Search

We conducted a prospective cohort study testing the noninferiority of survival of ablative intravenous busulfan (IV-BU) vs ablative total body irradiation (TBI)-based regimens in myeloid malignancies. A total of 1483 patients undergoing transplantation for myeloid malignancies (IV-BU, N = 1025; TBI, N = 458) were enrolled. Cohorts were similar with respect to age, gender, race, performance score, disease, and disease stage at transplantation. Most patients had acute myeloid leukemia (68% IV-BU, 78% TBI). Grafts were primarily peripheral blood (77%) from HLA-matched siblings (40%) or well-matched unrelated donors (48%). Two-year probabilities of survival (95% confidence interval [CI]), were 56% (95% CI, 53%-60%) and 48% (95% CI, 43%-54%, P = .019) for IV-BU (relative risk, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98, P = .03) and TBI, respectively. Corresponding incidences of transplant-related mortality (TRM) were 18% (95% CI, 16%-21%) and 19% (95% CI, 15%-23%, P = .75) and disease progression were 34% (95% CI, 31%-37%) and 39% (95% CI, 34%-44%, P = .08). The incidence of hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) was 5% for IV-BU and 1% with TBI (P < .001). There were no differences in progression-free survival and graft-versus-host disease. Compared with TBI, IV-BU resulted in superior survival with no increased risk for relapse or TRM. These results support the use of myeloablative IV-BU vs TBI-based conditioning regimens for treatment of myeloid malignancies.

Approximately one-third of patients with an indication for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have an HLA-matched related donor (MRD) available to them. For the remaining patients, a matched unrelated donor (MUD) is an alternative. Prior studies comparing MRD and MUD HCT provide conflicting results, and the relative efficacy of MRD and MUD transplantation is an area of active investigation. To address this issue, we analyzed outcomes of 2223 adult acute myelogenous leukemia patients who underwent allogeneic HCT between 2002 and 2006 (MRD, n = 624; 8/8 HLA locus matched MUD, n = 1193; 7/8 MUD, n = 406). The 100-day cumulative incidence of grades B-D acute GVHD was significantly lower in MRD HCT recipients than in 8/8 MUD and 7/8 MUD HCT recipients (33%, 51%, and 53%, respectively; P < .001). In multivariate analysis, 8/8 MUD HCT recipients had a similar survival rate compared with MRD HCT recipients (relative risk [RR], 1.03; P = .62). 7/8 MUD HCT recipients had higher early mortality than MRD HCT recipients (RR, 1.40; P < .001), but beyond 6 months after HCT, their survival rates were similar (RR, 0.88; P = .30). These results suggest that transplantation from MUD and MRD donors results in similar survival times for patients with acute myelogenous leukemia.

Risks of secondary solid cancers among allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients who receive conditioning without total body irradiation are not well known. We evaluated the incidence and risk factors for solid cancers after HCT using high-dose busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning in 4318 recipients of first allogeneic HCT for acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission (N = 1742) and chronic myeloid leukemia in first chronic phase (N = 2576). Our cohort represented 22 041 person-years at risk. Sixty-six solid cancers were reported at a median of 6 years after HCT. The cumulative-incidence of solid cancers at 5 and 10 years after HCT was 0.6% and 1.2% among acute myeloid leukemia and 0.9% and 2.4% among chronic myeloid leukemia patients. In comparison to general population incidence rates, HCT recipients had 1.4× higher than expected rate of invasive solid cancers (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.79, P = .01). Significantly elevated risks were observed for tumors of the oral cavity, esophagus, lung, soft tissue, and brain. Chronic graft-versus-host disease was an independent risk factor for all solid cancers, and especially cancers of the oral cavity. Recipients of allogeneic HCT using busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning are at risk for developing solid cancers. Their incidence continues to increase with time, and lifelong cancer surveillance is warranted in this population.

Purpose: To update American Society of Hematology/American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer. Methods: An Update Committee reviewed data published between January 2007 and January 2010. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. Results: The literature search yielded one new individual patient data analysis and four literature-based meta-analyses, two systematic reviews, and 13 publications reporting new results from randomized controlled trials not included in prior or new reviews. Recommendations: For patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy who have a hemoglobin (Hb) level less than 10 g/dL, the Update Committee recommends that clinicians discuss potential harms (eg, thromboembolism, shorter survival) and benefits (eg, decreased transfusions) of ESAs and compare these with potential harms (eg, serious infections, immune-mediated adverse reactions) and benefits (eg, rapid Hb improvement) of RBC transfusions. Individual preferences for assumed risk should contribute to shared decisions on managing chemotherapy-induced anemia. The Committee cautions against ESA use under other circumstances. If used, ESAs should be administered at the lowest dose possible and should increase Hb to the lowest concentration possible to avoid transfusions. Available evidence does not identify Hb levels ≥ 10 g/dL either as thresholds for initiating treatment or as targets for ESA therapy. Starting doses and dose modifications after response or nonresponse should follow US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling. ESAs should be discontinued after 6 to 8 weeks in nonresponders. ESAs should be avoided in patients with cancer not receiving concurrent chemotherapy, except for those with lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Caution should be exercised when using ESAs with chemotherapeutic agents in diseases associated with increased risk of thromboembolic complications. Table 1 lists detailed recommendations.

Conflict of interest may arise when 1 physician serves 2 persons whose medical care is interdependent. In hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) from unrelated donors and in the setting of solid organ transplantation from living donors, the standard of care is for donors and recipients to be managed by separate physicians to provide unbiased care. However, the practice patterns of evaluation and care of related donors and recipients are not well described. A survey of HCT centers in the United States was conducted by the Donor Health and Safety Working Committee of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research to determine the type of provider involved in medical clearance, informed consent, and medical management of hematopoietic cell collection and the relationship of that provider to the HC transplant recipient. The response rate was 40%. In greater than 70% of centers, transplantation physicians were involved or potentially involved in overlapping care of the HC transplant donor and the recipient. These patterns were similar between transplantation teams caring for adult or pediatric donors and recipients. Among responding centers, medical management of recipients and their related donors by the same provider is common, a practice that has the potential for conflict of interest.

Therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes (t-MDSs) and acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) have a poor prognosis with conventional therapy. Encouraging results are reported after allogeneic transplantation. We analyzed outcomes in 868 persons with t-AML (n = 545) or t-MDS (n = 323) receiving allogeneic transplants from 1990 to 2004. A myeloablative regimen was used for conditioning in 77%. Treatment-related mortality (TRM) and relapse were 41% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-44) and 27% (24-30) at 1 year and 48% (44-51) and 31% (28-34) at 5 years, respectively. Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 32% (95% CI, 29-36) and 37% (34-41) at 1 year and 21% (18-24) and 22% (19-26) at 5 years, respectively. In multivariate analysis, 4 risk factors had adverse impacts on DFS and OS: (1) age older than 35 years; (2) poor-risk cytogenetics; (3) t-AML not in remission or advanced t-MDS; and (4) donor other than an HLA-identical sibling or a partially or well-matched unrelated donor. Five-year survival for subjects with none, 1, 2, 3, or 4 of these risk factors was 50% (95% CI, 38-61), 26% (20-31), 21% (16-26), 10% (5-15), and 4% (0-16), respectively (P < .001). These data permit a more precise prediction of outcome and identify subjects most likely to benefit from allogeneic transplantation.

We evaluated 26 901 patients who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) at 271 centers worldwide to define patterns of posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLDs). PTLDs developed in 127 recipients, with 105 (83%) cases occurring within 1 year after transplantation. In multivariate analyses, we confirmed that PTLD risks were strongly associated (P < .001) with T-cell depletion of the donor marrow, antithymocyte globulin (ATG) use, and unrelated or HLA-mismatched grafts (URD/HLA mismatch). Significant associations were also confirmed for acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease. The increased risk associated with URD/HLA-mismatched donors (RR = 3.8) was limited to patients with T-cell depletion or ATG use (P = .004). New findings were elevated risks for age 50 years or older at transplantation (RR = 5.1; P < .001) and second transplantation (RR = 3.5; P < .001). Lower risks were found for T-cell depletion methods that remove both T and B cells (alemtuzumab and elutriation, RR = 3.1; P = .025) compared with other methods (RR = 9.4; P = .005 for difference). The cumulative incidence of PTLDs was low (0.2%) among 21 686 patients with no major risk factors, but increased to 1.1%, 3.6%, and 8.1% with 1, 2, and more than 3 major risk factors, respectively. Our findings identify subgroups of patients who underwent allogeneic HCT at elevated risk of PTLDs for whom prospective monitoring of Epstein-Barr virus activation and early treatment intervention may be particularly beneficial.

Limited data are available describing donor adverse events (AEs) associated with filgrastim mobilized peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collections in unrelated volunteers. We report results in 2408 unrelated PBSC donors prospectively evaluated by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) between 1999 and 2004. Female donors had higher rates of AEs, requiring central line placement more often (17% vs 4%, P < .001), experiencing more apheresis-related AEs (20% vs 7%, P < .001), more bone pain (odds ratio [OR] = 1.49), and higher rates of grades II-IV and III-IV CALGB AEs (OR = 2.22 and 2.32). Obese donors experienced more bone pain (obese vs normal, OR = 1.73) and heavy donors had higher rates of CALGB toxicities (> 95 kg vs < 70 kg, OR = 1.49). Six percent of donors experienced grade III-IV CALGB toxicities and 0.6% experienced toxicities that were considered serious and unexpected. Complete recovery is universal, however, and no late AEs attributable to donation have been identified. In conclusion, PBSC collection in unrelated donors is generally safe, but nearly all donors will experience bone pain, 1 in 4 will have significant headache, nausea, or citrate toxicity, and a small percentage will experience serious short-term adverse events. In addition, women and larger donors are at higher risk for donation-related AEs.