Donor Lymphocyte Infusion and Molecular Monitoring for Relapsed Myelofibrosis After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Donor lymphocyte infusion after allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation for haematological malignancies: basic considerations and best practice recommendations from the EBMT

Since the early description of three patients with relapsed leukaemia after allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) who obtained complete remission after donor lymphocyte infusions (DLIs), the added value of this procedure to induce or maintain graft-versus-leukaemia immunity has been undisputed. For more than 30 years, DLIs have become common practice as prophylactic, pre-emptive, or therapeutic immunotherapy. However, as with many aspects of allogeneic HCT, centres have developed their own routines and practices, and many questions related to the optimal applications and toxicity, or to the immunobiology of DLI induced tumour-immunity, remain. As a part of the Practice Harmonization and Guidelines Committee and the Cellular Therapy and Immunobiology Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation effort, a panel of experts with clinical and translational knowledge in transplantation immunology and cellular therapy met during a 2-day workshop in September, 2023, in Lille, France, and developed a set of consensus-based recommendations for the application of unmanipulated DLI after allogeneic HCT for haematological malignancies. Given the absence of prospective data in the majority of publications, these recommendations are mostly based on retrospective studies and expert consensus.

Impact of busulfan versus treosulfan dose intensity in myelofibrosis undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation

One key aspect of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is pretransplant conditioning, balancing risk for relapse versus non-relapse mortality. Conditioning regimens with different alkylators at different doses can influence outcome, but data are missing for myelofibrosis, a challenging cohort of patients usually presenting at older age and with comorbidities. We evaluated in a multicenter retrospective study the comparative efficacy and safety of busulfan versus treosulfan in combination with fludarabine for myelofibrosis patients undergoing HCT. This study included 1115 patients (busulfan, n = 902; treosulfan, n = 213) receiving first HCT between 2005 and 2021. Patients were generally balanced for key patient characteristics. Overall survival at 4 years was 62% for the busulfan group versus 58% for the treosulfan group (p = .22). Impact on outcome was dose-dependent. Overall survival was 65% (95% CI, 61%-69%) for reduced intensity busulfan versus 69% (95% CI, 54%-84%) for reduced intensity treosulfan, 53% (95% CI, 44%-63%) for higher intensity busulfan, and 55% (95% CI, 46%-63%) for higher intensity treosulfan. Incidence of relapse was similar across intensity groups. In multivariable analysis, the hazard for death (with reduced intensity busulfan as reference) was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.39-2.01) for reduced intensity treosulfan (p = .77), 1.42 (95% CI, 0.96-2.10) for higher intensity busulfan (0.08), and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.14-2.26) for higher intensity treosulfan (p = .006). In terms of non-relapse mortality, comparison was not significantly different, while the hazard ratio for higher intensity treosulfan was 1.48 (95% CI, 0.98-2.23; p = .06). Here, we showed comparable outcomes and improved survival in myelofibrosis undergoing HCT with reduced intensity busulfan or treosulfan.

Graft-versus-host disease and impact on relapse in myelofibrosis undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains the only curative treatment for myelofibrosis (MF). Relapse occurs in 10-30% and remains a major factor for dismal outcomes. Previous work suggested that graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) might be associated with risk of relapse. This study included 341 patients undergoing their first (n = 308) or second (n = 33) alloHSCT. Anti-T-lymphocyte or antithymocyte globulin was used for GVHD prophylaxis in almost all patients. Median time to neutrophile and platelet engraftment was 13 days and 19 days, respectively. The cumulative incidence of acute GVHD grade II-IV was 41% (median, 31 days; range, 7-112). Grade III-IV acute GVHD was observed in 22%. The cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was 61%. Liver was affected in 23% of acute GVHD cases and 46% of chronic GVHD cases. Severe acute GVHD was associated with high non-relapse mortality. The development of acute GVHD grade II and moderate GVHD was an independent factor for reduced risk for relapse after transplantation without increased risk for non-relapse mortality, while especially acute GVHD grade IV was associated with high non-relapse mortality. Last, we identified that ongoing response to ruxolitinib, accelerated-phase MF at time of transplantation and splenectomy prior to transplantation were independent predictors for relapse.

Laboratory methods of monitoring disease response after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelofibrosis

The era of molecular prognostication in myelofibrosis has allowed comprehensive assessment of disease risk and informed decisions regarding allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, monitoring disease response after transplantation is difficult, and limited by disease and sample-related factors. The emergence of laboratory techniques sensitive enough to monitor measurable residual disease is promising in predicting molecular and haematological relapse and guiding management. This paper summarises the existing literature regarding methods for detecting and monitoring disease response after HSCT in myelofibrosis and explores the therapeutic use of measurable residual disease (MRD) assays in transplant recipients. Laboratory assessment of disease response in myelofibrosis post-allogeneic transplant is limited by disease and treatment characteristics and by the sensitivity of available conventional molecular assays. The identification of MRD has prognostic implications and may allow early intervention to prevent relapse. Further applicability is limited by mutation-specific assay variability, a lack of standardisation and sample considerations.

How I treat transplant-eligible patients with myelofibrosis

Despite the approval of Janus kinase inhibitors and novel agents for patients with myelofibrosis (MF), disease-modifying responses remain limited, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) remains the only potentially curative treatment option. The number of HSCTs for MF continues to increase worldwide, but its inherent therapy-related morbidity and mortality limit its use for many patients. Furthermore, patients with MF often present at an older age, with cytopenia, splenomegaly, and severe bone marrow fibrosis, posing challenges in managing them throughout the HSCT procedure. Although implementation of molecular analyses enabled improved understanding of disease mechanisms and subsequently sparked development of novel drugs with promising activity, prospective trials in the HSCT setting are often lacking, making an evidence-based decision process particularly difficult. To illustrate how we approach patients with MF with respect to HSCT, we present 3 different clinical scenarios to capture relevant aspects that influence our decision making regarding indication for, or against, HSCT. We describe how we perform HSCT according to different risk categories and, furthermore, discuss our up-to-date approach to reduce transplant-related complications. Last, we show how to harness graft-versus-MF effects, particularly in the posttransplant period to achieve the best possible outcomes for patients.