Search

• The type of nutritional support seems to have relatively minor effects on the post-transplant metabolomic profile. • The metabolic profile of patients treated with standard-care nutritional support indicates an insufficient calorie intake compared with patients treated with individualized enteral nutritional support. Patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation usually require nutritional support. There is no consensus on whether enteral support through tube feeding should be preferred. A recent randomized study could not detect any difference between enteral and parenteral feeding with regard to post-transplant outcomes, whereas 2 retrospective studies described an association between enteral feeding and a favorable post-transplant outcome. We compared pre- and post-transplant plasma metabolomic profiles for 10 patients receiving mainly enteral nutritional support and 10 patients receiving mainly parenteral support. Samples were collected before conditioning and 3 weeks post-transplant; 824 metabolites were analyzed using mass spectrometry. The pretransplant metabolite profiles showed a significant overlap between the 2 groups. Post-transplant samples for both patient groups showed an increase of secondary bile acids and endocannabinoids, whereas reduced levels were seen for food preservatives, plasmalogens, and retinol metabolites. The main post-transplant differences between the groups were decreased levels of fatty acids and markers of mitochondrial activation in the control group, indicating that these patients had insufficient energy intake. A significant effect was also seen for heme/bilirubin metabolism for the parenteral support. To conclude, allotransplant recipients showed altered metabolic profiles early after transplantation; this was mainly due to the conditioning/transplantation/reconstitution, whereas the type of nutritional support had minor effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Steroid refractory acute graft-versus-host-disease of the gut is a serious complication associated with high mortality after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Treatment options are limited and not predictably effective. We describe the treatment of steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host-disease with vedolizumab, an antibody directed against integrin α4β7, in 6 patients. All patients responded, and 4 of 6 patients are alive with a median follow-up of 10 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute myeloid leukemia bearing a RUNX1 gene mutation (RUNX1 + AML) has been proposed as a provisional entity in the 2016 WHO classification. Clinically, it has been associated with inferior response rates and outcome after conventional chemotherapy. Accordingly, RUNX1 + AML is allocated in the unfavorable prognostic category of the 2017 European Leukemia Net classification. Following allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), RUNX1 was an unfavorable factor in one study in MDS/secondary AML, while data in de novo AML are scarce. Here, we present a retrospective study by the EBMT Acute Leukemia Working Party, aiming to elucidate the prognostic value of RUNX1 mutation in patients undergoing alloSCT for AML in first complete remission (CR1). Adults undergoing alloSCT for AML in CR1 from matched related or unrelated donors between 2013 and 2018 with complete information on conventional cytogenetics and RUNX1 mutational status were selected from the EBMT registry. Variables of interest were overall and leukemia-free survival (OS/LFS), GvHD/relapse free survival (GRFS), cumulative relapse incidence (RI), non-relapse mortality (NRM) and GvHD. Log rank test, Gray test and Cox regression models were used. 128 RUNX+ and 388 RUNX- patients were identified, >80% of both subgroups presenting as de novo AML. As expected, RUNX1+ patients rarely had co-mutations in NPM1 (6% vs. 26%, p=10−3), and showed a positive correlation with ASXL1 mutations (50% vs. 16%, p=10−4). Cytogenetic categories and other mutations (FLT3 -ITD, CEBPA) were equally distributed between the two groups, as were age, donor and graft type, CMV, conditioning and T cell depletion (TCD). Median follow-up was 16.4 (RUNX+) and 19.8 (RUNX-) months. 2y OS/LFS of the entire cohort were 64% [59-69]/57% [52-62], with no difference between RUNX1 + and RUNX1 - patients either in univariate or multivariate analysis (2y OS: 67.9% [57.3-78.5] vs. 63.1%v[57.4-68.7]p=0.15; 2y LFS: 57.6% [46.4-68.7] vs. 57% [51.4-62.6], p=0.38], figure 1). RUNX1 mutation neither had any impact among patients with normal karyotype (figure 2). Similarly, no other outcome parameter was influenced by RUNX1 mutational status. Instead, multivariate analysis revealed age and donor type as risk factors for OS, LFS and NRM. Poor cytogenetic was associated with higher RI and inferior LFS/GRFS, in vivo TCD with a lower rate of aGvHD II-IV, cGvHD, and better GRFS. Among patients with available information, FLT3 -ITD was an independent risk factor for relapse, LFS and GRFS. RUNX1 did not modify the role of FLT3 -ITD. Within the limits of a retrospective registry analysis, we could not find a negative influence of RUNX1 mutation on outcome after allogeneic SCT in CR1. Hence, transplantation in CR1 might overcome the unfavorable prognostic value of RUNX1 mutation and can be recommended as consolidation treatment in this entity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]