User login
Credit: Chad McNeeley
NEW YORK—The role of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) for patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is changing in the age of targeted therapy.
While allogeneic HSCT has been considered standard treatment for these patients, the question arises whether it will maintain its position in the era “of all these wonderful new drugs,” said David Maloney, MD, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
Dr Maloney undertook to convince the audience at the Lymphoma & Myeloma 2014 congress that there is still a role for allogeneic transplant in CLL patients.
He noted that early allogeneic transplant trials used myeloablative conditioning regimens, which were “prohibitively toxic.” They have now given way to reduced-intensity regimens.
“But the breakthrough came about when it was realized that the reason that allogeneic transplant could cure patients with CLL had really nothing to do with their conditioning regimen . . . ,” he said. “[I]t was probably the donor T cells providing immunologic activity and graft-vs-host activity that was actually able to provide graft-vs-tumor activity and cure patients.”
Seattle regimen
Dr Maloney described the reduced-intensity regimen used in Seattle—fludarabine and 2 Gy total body irradiation. The single dose of radiation is typically 1/6 of what a myeloablative regimen would be.
“This is truly an outpatient regimen,” he said. “Most patients, 50%, get through this without ever being in the hospital.”
Follow-up at 5 years showed overall survival to be 43%, progression-free survival 36%, complete responses 52%, and relapse 34%.
“This may not look very good,” Dr Maloney said, but these are fludarabine-refractory CLL patients whose expected median survival is around 12 months.
Dr Maloney noted that approximately the same outcomes were achieved whether the graft was from a matched related or unrelated donor, and cytogenetics really didn’t play a huge role in outcome.
The biggest factor affecting outcome was lymph node size. Patients with nodes 5 cm or larger did very poorly. And patients with lymph nodes smaller than 5 cm, irrespective of white cell count or bone marrow infiltration, actually did quite well in comparison to the group with large lymph nodes.
“So the graft-vs-tumor activity seems to be limited in its ability to get rid of bulky lymphadenopathy in this population,” Dr Maloney said.
Prior alemtuzumab therapy was also associated with the worst outcome in terms of relapse and disease progression.
Patients without comorbidities and without bulky lymphadenopathy have a very good outcome, Dr Maloney noted, saying, “You can cure 60% to 70% with an allogeneic transplant.”
He also pointed out that many groups are now doing this type of transplant with related and unrelated donors.
Transplant vs new agents
In addition to offering a potential cure, allogeneic transplant may provide better-functioning hematopoietic and immune systems after transplant than before, especially in those patients who received FCR (fludarabine, mitoxantrone, and rituximab) or other treatments.
Transplant, while potentially curative with a high complete response rate, has early non-relapse mortality around 15% to 20%.
“So this makes it hard to position in this era of pills that you can take,” Dr Maloney said.
He pointed out that while ibrutinib and idelalisib have excellent outcomes and overall survival, “these studies are very, very early . . . but obviously extremely promising.”
A group of European physicians recently published a position paper proposing a treatment algorithm that includes transplant for high-risk CLL patients. The algorithm indicates that relapsed/refractory patients should try the novel agents first.
Then, if patients respond, they can continue with the novel agent or proceed to transplant. Patients with lower-risk disease or those who are a higher transplant risk should probably continue on the novel agent.
Those who are younger with higher-risk disease, such as a 17p deletion, or who are a low transplant risk may be willing to choose transplant earlier.
Patients who do not respond to the novel agents can consider transplant or an alternative salvage regimen.
“[O]bviously, this is extremely controversial,” Dr Maloney said, “and what everyone is going to do is use these new agents to push transplant further down the road. And I think that’s appropriate.”
At the very least, Dr Maloney believes patients deserve a discussion of options early on.
He added that chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells “will likely bump transplant even down another notch” because patients are likely to be willing to take the risk of CAR T cells before they’ll take the risk of chronic graft-vs-host disease with an unrelated donor.” 
Credit: Chad McNeeley
NEW YORK—The role of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) for patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is changing in the age of targeted therapy.
While allogeneic HSCT has been considered standard treatment for these patients, the question arises whether it will maintain its position in the era “of all these wonderful new drugs,” said David Maloney, MD, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
Dr Maloney undertook to convince the audience at the Lymphoma & Myeloma 2014 congress that there is still a role for allogeneic transplant in CLL patients.
He noted that early allogeneic transplant trials used myeloablative conditioning regimens, which were “prohibitively toxic.” They have now given way to reduced-intensity regimens.
“But the breakthrough came about when it was realized that the reason that allogeneic transplant could cure patients with CLL had really nothing to do with their conditioning regimen . . . ,” he said. “[I]t was probably the donor T cells providing immunologic activity and graft-vs-host activity that was actually able to provide graft-vs-tumor activity and cure patients.”
Seattle regimen
Dr Maloney described the reduced-intensity regimen used in Seattle—fludarabine and 2 Gy total body irradiation. The single dose of radiation is typically 1/6 of what a myeloablative regimen would be.
“This is truly an outpatient regimen,” he said. “Most patients, 50%, get through this without ever being in the hospital.”
Follow-up at 5 years showed overall survival to be 43%, progression-free survival 36%, complete responses 52%, and relapse 34%.
“This may not look very good,” Dr Maloney said, but these are fludarabine-refractory CLL patients whose expected median survival is around 12 months.
Dr Maloney noted that approximately the same outcomes were achieved whether the graft was from a matched related or unrelated donor, and cytogenetics really didn’t play a huge role in outcome.
The biggest factor affecting outcome was lymph node size. Patients with nodes 5 cm or larger did very poorly. And patients with lymph nodes smaller than 5 cm, irrespective of white cell count or bone marrow infiltration, actually did quite well in comparison to the group with large lymph nodes.
“So the graft-vs-tumor activity seems to be limited in its ability to get rid of bulky lymphadenopathy in this population,” Dr Maloney said.
Prior alemtuzumab therapy was also associated with the worst outcome in terms of relapse and disease progression.
Patients without comorbidities and without bulky lymphadenopathy have a very good outcome, Dr Maloney noted, saying, “You can cure 60% to 70% with an allogeneic transplant.”
He also pointed out that many groups are now doing this type of transplant with related and unrelated donors.
Transplant vs new agents
In addition to offering a potential cure, allogeneic transplant may provide better-functioning hematopoietic and immune systems after transplant than before, especially in those patients who received FCR (fludarabine, mitoxantrone, and rituximab) or other treatments.
Transplant, while potentially curative with a high complete response rate, has early non-relapse mortality around 15% to 20%.
“So this makes it hard to position in this era of pills that you can take,” Dr Maloney said.
He pointed out that while ibrutinib and idelalisib have excellent outcomes and overall survival, “these studies are very, very early . . . but obviously extremely promising.”
A group of European physicians recently published a position paper proposing a treatment algorithm that includes transplant for high-risk CLL patients. The algorithm indicates that relapsed/refractory patients should try the novel agents first.
Then, if patients respond, they can continue with the novel agent or proceed to transplant. Patients with lower-risk disease or those who are a higher transplant risk should probably continue on the novel agent.
Those who are younger with higher-risk disease, such as a 17p deletion, or who are a low transplant risk may be willing to choose transplant earlier.
Patients who do not respond to the novel agents can consider transplant or an alternative salvage regimen.
“[O]bviously, this is extremely controversial,” Dr Maloney said, “and what everyone is going to do is use these new agents to push transplant further down the road. And I think that’s appropriate.”
At the very least, Dr Maloney believes patients deserve a discussion of options early on.
He added that chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells “will likely bump transplant even down another notch” because patients are likely to be willing to take the risk of CAR T cells before they’ll take the risk of chronic graft-vs-host disease with an unrelated donor.”
Credit: Chad McNeeley
NEW YORK—The role of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) for patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is changing in the age of targeted therapy.
While allogeneic HSCT has been considered standard treatment for these patients, the question arises whether it will maintain its position in the era “of all these wonderful new drugs,” said David Maloney, MD, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
Dr Maloney undertook to convince the audience at the Lymphoma & Myeloma 2014 congress that there is still a role for allogeneic transplant in CLL patients.
He noted that early allogeneic transplant trials used myeloablative conditioning regimens, which were “prohibitively toxic.” They have now given way to reduced-intensity regimens.
“But the breakthrough came about when it was realized that the reason that allogeneic transplant could cure patients with CLL had really nothing to do with their conditioning regimen . . . ,” he said. “[I]t was probably the donor T cells providing immunologic activity and graft-vs-host activity that was actually able to provide graft-vs-tumor activity and cure patients.”
Seattle regimen
Dr Maloney described the reduced-intensity regimen used in Seattle—fludarabine and 2 Gy total body irradiation. The single dose of radiation is typically 1/6 of what a myeloablative regimen would be.
“This is truly an outpatient regimen,” he said. “Most patients, 50%, get through this without ever being in the hospital.”
Follow-up at 5 years showed overall survival to be 43%, progression-free survival 36%, complete responses 52%, and relapse 34%.
“This may not look very good,” Dr Maloney said, but these are fludarabine-refractory CLL patients whose expected median survival is around 12 months.
Dr Maloney noted that approximately the same outcomes were achieved whether the graft was from a matched related or unrelated donor, and cytogenetics really didn’t play a huge role in outcome.
The biggest factor affecting outcome was lymph node size. Patients with nodes 5 cm or larger did very poorly. And patients with lymph nodes smaller than 5 cm, irrespective of white cell count or bone marrow infiltration, actually did quite well in comparison to the group with large lymph nodes.
“So the graft-vs-tumor activity seems to be limited in its ability to get rid of bulky lymphadenopathy in this population,” Dr Maloney said.
Prior alemtuzumab therapy was also associated with the worst outcome in terms of relapse and disease progression.
Patients without comorbidities and without bulky lymphadenopathy have a very good outcome, Dr Maloney noted, saying, “You can cure 60% to 70% with an allogeneic transplant.”
He also pointed out that many groups are now doing this type of transplant with related and unrelated donors.
Transplant vs new agents
In addition to offering a potential cure, allogeneic transplant may provide better-functioning hematopoietic and immune systems after transplant than before, especially in those patients who received FCR (fludarabine, mitoxantrone, and rituximab) or other treatments.
Transplant, while potentially curative with a high complete response rate, has early non-relapse mortality around 15% to 20%.
“So this makes it hard to position in this era of pills that you can take,” Dr Maloney said.
He pointed out that while ibrutinib and idelalisib have excellent outcomes and overall survival, “these studies are very, very early . . . but obviously extremely promising.”
A group of European physicians recently published a position paper proposing a treatment algorithm that includes transplant for high-risk CLL patients. The algorithm indicates that relapsed/refractory patients should try the novel agents first.
Then, if patients respond, they can continue with the novel agent or proceed to transplant. Patients with lower-risk disease or those who are a higher transplant risk should probably continue on the novel agent.
Those who are younger with higher-risk disease, such as a 17p deletion, or who are a low transplant risk may be willing to choose transplant earlier.
Patients who do not respond to the novel agents can consider transplant or an alternative salvage regimen.
“[O]bviously, this is extremely controversial,” Dr Maloney said, “and what everyone is going to do is use these new agents to push transplant further down the road. And I think that’s appropriate.”
At the very least, Dr Maloney believes patients deserve a discussion of options early on.
He added that chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells “will likely bump transplant even down another notch” because patients are likely to be willing to take the risk of CAR T cells before they’ll take the risk of chronic graft-vs-host disease with an unrelated donor.”