New drugs and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for hematological malignancies: do they have a role in bridging, consolidating or conditioning transplantation treatment?

The controlling nutritional status score as a predictor of survival in hematological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The controlling nutritional status score (CONUT) has been widely used for ascertaining the prognosis of various cancers. However, its use in patients with hematological malignancies remains unclear. This review examined evidence on the utility of CONUT as a prognostic marker for patients with hematological malignancies.

Methods

All cohort studies that examined the association between CONUT and outcomes of hematological malignancies and were published on the databases of Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and PubMed were searched from the inception of the databases to 30 January 2024. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

A total of 23 studies were available for review. A meta-analysis of 22 studies showed that high CONUT was significantly associated with poor OS in patients with hematological malignancies (HR: 1.95 95% CI: 1.62, 2.35 I 2 = 89%). The results remained unchanged on sensitivity and subgroup analyses based on study location, sample size, diagnosis, CONUT cutoff, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score. Only six studies reported data on PFS, and the pooled analysis found that high CONUT was a significant marker for poor PFS in patients with hematological malignancies [hazards ratio (HR): 1.64 95% CI: 1.21, 2.20 I 2 = 70%]. These results, too, maintained significance in the sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

CONUT is an independent predictor of poor OS in patients with hematological malignancies. The results appear to be valid across different cancer types and with different CONUT cutoffs. Scarce data also suggest that CONUT could predict PFS.

From transplant to novel cellular therapies in multiple myeloma: European Myeloma Network guidelines and future perspectives

Survival of myeloma patients has greatly improved with the use of autologous stem cell transplantation and novel agents, such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs and monoclonal antibodies. Compared to bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens alone, the addition of high-dose melphalan followed by autologous transplantation significantly improves progression-free survival, although an overall survival benefit was not observed in all trials. Moreover, follow up of recent trials is still too short to show any difference in survival. In the light of these findings, novel agent-based induction followed by autologous transplantation is considered the standard upfront treatment for eligible patients (level of evidence: 1A). Post-transplant consolidation and maintenance treatment can further improve patient outcome (1A). The availability of several novel agents has led to the development of multiple combination regimens such as salvage treatment options. In this context, the role of salvage autologous transplantation and allotransplant has not been extensively evaluated. In the case of prolonged remission after upfront autologous transplantation, another autologous transplantation at relapse can be considered (2B). Patients who experience early relapse and/or have high-risk features have a poor prognosis and may be considered as candidates for clinical trials that, in young and fit patients, may also include an allograft in combination with novel agents (2B). Ongoing studies are evaluating the role of novel cellular therapies, such as inclusion of antibody-based triplets and quadruplets, and chimeric antigen receptor-T cells. Despite encouraging preliminary results, longer follow up and larger patient numbers are needed before the clinical use of these novel therapies can be widely recommended.

Impact of New Drugs on the Long-Term Follow-Up of Upfront Tandem Autograft-Allograft in Multiple Myeloma

Before the introduction of "new drugs," we designed a trial in which 162 newly diagnosed myeloma patients were biologically randomized to receive either an autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) followed by a nonmyeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) or a double auto-SCT. Fifty-eight patients in the allo-SCT arm and 46 in the double auto-SCT arm completed the assigned treatment. At a median follow-up of 12.3 years from allo-SCT and 12.1 years from second auto-SCT, median overall survival (OS) was 11.4 in the allo-SCT arm and 3.9 years in the auto-SCT -arm (P = .007), whereas event-free survival was 3.6 and 1.5 years (P < .001), respectively. A subset of allo-SCT patients showed persistent molecular remission. Two-year cumulative incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease was 67.2%. At 5 years, 39% of these patients were alive, disease-free, and off immunosuppression; 36.6% had relapsed and 12.2% were still on immunosuppression. Thirty-three of 58 patients (allo-SCT arm) and 39 of 46 (auto-SCT arm) relapsed at least once and were rescued with new drugs. In the allo-SCT arm, 2 patients in biochemical relapse did not reach clinical criteria for treatment. Overall 28 (90%) were treated with new drugs and 14 (45%) received donor lymphocyte infusions (DLIs). In 28 of 31 patients (90%) DLIs were given with new drugs. Median OS from first relapse was 7.5 years in the allo-SCT arm and 2 years in the auto-SCT arm (P = .01). Patients who received DLI showed significantly longer OS (hazard ratio, .38; P = .042) as compared with auto-SCT patients. This difference was slightly lower when only allo-SCT patients who did not receive DLIs were considered (hazard ratio, .56; P = .154). In summary, long-term disease-free survival and survival outcomes after treating relapse with new drugs with or without DLIs were better in allo-SCT patients.