with upfront transplantation and 62 patients with pre-transplant cytoreduction, including 30 patients received hypomethylating agents (HMA) and 32 patients received hypomethylating agents and induction chemotherapy (HMA+IC). Difference between the two groups regarding hematopoietic reconstruction, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), relapse rate, non-relapse death (NRM), overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) was compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences in OS, DFS and NRM were found between the upfront transplantation and pre-transplant cytoreduction groups, and cumulative cGVHD occurrence and relapse rates were 35.7 % and 14.5 % (P = 0.029), and 10.7 % and 12.9 % (p = 0.535), respectively. Survival rates were significantly higher in the upfront transplantation and HMA+IC groups compared with the HMA group (3-year OS: 67.9 %, 68.8 %, 43.3 %, P = 0.039; 3-year RFS: 64.3 %, 62.5 %, 43.3 %, P = 0.107; 3-year NRM: 25.0 %, 21.9 %, 50.0 %, P = 0.025). Compared with the upfront transplantation group, overall response to cytoreductive therapy (OR) and non-response to cytoreductive therapy (NR), 3-year OS were 67.9 %, 73.0 % and 32.0 % (P < 0.001), 3-year RFS were 64.3 %, 73.0 % and 24.0 % (P < 0.001) and 3-year NRM were 25.0 %, 21.6 %, and 56.0 %, respectively (P < 0.001). Upfront transplantation (n = 11) had better OS and RFS compared with the cytoreductive group (n = 10) in patients with ≥ 10 % bone marrow blast cells before transplantation (3-year OS: 63.64 %, 22.22 %, p = 0.010; 3-year DFS: 63.64 %, 20.00 %, p = 0.012, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The pre-transplant treatment regimen was an independent prognostic factor of OS and NRM. If the donor is suitable, upfront transplantation may provide longer survival in higher-risk MDS patients, which, however, may also increase the incidence of cGVHD. Even in patients with bone marrow blast cells ≥ 10 % before transplantation, upfront transplantation was not worse than transplantation after cytoreductive therapy. While waiting for a transplant, HMA+IC therapy may be a good pre-transplant treatment option.

Dose-finding trial of azacitidine as post-transplant maintenance for high-risk MDS: a KSGCT prospective study

This 3+3 dose-escalation phase I multicenter study investigated the optimal dose of azacitidine (AZA) for post-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) maintenance, which remains unknown in Japan. Recipients of a first HSCT for high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS, n = 12) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with antecedent MDS (n = 3) received post-HSCT AZA maintenance in 2015-2019. The optimal AZA dose was defined as the dose at which 50-70% of patients can complete four cycles without dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The initial dose level 1 was set as 30 mg/m² for 5 days per 28-day cycle, and dose levels 0, 2, and 3 were set as 20, 40, and 50 mg/m². DLT was defined as any grade 3 non-hematological or grade 4 hematological toxicity. The 15 evaluable patients were 55 (37-64) years old. The median observation of the post-HSCT survivors was 935 (493-1915) days. The median number of days post-HSCT to the start of AZA was 101 (59-176). In the first, second, and third cohorts, five of nine patients completed four cycles at dose level 1. In the final cohort, five of six additional patients completed at the same dose. In total, 10 (67%) patients tolerated AZA 30 mg/m², which was determined as optimal. DLT occurred in five cases: grade 3 hepatotoxicity, pneumonia, enterocolitis, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. The 2-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates post-HSCT were 77.0% and 73.3%. Post-HSCT AZA maintenance was well-tolerated and merits further evaluation for patients with MDS or AML with antecedent MDS. Trial registration: UMIN000018791.

HLA-Matching with PTCy: A Reanalysis of a CIBMTR Dataset with Propensity Score Matching and Donor Age

A reanalysis including donor age and using propensity score matching shows no major differences in survival or relapse.

Data sharing and collaborative reanalysis enhance our recognition of the nuances of complex statistical methodologies and published results.

Blood or marrow transplantation (BMT) outcomes using haploidentical donors (Haplo) and posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis compare favorably to HLA-matched donors using calcineurin inhibitor–based prophylaxis. A recent Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research analysis of patients receiving homogenous PTCy-based prophylaxis found that, with reduced intensity conditioning, Haplo BMTs had worse outcomes than matched unrelated donor (MUD) BMTs. Due to significant differences between groups, we reanalyzed the dataset using propensity score matching and, additionally, added a donor age variable. After matching MUD BMTs to Haplo BMTs in a 1:5 ratio, no significant differences were found between groups across all measured baseline characteristics. Outcomes analyses demonstrated no significant differences in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] of mortality with MUD vs Haplo [95% confidence interval], 0.95 [0.65-1.16], P = .75), disease-free survival (HR of relapse or death, 0.98 [0.73-1.18], P = .89), relapse rate (HR, 1.06 [0.77-1.38], P = .69), or nonrelapse mortality (NRM) (HR, 0.85 [0.42-1.13], P = .49) between groups. After stratification by conditioning intensity, MUD BMTs in the reduced-intensity cohort had lower risk of NRM (HR, 0.56 [0.14-0.99], P = .05), with no significant difference in other clinical outcomes. These results suggest the effect of HLA matching on BMT outcomes with PTCy is less meaningful than previously reported. Timely identification of a young, at least half-matched (related or unrelated) donor may be more important than finding a fully matched donor if the latter leads to a delay in BMT or use of an older donor.

Room for Improvement: A 20-Year Single Center Experience with Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation for Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) remains the only curative therapeutic approach for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy/safety of allo-SCT as well as to identify factors influencing post-transplant survival. One hundred and two MDS patients (median age: 48 years; 57 males) who underwent allo-SCT were retrospectively evaluated. Twenty seven patients were transplanted from HLA-matched sibling and 75 patients received grafts from unrelated donors. Peripheral blood was a source of stem cell for 79 patients. Reduced intensity conditioning was used in 64 subjects. Acute and chronic graft versus host disease (GvHD) developed in 61 and 19 of patients, respectively. In total, 61 patients have died. The causes of deaths included infectious complications (n = 30), steroid-resistant GvHD (n = 17), MDS relapse (n = 9) and transformation to AML (n = 5). Non-relapse mortality and cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years were 49.8% and 9%, respectively. 41 patients are alive at last contact and present full donor chimerism. 38 patients remain in complete hematological remission (CHR), 3 patients had CHR with incomplete platelet recovery. Median follow-up from diagnosis of MDS and transplantation are 27.1 months and 7 months respectively. Overall survival and relapse-free survival were 41% at 2 years. Increased serum ferritin level > 1000 ng/ml, presence of acute GvHD, grades III–IV acute GvHD and high hematopoietic cell transplantation-comorbidity index were found to negatively influenced survival. Allo-SCT for MDS is feasible procedure with a proportion of patients to be cured.

Pre-transplant therapy for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The value of pre-transplant cytoreductive therapy for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is controversial. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the effects of cytoreduction before transplantation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Chinese databases were searched to identify studies comparing post-transplant outcomes in MDS patients receiving different pre-transplant therapy. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Eighteen reports were included. Post-transplant outcomes were similar for MDS patients receiving pre-transplant cytoreductive therapy and upfront transplantation in terms of overall survival (OS: HR, 0.92; 95 % CI, 0.79-1.07), relapse-free survival (RFS: HR, 1.18; 95 % CI, 0.94-1.47), cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR: HR, 1.08; 95 % CI, 0.88-1.33), and non-relapse mortality (NRM: HR, 0.93; 95 % CI, 0.74-1.18). Pre-transplant hypomethylating agents (HMAs) and chemotherapy were not different regarding post-transplant OS, RFS, CIR, and NRM. Achieving complete remission (CR) before transplantation was associated with increased RFS (HR, 0.80; 95 %CI, 0.63-1.00) and decreased NRM (HR, 0.53; 95 % CI, 0.32-0.90) when compared with upfront transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely transplantation is of great value for MDS patients. Suitable pre-transplant cytoreduction could be used during the search for donors.

Comparison of Upfront Transplantation and Pretransplant Cytoreductive Therapy for Advanced Myelodysplastic Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is the only curative therapy for advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). However, the value of pretransplant cytoreduction remains debatable.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively compared the outcomes of upfront transplantation and pretransplant cytoreduction. Of 69 patients, 39 received upfront allo-HSCT and 30 received pretransplant cytoreduction, including chemotherapy (n = 16), hypomethylating agents (HMAs, n = 6), and HMAs with chemotherapy (n = 8).

RESULTS

The upfront group achieved similar overall survival (OS) and a trend of better progression-free survival (PFS) from diagnosis compared with the cytoreduction group (3-year PFS, 64.0% vs. 44.4%, P = .076). Posttransplant outcomes were comparable between the two groups in terms of OS, relapse-free survival (RFS), cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), and non-relapse mortality (NRM). In patients with ≥2 mutations, the upfront group achieved better OS and PFS (3-year OS, 100.0% vs. 68.6%, P = .044; 3-year PFS: 92.3% vs. 43.9%, P = .016) than the cytoreduction group. Patients achieving remission in the cytoreduction group had outcomes similar to the upfront group, but those without remission before transplantation had a significantly worse posttransplant OS (3-year OS, 46.7% vs. 75.7%, P = .038). Patients with pretransplant HMAs had better PFS than those with chemotherapy or HMAs plus chemotherapy (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with pretransplant cytoreduction, upfront allo-HSCT might provide more benefit to some patients with advanced MDS if there are suitable donors. HMAs would be a good alternative during the donor search.

Pre-transplantation cytoreduction does not benefit advanced myelodysplastic syndrome patients after myeloablative transplantation with grafts from family donors

BACKGROUND

The role of pre-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) cytoreduction with either induction chemotherapy (IC) or hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in treating advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) remains debatable. We aimed to evaluate pre-HSCT strategies by comparing the endpoints related to disease control between advanced MDS patients with pre-HSCT cytoreduction and those with best supportive care.

METHODS

We described 228 consecutive advanced MDS patients who received HSCT from a haploidentical donor (HID, n = 162) or matched related donor (MSD, n = 66) with uniform myeloablative conditioning regimens between January 2015 and December 2018. Of these 228 patients, 131 (57.5%) were treated exclusively with pre-HSCT best supportive care (BSC), 49 (22.5%) were given HMA, and 48 (21.1%) received both IC and HMA. Propensity score-matching analysis, multivariate analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed to elucidate the impact of pre-HSCT strategies on transplant outcomes.

RESULTS

The 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were 78.2% and 70.0% for the BSC and cytoreduction cohorts (P = 0.189) and were 78.2%, 66.7%, and 73.2% for the BSC, HMA, and HMA+IC groups, respectively (P = 0.269). A propensity score-matching analysis confirmed that the 3-year RFS rates were 81.9%, 87.5%, and 66.9% for BSC, cytoreduction complete remission (CR), and cytoreduction non-CR groups, respectively (P = 0.051). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that pre-HSCT cytoreduction, older patient age, monosomal karyotype, and interval between diagnosis and HSCT were poor prognostic factors for RFS. In the subgroup analyses, BSC was associated with longer RFS compared to cytoreduction among the younger patients, those with international prognostic scoring system intermediate-2/high risk at diagnosis, and those with intermediate/poor cytogenetics.

CONCLUSIONS

Different pre-HSCT therapies did not yield discrepant post-HSCT outcomes. No benefit in terms of post-HSCT outcomes were correlated with pre-HSCT cytoreduction in advanced MDS even for cytoreduction CR patients. Early referral to HSCT is essential for advanced MDS patients.