Search

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the gold standard curative therapy for infants and children with many inborn errors of immunity (IEI), but adolescents and adults with IEI are rarely referred for transplant. Lack of published HSCT outcome data outside small, single-center studies and perceived high risk of transplant-related mortality have delayed the adoption of HSCT for IEI patients presenting or developing significant organ damage later in life. This large retrospective, multicenter HSCT outcome study reports on 329 IEI patients (age range, 15-62.5 years at HSCT). Patients underwent first HSCT between 2000 and 2019. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). We also evaluated the influence of IEI-subgroup and IEI-specific risk factors at HSCT, including infections, bronchiectasis, colitis, malignancy, inflammatory lung disease, splenectomy, hepatic dysfunction, and systemic immunosuppression. At a median follow-up of 44.3 months, the estimated OS at 1 and 5 years post-HSCT for all patients was 78% and 71%, and EFS was 65% and 62%, respectively, with low rates of severe acute (8%) or extensive chronic (7%) graft-versus-host disease. On univariate analysis, OS and EFS were inferior in patients with primary antibody deficiency, bronchiectasis, prior splenectomy, hepatic comorbidity, and higher hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index scores. On multivariable analysis, EFS was inferior in those with a higher number of IEI-associated complications. Neither age nor donor had a significant effect on OS or EFS. We have identified age-independent risk factors for adverse outcome, providing much needed evidence to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from HSCT. ispartof: BLOOD vol:140 issue:14 pages:1635-1649 ispartof: location:United States status: published

COVID-19 is a severe infectious complication in patients with underlying medical conditions such as having undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). This prospective survey reports outcome on 272 COVID-19 patients from 19 countries having undergone allogeneic (n = 175) or autologous (n = 97) HCT reported to the EBMT registry or to the GETH. All patients had the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 documented by PCR. Patients were included in this analysis if COVID-19 diagnosis was before April 10, 2020. The overall survival was estimate by using the Kaplan Meier methods, considering the death due to any cause as an event and the time from COVID-19 infection to the latest follow-up as survival time; difference between groups were tested by the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate risk factor analysis for overall survival were performed with the Cox regression model. The median age was 54.4 years (1.0 - 80.3) for allogeneic and 60.9 years (7.7 - 73.4) for autologous HCT patients. 20 patients were children (< 18 years of age; median age 11.3 (1.0 - 16.9)). The median time from HCT to diagnosis of COVID-19 was 13.7 months (0.2 - 254.3) in allogeneic and 25.0 months (-0.9 - 350.3) in autologous recipients. Lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) developed in 84.8% and 21.5% were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). At the time of analysis, 68/238 (28.6%) patients had died (47/155 allogeneic patients; 21/83 autologous patients). No follow-up had been received on 34 patients. The median time from infection to death was 19 days (0-102). Five patients were reported to have other primary causes of death than COVID-19. Of the patients reported to be alive, the median follow-up was 44 days. 144 (84.7%) patients (93 allogeneic; 51 autologous) had virologic resolution of the COVID-19 infection having at least one negative PCR. 26 patients were alive and known to be still COVID-19 positive (15 allogeneic; 11 autologous). For 34 patients the resolution status was unknown. Factors influencing the likelihood of resolution in multivariate analysis were underlying diagnosis (p=.01) and longer time from transplant to diagnosis of COVID-19 (p=.035). Overall survival at 6 weeks from COVID-19 diagnosis was 76.8% and 83.8% in allogeneic and autologous HCT recipients (p =ns), respectively (figure 1). Children (n=20) tended to do better with a 6-week survival of 95.0% although the difference was not significantly different (p =.12). In multivariate analysis of the total population older age (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.05 - 1.51; p = .01) increased the risk and better performance status decreased the risk for fatal outcome (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69 - 0.90; p = .0003). The same factors had significant impact on overall survival in allogeneic HCT recipients (age HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.05 - 1.55; p=.01; performance status HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 - 0.92); p=.002) while only age impacted survival among autologous HCT patients (data not shown). Other transplant factors such as underlying diagnosis, time from HCT to diagnosis of COVID-19, graft-vs-host disease, or ongoing immunosuppression did not have a significant impact on overall survival. We conclude that HCT patients are at an increased risk compared to the general population to develop LRTD, require admission to ICU, and have increased mortality in COVID-19. Figure 1 Disclosures Duarte: Incyte Corporation: Other: Has received speaker and advisor fees. Kwon:Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mielke:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau; Bellicum: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau; KIADIS Pharma: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau; DNA Prime: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau. López Jiménez:MSD: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) constitutes the only curative treatment for myelofibrosis (MF), but its associated toxicity remains high. Prognostic risk models are widely used in clinical practice to select those MF patients who are more likely to benefit from transplantation. Recently, a new prognostic model, the Myelofibrosis Transplant Scoring System (MTSS), has been developed to predict the outcome of MF patients undergoing allo-HCT (Gagelmann N et al, Blood 2019). We aimed to evaluate the performance of such model in an independent series of patients. Methods: This is a retrospective study that included all adult patients who underwent first allo-HCT for MF between January 2005 and May 2019 in 8 Spanish hospitals. Patients transplanted after leukemic transformation were excluded. Survival probability from the time of HCT was estimated by the method of Kaplan-Meier and compared by the log-rank test. Each parameter of the MTSS was tested for its potential association with survival in univariate analysis. Cumulative incidence functions were used to estimate incidence of Graft-versus-Host-Disease (GVHD), Relapse Incidence (RI), and Non-Relapse Mortality (NRM) within a competing risk setting. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 19 (SPSS Inc./IBM, Armonk, NY) and R. Results: Demographics and transplant characteristics of the overall series of 107 MF patients are shown in Table 1. After a median follow-up from allo-HCT of 5.3 years, 49 patients (46%) had died. The survival probability at 1, 3, and 5-years was 64.5%, 52%, and 50%, respectively. Transplantation outcome improved over the years. Thus, the survival probability at 3-years was 35% (95% CI: 12-58), 50% (95% CI: 33-67), and 65% (95% CI: 50-80) during the time periods 2005-2009 (n=17), 2010-2014 (n=34), and 2015-2019 (n=56), respectively (P=0.038). The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD at day 100 was 45%. The cumulative incidence of relapse at 1, 3, and 5-years was 16%, 19.5%, and 19.5%, respectively. NRM probability at 1, 3, and 5-years was 24%, 29%, and 31%, respectively. In univariate analysis, the only parameter included in the MTSS that was significantly associated with survival was the Karnofsky performance status < 90% (HR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.4; P=0.031). Neither age > 57 years (P=0.68), platelets 25 x 109/L (P=0.38), ASXL1 mutations (P=0.34), non-CALR/MPL driver mutation (P=0.57) nor HLA-mismatched unrelated donor (P=0.22) correlated with survival. Among other classical risk factors for transplant outcome, only a comorbidity index >= 3 was significantly associated with shorter survival (HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.1-4; P=0.017). A total of 64 cases had all required clinical and molecular data to calculate the MTSS. Figure 1 shows the survival curves of the different risk groups as defined by the MTSS. As can be seen, the prognostic model was not able to discriminate four risk groups. We then pooled together patients assigned to the low (n=26) and intermediate risk (n=23) groups, and those within the high (n=9) and very high risk (n=6) groups. On this basis, two-categories could be identified: standard risk (n=49 [77% of patients]) and high risk (n=15 [23%]). The 3-year overall survival was 65% (95% CI: 51-79) in the standard risk and 17% (95% CI: 0-46) in the high risk categories (P=0.060)(Figure 2). Conclusions: the MTSS did not discriminate four different risk categories in our series. Both, the limited number of cases and the differences in patients and transplant characteristics in our series as compared to those of the original MTSS cohort might account for this finding. Nevertheless, the MTSS was able to identify a subset of patients with a very poor prognosis after transplantation. Such information could be useful to assist on transplant decision-making. Disclosures Sanchez-Guijo: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hernandez Boluda:Incyte: Other: Travel expenses paid.

Introduction The clinical characteristics, treatment, cardiovascular events (CVE) and evolution of patients diagnosed with JAK2 V617F positive essential thrombocythemia (ET) with low allele burden (LAB) are scarcely studied. Its presence in people without a confirmed diagnosis of malignant hemopathy is called clonal hematopoiesis of uncertain significance (CHIP) and confers higher risk of developing CVE. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and CVE of a series of JAK2 V617F-positive ET patients with Methods From the database of the GEMFIN group, 410 ET patients were JAK2 V617F positive, 89 (21.7 %) with LAB and 321 (78.3%) with HAB. The clinical characteristics, treatment (cytoreduction, antiagregation, anticoagulation, JAK inhibitor), CVE (before, at and after diagnosis) and evolution to myelofibrosis (MF) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) of these two groups of patients were compared. Results LAB and HAB groups did not significantly differ regarding the main clinical characteristics (i.e cardiovascular risk factors [CVRF] and International Prognostic Score for Thrombosis in Essential Thrombocythemia [IPSET] score) except for the median platelet count: LAB 636 x109/L [436- 2500] vs HAB 687 x109/L[440-1980L], p=0.035). CVE after diagnosis of ET were more frequent in patients with HAB (41/137, 30%) than in patients with LAB (5/48, 10%), p=0.007. Only one LAB patient with CVE had JAK2 allele burden >5%. Treatments received by both groups were not significantly different. None of the patients from both groups progressed to AML, whereas 1/48 vs. 6/137 of patients evolved to MF. Median follow-up of patients with LAB and HAB was 3.4 years [0.1-17.7] and 4.3 years [0.1-27.8], respectively (Table 1). Conclusions In these series of ET patients from the GEMFIN group, patients with LAB had significantly lower median platelet count at diagnosis and less CVE after diagnosis than patients with HAB, although CVRF and IPSET scores and treatment approach were similar. The clinical behavior of LAB patients may resemble that of individuals with CHIP. The therapeutic algorithm of ET patients with LAB may be somehow different than that of patients with HAB and therefore, might be revised. Disclosures Bellosillo: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biocartis: Honoraria; Merck-Serono: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Qiagen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffman â€"La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ThermoFisher: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Hernandez Boluda:Incyte: Other: Travel expenses paid. Pérez:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

INTRODUCTION The incidence of secondary cancer (SC) in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) is high and comparable to that of thrombosis. However, the identification of patient subgroups that might be at increased susceptibility of developing SC has not been systematically addressed. We report here the results of an international case-control study (MPN-K) aimed at comparing the frequency of exposure to possible causes of SC in patients with classical MPN, polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and myelofibrosis (MF). METHODS This European Leukaemia Network (ELN) study reports MPN patients from 28 sites of 5 European countries and Israel, diagnosed in the period from 2000 to 2016. Cases were MPN patients with concomitant diagnosis of a non-myeloid SC (n=15) or its presentation during the course of the disease (n=412). Controls were MPN patients cancer-free, matched to the paired case for sex, age (±5 years), date of MPN diagnosis (±5 years), and MPN disease duration (±6 years). A multivariable conditional logistic regression model was used to estimate the effect of selected variables on total SC risk and in different types of SC. RESULTS Among 1,259 MPN patients, there were 427 cases and 832 matched controls. Cases presented melanoma (n=20; 4.7%), non-melanoma skin cancer (n=69; 16.2% - basal/squamous cell carcinoma), non-skin solid cancer (n=290; 67.9%) including breast, ovary/uterus, colorectal, upper gastrointestinal, liver/pancreas, lung, prostate/urinary, other and lymphoproliferative diseases (n=48; 11.2%) including multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, low and high grade B- and T-lymphoma. At diagnosis, there were slightly more patients with PV among SC cases (n= 152; 35.6%) than controls (n=256; 30.8%), while conversely there were slightly less ET patients among cases (n=196; 45.9%) than controls (n=426; 51.2%). Cases and controls presented similar proportion of MF diagnosis (n=79 cases, 18.5% and 150 controls, 18.0%). Driver mutations (JAK2 V617, EXON-12, CALR, MPL), non-driver mutations and abnormal karyotype were equally represented in cases and controls. Other variables such as cardiovascular risk factors, exposure to cancerogens, family history of cancer and chronic inflammatory diseases were reported with similar frequency in cases and controls. After MPN diagnosis, exposure to first and other lines of treatments until the index event, with Phlebotomy (n=193; 15.3%), Hydroxyurea (n=814; 64.7%), Anagrelide (n=14; 1.1%), Interferon (n=30; 2.4%), Pipobroman (n=8; 0.6%), Busulphan (n=13; 1.0%), Ruxolitinib (n=11; 0.9%), was similar in the two groups except for aspirin that was used less frequently (p=0.043) in cases (n=320; 74.9%) compared to controls (n=664; 79.9%). In particular, the lower use of aspirin was circumscribed to non-skin solid tumors. A multivariable analysis was carried out in all patients and stratified by different type of tumors (Table). In non-skin solid cancers, the time to exposure of the MPN disease > 5 years (OR=2.95; 95% CI 1.54-5.66, p=0.001) and the PV phenotype (OR=2.40, 95% CI 1.15-5.01, p=0.020) were more burdened by the incidence of events than the reference ET group. No difference in SC risk was found for MF patients compared to patients with ET. Interestingly, the independent protective role of aspirin retained its statistical significance only in non-skin SC. In non-melanoma skin cancer, multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of JAK2 mutation was less associated with SC (OR=0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.81, p=0.016) and confirmed that exposure to HU and other cytotoxic agents was associated with a significantly higher risk of SC (OR=6.00, 95% CI 1.23-29.28, p=0.027 and OR=9.80, 95% CI 1.24-77.78, p=0.031, respectively). This finding was not seen in non-skin SC and in lymphoma. CONCLUSION The considered clinical and biological features, at MPN diagnosis, were not different in cases with SC and controls. During the course of the disease, three factors significantly and independently affected the risk of SC in these MPN patients: 1) patients with PV had a 77% higher risk than those with ET, 2) patients with MPN duration of more than 5 years had a twice higher risk than those with lower duration, 3) for the first time, we documented that in non-skin solid cancers, aspirin treatment reduced SC risk of 38%. Exposure to HU and other cytoreductive drugs was confirmed as a risk factor for non-melanoma skin cancer. Disclosures Palandri: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Marchetti:Gilead: Consultancy; takeda: Speakers Bureau; amgen: Speakers Bureau; janssen: Speakers Bureau. Griesshammer:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.