Search

Myeloid and erythroid precursor vacuolation is a common dysplastic finding associated with myeloid malignancies, toxins, drug, and nutritional deficiencies. It has been described as a core morphologic feature in VEXAS (vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X‐linked, autoinflammatory, somatic) syndrome. We sought to determine the number of cases attributable to VEXAS syndrome in bone marrow biopsies and aspirates (BAMB) reporting myeloid precursor vacuolation. We reviewed 1318 individual BAMB reports from January 2020 to July 2021 where "vacuole(s)," "vacuolation," or "vacuolated" was reported. Bone marrow biopsies with vacuolation confined to blasts or those completed as routine workup prior to stem cell transplant or post induction chemotherapy for AML (acute myeloid leukemia) were excluded. Myeloid and erythroid precursor vacuolation was noted in 219 reports representing 210 patients. The most common etiology was myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (38.6%), AML (16.7%), lymphoproliferative disorders and multiple myeloma (7.6%), drug or toxin exposure (5.2%) myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) or MPN/MDS overlap syndrome (4.3%). VEXAS syndrome was determined to be the etiology in 2.9% of patients. Two additional cases of VEXAS syndrome with bone marrow biopsies reported in the specified time frame did not explicitly report myeloid or erythroid precursor vacuolation but were identified based on clinical suspicion and repeat BAMB review. Myeloid and erythroid precursor vacuolation is a dysplastic feature attributable to VEXAS syndrome in at least 2.9% of cases. Standardized reporting of vacuolization, triaging of molecular sequencing and optimal treatment of this disorder are critical issues facing those seeing patients with suspected VEXAS syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematologic malignancy that most frequently develops in older adults. Overall, AML is associated with a high mortality although advancements in genetic risk stratification and new treatments are leading to improvements in outcomes for some subgroups. In this review, we discuss an individualized approach to intensive therapy with a focus on the role of recently approved novel therapies as well as the selection of post-remission therapies for patients in first remission. We discuss the management of patients with relapsed and refractory AML, including the role of targeted treatment and allogeneic stem cell transplant. Next, we review non-intensive treatment for older and unfit AML patients including the use of azacitidine and venetoclax. Finally, we discuss the integration of palliative care in the management of patients with AML. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) is a mainstay of treatment for hematologic malignancies such as acute leukemias and aggressive lymphomas. Historically, fresh hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) products have been preferred to cryopreserved products (cryo-HPC) due to concerns of loss of stem cell viability and number with the cryopreservation procedure. We aimed to analyze the outcomes of patients who received cryo-HPCs during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare this against historical cohorts that received fresh HPC. A retrospective chart review was conducted on all adult patients who received a peripheral blood alloHSCT in British Columbia, Canada between June 2017 and November 2021. Baseline characteristics, Kaplan-Meier (KM) overall survival (OS), engraftment, and incidences of acute and chronic graft versus host disease were compared between patients who received cryo-HPCs and fresh HPCs. Univariable analysis followed by multivariable analysis was performed using a backward stepwise selection procedure to generate predictors of OS, cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and primary and secondary graft failure. Three hundred eighty-three patients were included in the analysis, with cryo-HPC representing 40%. Median viability was higher in the fresh-HPC group at 99.2% (IQR 98.3–99.5) versus cryo-HPCs at 97.0% (96.0, 98.6) (P < 0.01). The 12-month actuarial survivals were 77% in the fresh HPC and 75% in the cryo-HPC groups (P = 0.21). There were no differences between cryo-HPCs and fresh HPCs on univariable analysis of OS, CIR, or NRM. There was a shorter median time to platelet engraftment in patients receiving fresh HPC at 17 days (IQR 16, 20) versus cryo-HPC at 21 days (IQR 18, 29), P < 0.001. There was a shorter median time to neutrophil engraftment in the fresh HPC group at 17 days (IQR 14, 20) versus 20 days (17, 23), P < 0.001. Cryo-HPC accounted for 5 out of 6 cases of primary graft failure (P = 0.04), and 3 out of five cases of secondary graft failure (P = 0.39). There were no significant differences in acute GVHD between the fresh HPC and cryo-HPC groups (P = 0.34). The incidence of moderate or severe chronic GVHD was 32% in the fresh-HPC group and 17% in the cryo-HPC group (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, cryopreservation did not emerge as an independent predictor of OS, CIR, NRM, primary GF or secondary GF. However, viability <90% on arrival at our center was a significant predictor of OS (HR 5.3, 2.3–12.3, P < 0.01), primary graft failure (OR 36.3, 5.4–210.2, P < 0.01), and secondary graft failure (OR 18.4, 1.7–121.1, P < 0.01). Patients who received cryo-HPCs had similar OS and relapse rates to those who received fresh-HPCs but typically took 2–3 days longer to achieve engraftment of platelets or neutrophils and were associated increased primary graft failure. However, after accounting for multiple variables, cryopreservation was no longer a significant predictor of survival or engraftment while viability <90% emerged as an important predictor of OS, primary graft failure, and secondary graft failure. If confirmed, this suggests that viability on arrival at the infusion center may be a good quality control indicator used to identify HPC products that may warrant recollection if the risk of graft failure is sufficiently increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]