Search

In 2022, the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) risk stratification for patients with AML has been updated. We aimed to validate the prognostic value of the 2022 ELN classification (ELN22) evaluating 1,570 newly diagnosed AML patients (median age, 56 years) treated with cytarabine-based intensive chemotherapy regimens. As compared to the 2017 ELN classification (ELN17), allocating 595 (38%), 413 (26%) and 562 (36%) patients to the favorable, intermediate and adverse risk category, ELN22 risk was favorable, intermediate, and adverse in 575 (37%), 410 (26%), and 585 (37%) patients, respectively. Risk group allocation was revised in 340 patients (22%). Most patients were re-classified into ELN22 intermediate or ELN22 adverse risk group. The allocation of patients according to the ELN22 risk categories resulted in a significantly distinct event-free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). As compared to ELN17, reallocation according to the ELN22 recommendations resulted in a significantly improved prognostic discrimination for OS (3-year area under the curve (AUC) 0.71 vs. 0.67). In patients with ELN22 favorable risk AML, co-occurring MR gene mutations did not significantly impact outcome. Within the ELN22 adverse risk group, we observed marked survival differences across mutational groups (5-year OS rate of 21% and 3% in patients with myelodysplasia-related (MR) gene mutations and TP53-mutated patients, respectively). In patients harboring MR gene mutations, EZH2-, STAG2- and ZRSR2-mutated patients showed an intermediate-like OS. In patients with secondary AML and those who underwent allogeneic HCT, EFS and OS significantly differed between ELN22 risk groups, while prognostic abilities of ELN17 and ELN22 classifications were similar. In conclusion, the ELN22 risk stratification improves prognostic discrimination in a large cohort of intensively treated AML patients. Given the heterogeneous outcome in patients with MR gene alterations, ranging between those of intermediate and adverse risk patients, we suggest reevaluation of risk allocation in these patients., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Hematology.)

Abstract: Improved long-term survival rates after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) make family planning for young adult cancer survivors an important topic. However, treatment-related infertility risk poses challenges. To assess pregnancy and birth rates in a contemporary cohort, we conducted a national multicenter study using data from the German Transplant Registry, focusing on adult women aged 18 to 40 years who underwent alloHCT between 2003 and 2018. Of 2654 women who underwent transplantation, 50 women experienced 74 pregnancies, occurring at a median of 4.7 years after transplant. Fifty-seven of these resulted in live births (77%). The annual first birth rate among HCT recipients was 0.45%, which is >6 times lower than in the general population. The probability of a live birth 10 years after HCT was 3.4%. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of pregnancy were younger age at alloHCT, nonmalignant transplant indications, no total body irradiation or a cumulative dose of <8 Gy, and nonmyeloablative/reduced-intensity conditioning. Notably, 72% of pregnancies occurred spontaneously, with assisted reproductive technologies used in the remaining cases. Preterm delivery and low birth weight were more common than in the general population. This study represents the largest data set reporting pregnancies in a cohort of adult female alloHCT recipients. Our findings underscore a meaningful chance of pregnancy in alloHCT recipients. Assisted reproductive technologies techniques are important and funding should be made available. However, the potential for spontaneous pregnancies should not be underestimated, and patients should be informed of the possibility of unexpected pregnancy despite reduced fertility. Further research is warranted to understand the impact of conditioning decisions on fertility preservation., (© 2024 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Purpose: To determine the optimal daunorubicin dose and number of 7 + 3 induction cycles in newly diagnosed AML, this randomized controlled trial compared a once daily dose of 60 mg/m 2 with 90 mg/m 2 daunorubicin in the first 7 + 3 induction and one versus two cycles of 7 + 3 induction., Patients and Methods: Patients age 18-65 years with newly diagnosed AML were randomly assigned to 60 versus 90 mg/m 2 daunorubicin once daily plus cytarabine. Patients with marrow blasts below 5% on day 15 after first induction were randomly assigned to receive a second induction cycle or no second induction cycle., Results: Eight hundred and sixty-four patients with a median age of 52 years were randomly assigned. After a preplanned interim analysis showing no significant difference in response between 60 and 90 mg/m 2 , all consecutive patients received 60 mg/m 2 daunorubicin once daily. The proportion of good early responders was 44% versus 48% ( P = .983) with a composite complete remission (CRc) rate of 90% versus 89% after induction ( P = .691); the 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) after 60 versus 90 mg/m 2 once daily was 54% versus 50% ( P = .561), and the 3-year overall survival (OS) was 65% versus 58% ( P = .242). Among 389 good responders, CRc rates at the end of induction were 87% after single induction and 85% after double induction. The 3-year RFS was 51% versus 60% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.3; P = .091), and the 3-year OS was 76% versus 75% after single versus double induction (HR, 1.0; P = .937)., Conclusion: The use of 90 mg/m 2 daunorubicin once daily in the context of classical 7 + 3 induction does not significantly improve early response and does not lead to higher remission rates or longer survival than 60 mg/m 2 once daily. In patients with a good early response after first induction, a second induction has only a limited impact on RFS and does not result in an OS benefit.

Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) refractory to initial or reinduction chemotherapy have a dismal prognosis if they do not undergo hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HCT). However, data assessing HCT outcomes from different donors are scarce. We evaluated results from a retrospective analysis on patients aged ≥70 years, with AML not in remission who received an allogeneic HCT from HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD), HLA-10/10 matched unrelated donor (MUD), or T-cell replete haploidentical (Haplo) donor, from 2010 to 2021, reported to the ALWP-EBMT database. A total of 360 patients (median age 72 years, range 70-79) were included in the analysis. Median follow-up for the entire population was 35.5 months. Donors were MSD (n = 58), 10/10 HLA-MUD (n = 228), and Haplo (n = 74). A total of 213 (59.2%) patients were primary induction failures, while 147 (40.8%) were in first or subsequent relapse. Graft source was peripheral blood in 92% of the patients. Patients transplanted from Haplo donors more frequently received marrow grafts (p < 0.01) and presented the combination female donor to male recipient (p < 0.01). The overall 2-year rates of overall survival (OS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) were: 62.4% (95% CI 47.2-74.3) and 47.6% (95% CI 33.1-60.8) for MSD, 43% (95% CI 35.8-49.9), and 37.5% (95% CI 30.7-44.4) for MUD, and 25.9% (95% CI 15.8-37.2), and 26.5% (95% CI 16.3-37.8) for recipients of Haplo transplants. The 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse (RI) was slightly lower for Haplo recipients at 29.6% (95% CI 19-40.9), for MUD it was 30.2% (95% CI 23.9-36.7), and for MSD 34.9% (95% CI 22-48.2); counterbalanced by a higher incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) of 43.9% (95% CI 31.6-55.6) for Haplo recipients, 32.2% (95% CI 26-33.1) for MUD and 17.5% (95% CI 8.4-29.3) for MSD. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) was 35.3% (95% CI 22.3-48.5) for MSD, 29.6% (95% CI 23.2-36.2) for MUD, and 19.2% (95% CI 10.7-29.6) for Haplo patients. In the multivariate model, compared to the referent group of MSD recipients, the risk of NRM was higher among patients transplanted from Haplo donors ([hazard ratio] HR 5.1, 95% CI 2.23-11.61, p < 0.001) and MUD (HR 3.21, 95% CI 1.48-0.6.94, p = 0.003). Furthermore, both Haplo and MUD were associated with inferior OS, (HR 3.6, 95% CI 1.98-0.6.56, p < 0.001, and HR 2.3, 95% CI 1.37-0.3.88, p = 0.002, respectively), and LFS (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.31-0.3.84, p = 0.003, and HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.04-0.2.60, p = 0.034, respectively). Patients transplanted from Haplo donors were also associated with worse GFRS (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.07-2.77, p:0.025) compared with MSD patients. Older adult AML patients with active disease transplanted from MSD experienced prolonged OS and LFS compared to 10/10 MUD and Haplo due to lower NRM. Prospective clinical trials are warranted., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

ATOS is a prospective observational study evaluating the outcome of patients receiving anti-human T-lymphocyte immunoglobulin (ATLG) in unrelated donor transplantation. Primary endpoint was severe GvHD and relapse-free survival (SGRFS). GvHD prophylaxis consisted of ATLG and CSA/ MTX or MMF. Outcome was compared to the ATLG arm of our prospective randomized phase III multicenter trial trial (RCT) [1, 2]. 165 patients, median age 54 (18; 77) years, with haematological malignancies with early (45.5%), intermediate (17.6%), and advanced (37.0%) disease were included. ATLG dose differed between centers according to local practise (median total ATLG dose of 46 (IQR 32-60, range 15-91) mg/kg). Median follow-up was 70 months. Estimated probabilities at 5 years follow up were for SGRFS 0.27, OS 0.52, DFS 0.43, NRM 0.23, relapse 0.34, acute GvhD °III/IV 0.13, severe chronic GvHD 0.27. OS rates differed dependent on disease status. An effect of the given ATLG dose could not be separated from potential center effects. Despite higher age and more advanced disease in ATOS, outcome was similar to the ATLG arm of our RCT. This long-term, multicenter, experience in routine clinical practice confirms the GvHD-protective effect of ATLG without compromising relapse and non-relapse mortality rates.Clinical Trial Registry: German clinical trials register DRKS00004581., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

We conducted a phase I trial in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) to investigate the combination of two novel targeted agents, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) and midostaurin, with intensive chemotherapy in FLT3-mutated AML and CBF leukaemia. Three dose levels of midostaurin and one to three sequential doses of 3 mg/m 2 GO in combination with '7 + 3' induction were evaluated. Based on safety findings in 12 patients, our results show that 3 mg/m 2 GO on Days 1 + 4 and 100 mg midostaurin on Days 8-21 can be safely combined with IC in newly diagnosed AML., (© 2024 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Whether high-dose cytarabine-based salvage chemotherapy, administered to induce complete remission in patients with poor responsive or relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia scheduled for allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) after intensive conditioning confers a survival advantage, is unclear., Methods: To test salvage chemotherapy before allogeneic HSCT, patients aged between 18 and 75 years with non-favourable-risk acute myeloid leukaemia not in complete remission after first induction or untreated first relapse were randomly assigned 1:1 to remission induction with high-dose cytarabine (3 g/m 2 intravenously, 1 g/m 2 intravenously for patients >60 years or with a substantial comorbidity) twice daily on days 1-3 plus mitoxantrone (10 mg/m 2 intravenously) on days 3-5 or immediate allogeneic HSCT for the disease control group. Block randomisation with variable block lengths was used and patients were stratified by age, acute myeloid leukaemia risk, and disease status. The study was open label. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as complete remission on day 56 after allogeneic HSCT, with the aim to show non-inferiority for disease control compared with remission induction with a non-inferiority-margin of 5% and one-sided type 1 error of 2·5%. The primary endpoint was analysed in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in the per-protocol population. The trial is completed and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02461537., Findings: 281 patients were enrolled between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 12, 2022. Of 140 patients randomly assigned to disease control, 135 (96%) proceeded to allogeneic HSCT, 97 (69%) after watchful waiting only. Of 141 patients randomly assigned to remission induction, 134 (95%) received salvage chemotherapy and 128 (91%) patients subsequently proceeded to allogeneic HSCT. In the ITT population, treatment success was observed in 116 (83%) of 140 patients in the disease control group versus 112 (79%) of 141 patients with remission induction (test for non-inferiority, p=0·036). Among per-protocol treated patients, treatment success was observed in 116 (84%) of 138 patients with disease control versus 109 (81%) of 134 patients in the remission induction group (test for non-inferiority, p=0·047). The difference in treatment success between disease control and remission induction was estimated as 3·4% (95% CI -5·8 to 12·6) for the ITT population and 2·7% (-6·3 to 11·8) for the per-protocol population. Fewer patients with disease control compared with remission induction had non-haematological adverse events grade 3 or worse (30 [21%] of 140 patients vs 86 [61%] of 141 patients, χ 2 test p<0·0001). Between randomisation and the start of conditioning, with disease control two patients died from progressive acute myeloid leukaemia and zero from treatment-related complications, and with remission induction two patients died from progressive acute myeloid leukaemia and two from treatment-related complications. Between randomisation and allogeneic HSCT, patients with disease control spent a median of 27 days less in hospital than those with remission induction, ie, the median time in hospital was 15 days (range 7-64) versus 42 days (27-121, U test p<0·0001), respectively., Interpretation: Non-inferiority of disease control could not be shown at the 2·5% significance level. The rate of treatment success was also not statistically better for patients with remission induction. Watchful waiting and immediate transplantation could be an alternative for fit patients with poor response or relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia who have a stem cell donor available. More randomised controlled intention-to-transplant trials are needed to define the optimal treatment before transplantation for patients with active acute myeloid leukaemia., Funding: DKMS and the Gert and Susanna Mayer Stiftung Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MSt has served as a consultant for Pfizer, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Incyte, Takeda, and Amgen; as a speaker for Pfizer, Medac, MSD, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Novartis, Gilead, Celgene, BMS, AbbVie, and Incyte; has received research funding from Pfizer; and has received travel support from Medac and Pfizer. JMM received research funding from Janssen, Jazz, Astellas, and Novartis; consulting fees from Janssen, Roche, Gilead, AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Astellas, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Glycostem; honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, Astellas, and BeiGene; and travel support from BeiGene. GB has received honoraria from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, BMS, and Otsuka; has served as a consultant for Novartis and Gilead Sciences; has received research funding from Novartis; and has received travel support from Gilead Sciences and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. LPM has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Amgen, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis; has received research funding from Amgen; and has received travel support from Gilead Sciences. CSchm has received honoraria for lectures, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, and educational events from Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Neovii. SWK has received honoraria from Kosmas and Eickeler; and travel support from AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. WB has received lecture fees from Medac and participated in advisory boards for Gilead, Novartis, Miltenyi, Janssen, and BMS. EJ has received honoraria for lectures from BMS, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kite (a Gilead company), and Amgen; payment for expert testimony from Pierre Fabre; and travel support from Medac. UP has received consulting fees from Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Silence, Sobi, AstraZeneca, Geron, GSK, Gilead, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Syros, Akeso, Pierre Fabre, Curis, Galapagos, and Servier; honoraria for lectures from Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, and Janssen; travel support from AbbVie, Janssen, and Jazz Pharmazeuticals; and has participated in data safety monitoring board and advisory board meetings for AbbVie, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Nanexa, BMS, and Blueprint. SAK has served as a consultant for Novartis and Pfizer. MK has received lecture fees from Servier; travel support from Janssen and Kite (a Gilead company); and has participated in data safety monitoring and advisory board meetings for Gilead. KS-E has participated in data safety monitoring and advisory board meetings for Kite (a Gilead company). BH has received travel support from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, and Kite (a Gilead company). FS has received lecture fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medac, and Pfizer; participated in advisory boards for Glycostem; and has received travel support from Servier, Medac, and Janssen. NA has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and MSD and travel support from Amgen and Pfizer. BS has received travel support from AbbVie and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. CSchl has received honoraria from Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS and Celgene, Astellas Pharma, and Laboratories Delbert; has received research funding from AngioBiomed, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; and has received travel support from Celgene, PharmaMar, Pfizer, AbbVie, and BMS and Celgene. KS received research funding from Active Biotech; has received honoraria from Novartis, BMS and Celgene, and GSK; has served as a consultant for Novartis, BMS and Celgene, and GSK; and has received travel support from Sobi. FL has received consulting fees, lecture fees, research support, and payments for expert testimony from Novartis and has participated in data safety monitoring board and advisory board meetings for Novartis, Pfizer, Incyte, and Biosciences. OK has received honoraria from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, and Pfizer and has received travel support from Jazz Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca. JScha has received travel support from Gilead and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. CRe has received travel support from Medac and Gilead Sciences. WEB holds stock and other ownership interests in Philogen; has received honoraria from Philogen; has served as a consultant for Philogen; has received research funding from Philogen; holds international patent rights for vascular targeting of tissue factor and siRNA targeting—so far without any return of money and is co-owner and CEO of two biotech start-ups, Anturec and Elvesca; has given expert testimony for Philogen; and has received travel and accommodation expenses from Philogen. HS holds stock and other ownership interests in Intellia Therapeutics, Biontech, and Arvin and Kymera; has received honoraria from Novartis, Robert-Bosch-Gesellschaft für Medizinische Forschung mbH, and Gilead Sciences; has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences, IKP Stuttgart, and AbbVie; holds patent and other intellectual properties on Samhd1 modulation for treating resistance to cancer therapy, on oncogene redirection, on companion diagnostics for leukaemia treatment, and on markers for responsiveness to an inhibitor of FLT3. GE owns Cellex Cell Professionals. MB received honoraria from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, ActiTrexx, and MSD Oncology and has received travel support from Jazz Pharmaceuticals and MSD. J-HM has received consulting fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Novartis; payments for lectures from BMS, Pfizer, Celgene, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, and Daiichi Sankyo; and participated in data safety monitoring board or advisory board meetings for Pfizer and Daiichi Sankyo. JSche participated in advisory boards for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Sanofi, Medac, MSD, and Janssen and received lecture fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Novartis, Eurocept, and Janssen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Clinical research relies on high-quality patient data, however, obtaining big data sets is costly and access to existing data is often hindered by privacy and regulatory concerns. Synthetic data generation holds the promise of effectively bypassing these boundaries allowing for simplified data accessibility and the prospect of synthetic control cohorts. We employed two different methodologies of generative artificial intelligence - CTAB-GAN+ and normalizing flows (NFlow) - to synthesize patient data derived from 1606 patients with acute myeloid leukemia, a heterogeneous hematological malignancy, that were treated within four multicenter clinical trials. Both generative models accurately captured distributions of demographic, laboratory, molecular and cytogenetic variables, as well as patient outcomes yielding high performance scores regarding fidelity and usability of both synthetic cohorts (n = 1606 each). Survival analysis demonstrated close resemblance of survival curves between original and synthetic cohorts. Inter-variable relationships were preserved in univariable outcome analysis enabling explorative analysis in our synthetic data. Additionally, training sample privacy is safeguarded mitigating possible patient re-identification, which we quantified using Hamming distances. We provide not only a proof-of-concept for synthetic data generation in multimodal clinical data for rare diseases, but also full public access to synthetic data sets to foster further research., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Bilayer scaffolds could provide a suitable topology for osteochondral defect repair mimicking cartilage and subchondral bone architecture. Hence, they could facilitate the chondro- and osteogenic lineage commitment of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) with hydroxyapatite, the major inorganic component of bone, stimulating osteogenesis. Highly porous poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) scaffolds with two layers of different pore sizes (100 and 250 µm) and hydroxyapatite (HA) supplementation were established by thermally induced phase separation (TIPS) to study growth and osteogenesis of human (h) MSCs. The topology of the scaffold prepared via TIPS was characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), a microCT scan, pycnometry and gravimetric analysis. HMSCs and porcine articular chondrocytes (pACs) were seeded on the PLLA scaffolds without/with 5% HA for 1 and 7 days, and the cell attachment, survival, morphology, proliferation and gene expression of cartilage- and bone-related markers as well as sulfated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG) synthesis were monitored. All scaffold variants were cytocompatible, and hMSCs survived for the whole culture period. Cross-sections revealed living cells that also colonized inner scaffold areas, producing an extracellular matrix (ECM) containing sGAGs. The gene expression of cartilage and bone markers could be detected. HA represents a cytocompatible supplement in PLLA composite scaffolds intended for osteochondral defects.