Leukemia, Myelodysplasia, Transplantation

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. — A model that mimics the recommender system used by Netflix and Amazon can help predict outcomes of lenalidomide treatment in patients with non–deletion 5q (non-del[5q]) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to new research.

The model was used to identify genomic biomarkers that were associated with resistance or response to lenalidomide. Researchers found these associations in 39% of patients with non-del(5q) MDS, and the model predicted response or resistance with 82% accuracy.

Yazan Madanat, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and his colleagues presented these findings at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

Dr. Madanat explained that his group’s model is similar to the recommender system used by Netflix and Amazon, which makes suggestions for new products based on customers’ past behavior. Dr. Madanat and his colleagues used their model to show that patients with certain molecular or cytogenetic abnormalities are likely to respond or not respond to lenalidomide.

The researchers began by looking at 139 patients who had received at least two cycles of lenalidomide treatment. There were 118 patients with MDS, and 108 who had received lenalidomide monotherapy. However, the team focused on the 100 patients who had non-del(5q) MDS, 58 of whom had normal karyotype (NK) and 19 of whom had complex karyotype (CK).

The model revealed several combinations of genomic/cytogenetic abnormalities that could predict resistance to lenalidomide, including the following:

• DNMT3A and SF3B1
• EZH2 and NK
• ASXL1, TET2, and NK
• STAG2, IDH1/2, and NK
• TP53, del(5q), and CK
• BCOR/BCORL1 and NK
• JAK2, TET2, and NK
• U2AF1, +/– ETV6, and NK

However, only the following two combinations could predict response to lenalidomide:

• DDX41 and NK
• MECOM and KDM6A/B

These combinations could be applied to 39% of the patients with non-del(5q) MDS, and the model predicted response or resistance to lenalidomide with 82% accuracy.

Although the biomarkers were found in only a subset of patients, Dr. Madanat said these findings may help physicians tailor therapy for MDS patients, given the high level of accuracy the researchers observed.

“It’s really important to validate the results in a prospective manner and to ensure that we’re able to apply them clinically and potentially change the way we’re treating our patients,” he added.

Dr. Madanat and his colleagues reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. — A model that mimics the recommender system used by Netflix and Amazon can help predict outcomes of lenalidomide treatment in patients with non–deletion 5q (non-del[5q]) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to new research.

The model was used to identify genomic biomarkers that were associated with resistance or response to lenalidomide. Researchers found these associations in 39% of patients with non-del(5q) MDS, and the model predicted response or resistance with 82% accuracy.

Yazan Madanat, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and his colleagues presented these findings at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

Dr. Madanat explained that his group’s model is similar to the recommender system used by Netflix and Amazon, which makes suggestions for new products based on customers’ past behavior. Dr. Madanat and his colleagues used their model to show that patients with certain molecular or cytogenetic abnormalities are likely to respond or not respond to lenalidomide.

The researchers began by looking at 139 patients who had received at least two cycles of lenalidomide treatment. There were 118 patients with MDS, and 108 who had received lenalidomide monotherapy. However, the team focused on the 100 patients who had non-del(5q) MDS, 58 of whom had normal karyotype (NK) and 19 of whom had complex karyotype (CK).

The model revealed several combinations of genomic/cytogenetic abnormalities that could predict resistance to lenalidomide, including the following:

• DNMT3A and SF3B1
• EZH2 and NK
• ASXL1, TET2, and NK
• STAG2, IDH1/2, and NK
• TP53, del(5q), and CK
• BCOR/BCORL1 and NK
• JAK2, TET2, and NK
• U2AF1, +/– ETV6, and NK

However, only the following two combinations could predict response to lenalidomide:

• DDX41 and NK
• MECOM and KDM6A/B

These combinations could be applied to 39% of the patients with non-del(5q) MDS, and the model predicted response or resistance to lenalidomide with 82% accuracy.

Although the biomarkers were found in only a subset of patients, Dr. Madanat said these findings may help physicians tailor therapy for MDS patients, given the high level of accuracy the researchers observed.

“It’s really important to validate the results in a prospective manner and to ensure that we’re able to apply them clinically and potentially change the way we’re treating our patients,” he added.

Dr. Madanat and his colleagues reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. — A model that mimics the recommender system used by Netflix and Amazon can help predict outcomes of lenalidomide treatment in patients with non–deletion 5q (non-del[5q]) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to new research.

The model was used to identify genomic biomarkers that were associated with resistance or response to lenalidomide. Researchers found these associations in 39% of patients with non-del(5q) MDS, and the model predicted response or resistance with 82% accuracy.

Yazan Madanat, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and his colleagues presented these findings at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

Dr. Madanat explained that his group’s model is similar to the recommender system used by Netflix and Amazon, which makes suggestions for new products based on customers’ past behavior. Dr. Madanat and his colleagues used their model to show that patients with certain molecular or cytogenetic abnormalities are likely to respond or not respond to lenalidomide.

The researchers began by looking at 139 patients who had received at least two cycles of lenalidomide treatment. There were 118 patients with MDS, and 108 who had received lenalidomide monotherapy. However, the team focused on the 100 patients who had non-del(5q) MDS, 58 of whom had normal karyotype (NK) and 19 of whom had complex karyotype (CK).

The model revealed several combinations of genomic/cytogenetic abnormalities that could predict resistance to lenalidomide, including the following:

• DNMT3A and SF3B1
• EZH2 and NK
• ASXL1, TET2, and NK
• STAG2, IDH1/2, and NK
• TP53, del(5q), and CK
• BCOR/BCORL1 and NK
• JAK2, TET2, and NK
• U2AF1, +/– ETV6, and NK

However, only the following two combinations could predict response to lenalidomide:

• DDX41 and NK
• MECOM and KDM6A/B

These combinations could be applied to 39% of the patients with non-del(5q) MDS, and the model predicted response or resistance to lenalidomide with 82% accuracy.

Although the biomarkers were found in only a subset of patients, Dr. Madanat said these findings may help physicians tailor therapy for MDS patients, given the high level of accuracy the researchers observed.

“It’s really important to validate the results in a prospective manner and to ensure that we’re able to apply them clinically and potentially change the way we’re treating our patients,” he added.

Dr. Madanat and his colleagues reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – A five-drug regimen was deemed safe in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and it appeared to be effective regardless of patients’ FLT3 status.

Researchers tested this regimen – sorafenib plus granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF), cladribine, high-dose cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (GCLAM) – in a phase 1 trial.

Kelsey-Leigh Garcia, a clinical research coordinator at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and her colleagues presented the results at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“The background for doing this study was our institutional results of GCLAM [Leukemia. 2018 Nov;32(11):2352-62] that showed a higher minimal residual disease–negative complete response rate than 7+3 [cytarabine continuously for 7 days, along with short infusions of an anthracycline on each of the first 3 days] and an international study by Röllig that showed the addition of sorafenib to 7+3 increased event-free survival versus [7+3 and] placebo [Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1691-9],” Ms. Garcia said.

“GCLAM is the standard backbone at our institution, and we wanted to ask the question, ‘If we add sorafenib, can this improve upon the results of GCLAM?’ ” said Anna Halpern, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle and principal investigator of the phase 1 trial.

The trial (NCT02728050) included 47 patients, 39 with AML and 8 with MDS. Patients were aged 60 years or younger and had a median age of 48. They had a median treatment-related mortality score of 1.76 (range, 0.19-12.26). A total of 11 patients (23%) had FLT3-ITD, and 4 (9%) had FLT3-TKD.

Treatment and toxicity

For induction, patients received G-CSF at 5 mcg/kg on days 0-5, cladribine at 5 mg/m² on days 1-5, and cytarabine at 2 g/m² on days 1-5. Mitoxantrone was given at 10 mg/m², 12 mg/m², 15 mg/m², or 18 mg/m² on days 1-3. Sorafenib was given at 200 mg twice daily, 400 mg in the morning and 200 mg in the afternoon, or 400 mg b.i.d. on days 10-19.

For consolidation, patients could receive up to four cycles of G-CSF, cladribine, and cytarabine plus sorafenib on days 8-27. Patients who did not proceed to transplant could receive 12 months of sorafenib as maintenance therapy.

There were four dose-limiting toxicities.

• Grade 4 intracranial hemorrhage with mitoxantrone at 12 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 prolonged count recovery with mitoxantrone at 15 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 sepsis, Sweet syndrome, and Bell’s palsy with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 3 cardiomyopathy and acute pericarditis with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 400 mg b.i.d.

However, these toxicities did not define the maximum-tolerated dose. Therefore, the recommended phase 2 dose of mitoxantrone is 18 mg/m², and the recommended phase 2 dose of sorafenib is 400 mg b.i.d.

There were no grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events included febrile neutropenia (90%), maculopapular rash (20%), infections (10%), hand-foot syndrome (2%), and diarrhea (1%). Grade 4 events included sepsis, intracranial hemorrhage, and oral mucositis (all 1%).

Response and survival

Among the 46 evaluable patients, 83% achieved a complete response, 78% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response, and 4% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response with incomplete count recovery. A morphological leukemia-free state was achieved by 4% of patients, and 8% had resistant disease.

Fifty-nine percent of patients went on to transplant. The median overall survival had not been reached at a median follow-up of 10 months.

The researchers compared outcomes in this trial with outcomes in a cohort of patients who had received GCLAM alone, and there were no significant differences in overall survival or event-free survival.

“The trial wasn’t powered, necessarily, for efficacy, but we compared these results to our historical cohort of medically matched and age-matched patients treated with GCLAM alone and, so far, found no differences in survival between the two groups,” Dr. Halpern said.

She noted, however, that follow-up was short in the sorafenib trial, and it included patients treated with all dose levels of sorafenib and mitoxantrone.

A phase 2 study of sorafenib plus GCLAM in newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS is now underway.

Dr. Halpern and Ms. Garcia reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The phase 1 trial was sponsored by the University of Washington in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, and funding was provided by Bayer.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – A five-drug regimen was deemed safe in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and it appeared to be effective regardless of patients’ FLT3 status.

Researchers tested this regimen – sorafenib plus granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF), cladribine, high-dose cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (GCLAM) – in a phase 1 trial.

Kelsey-Leigh Garcia, a clinical research coordinator at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and her colleagues presented the results at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“The background for doing this study was our institutional results of GCLAM [Leukemia. 2018 Nov;32(11):2352-62] that showed a higher minimal residual disease–negative complete response rate than 7+3 [cytarabine continuously for 7 days, along with short infusions of an anthracycline on each of the first 3 days] and an international study by Röllig that showed the addition of sorafenib to 7+3 increased event-free survival versus [7+3 and] placebo [Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1691-9],” Ms. Garcia said.

“GCLAM is the standard backbone at our institution, and we wanted to ask the question, ‘If we add sorafenib, can this improve upon the results of GCLAM?’ ” said Anna Halpern, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle and principal investigator of the phase 1 trial.

The trial (NCT02728050) included 47 patients, 39 with AML and 8 with MDS. Patients were aged 60 years or younger and had a median age of 48. They had a median treatment-related mortality score of 1.76 (range, 0.19-12.26). A total of 11 patients (23%) had FLT3-ITD, and 4 (9%) had FLT3-TKD.

Treatment and toxicity

For induction, patients received G-CSF at 5 mcg/kg on days 0-5, cladribine at 5 mg/m² on days 1-5, and cytarabine at 2 g/m² on days 1-5. Mitoxantrone was given at 10 mg/m², 12 mg/m², 15 mg/m², or 18 mg/m² on days 1-3. Sorafenib was given at 200 mg twice daily, 400 mg in the morning and 200 mg in the afternoon, or 400 mg b.i.d. on days 10-19.

For consolidation, patients could receive up to four cycles of G-CSF, cladribine, and cytarabine plus sorafenib on days 8-27. Patients who did not proceed to transplant could receive 12 months of sorafenib as maintenance therapy.

There were four dose-limiting toxicities.

• Grade 4 intracranial hemorrhage with mitoxantrone at 12 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 prolonged count recovery with mitoxantrone at 15 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 sepsis, Sweet syndrome, and Bell’s palsy with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 3 cardiomyopathy and acute pericarditis with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 400 mg b.i.d.

However, these toxicities did not define the maximum-tolerated dose. Therefore, the recommended phase 2 dose of mitoxantrone is 18 mg/m², and the recommended phase 2 dose of sorafenib is 400 mg b.i.d.

There were no grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events included febrile neutropenia (90%), maculopapular rash (20%), infections (10%), hand-foot syndrome (2%), and diarrhea (1%). Grade 4 events included sepsis, intracranial hemorrhage, and oral mucositis (all 1%).

Response and survival

Among the 46 evaluable patients, 83% achieved a complete response, 78% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response, and 4% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response with incomplete count recovery. A morphological leukemia-free state was achieved by 4% of patients, and 8% had resistant disease.

Fifty-nine percent of patients went on to transplant. The median overall survival had not been reached at a median follow-up of 10 months.

The researchers compared outcomes in this trial with outcomes in a cohort of patients who had received GCLAM alone, and there were no significant differences in overall survival or event-free survival.

“The trial wasn’t powered, necessarily, for efficacy, but we compared these results to our historical cohort of medically matched and age-matched patients treated with GCLAM alone and, so far, found no differences in survival between the two groups,” Dr. Halpern said.

She noted, however, that follow-up was short in the sorafenib trial, and it included patients treated with all dose levels of sorafenib and mitoxantrone.

A phase 2 study of sorafenib plus GCLAM in newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS is now underway.

Dr. Halpern and Ms. Garcia reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The phase 1 trial was sponsored by the University of Washington in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, and funding was provided by Bayer.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – A five-drug regimen was deemed safe in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and it appeared to be effective regardless of patients’ FLT3 status.

Researchers tested this regimen – sorafenib plus granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF), cladribine, high-dose cytarabine, and mitoxantrone (GCLAM) – in a phase 1 trial.

Kelsey-Leigh Garcia, a clinical research coordinator at Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, and her colleagues presented the results at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“The background for doing this study was our institutional results of GCLAM [Leukemia. 2018 Nov;32(11):2352-62] that showed a higher minimal residual disease–negative complete response rate than 7+3 [cytarabine continuously for 7 days, along with short infusions of an anthracycline on each of the first 3 days] and an international study by Röllig that showed the addition of sorafenib to 7+3 increased event-free survival versus [7+3 and] placebo [Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1691-9],” Ms. Garcia said.

“GCLAM is the standard backbone at our institution, and we wanted to ask the question, ‘If we add sorafenib, can this improve upon the results of GCLAM?’ ” said Anna Halpern, MD, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of Washington, Seattle and principal investigator of the phase 1 trial.

The trial (NCT02728050) included 47 patients, 39 with AML and 8 with MDS. Patients were aged 60 years or younger and had a median age of 48. They had a median treatment-related mortality score of 1.76 (range, 0.19-12.26). A total of 11 patients (23%) had FLT3-ITD, and 4 (9%) had FLT3-TKD.

Treatment and toxicity

For induction, patients received G-CSF at 5 mcg/kg on days 0-5, cladribine at 5 mg/m² on days 1-5, and cytarabine at 2 g/m² on days 1-5. Mitoxantrone was given at 10 mg/m², 12 mg/m², 15 mg/m², or 18 mg/m² on days 1-3. Sorafenib was given at 200 mg twice daily, 400 mg in the morning and 200 mg in the afternoon, or 400 mg b.i.d. on days 10-19.

For consolidation, patients could receive up to four cycles of G-CSF, cladribine, and cytarabine plus sorafenib on days 8-27. Patients who did not proceed to transplant could receive 12 months of sorafenib as maintenance therapy.

There were four dose-limiting toxicities.

• Grade 4 intracranial hemorrhage with mitoxantrone at 12 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 prolonged count recovery with mitoxantrone at 15 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 4 sepsis, Sweet syndrome, and Bell’s palsy with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 200 mg b.i.d.
• Grade 3 cardiomyopathy and acute pericarditis with mitoxantrone at 18 mg/m² and sorafenib at 400 mg b.i.d.

However, these toxicities did not define the maximum-tolerated dose. Therefore, the recommended phase 2 dose of mitoxantrone is 18 mg/m², and the recommended phase 2 dose of sorafenib is 400 mg b.i.d.

There were no grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. Grade 3 events included febrile neutropenia (90%), maculopapular rash (20%), infections (10%), hand-foot syndrome (2%), and diarrhea (1%). Grade 4 events included sepsis, intracranial hemorrhage, and oral mucositis (all 1%).

Response and survival

Among the 46 evaluable patients, 83% achieved a complete response, 78% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response, and 4% had a minimal residual disease–negative complete response with incomplete count recovery. A morphological leukemia-free state was achieved by 4% of patients, and 8% had resistant disease.

Fifty-nine percent of patients went on to transplant. The median overall survival had not been reached at a median follow-up of 10 months.

The researchers compared outcomes in this trial with outcomes in a cohort of patients who had received GCLAM alone, and there were no significant differences in overall survival or event-free survival.

“The trial wasn’t powered, necessarily, for efficacy, but we compared these results to our historical cohort of medically matched and age-matched patients treated with GCLAM alone and, so far, found no differences in survival between the two groups,” Dr. Halpern said.

She noted, however, that follow-up was short in the sorafenib trial, and it included patients treated with all dose levels of sorafenib and mitoxantrone.

A phase 2 study of sorafenib plus GCLAM in newly diagnosed AML or high-risk MDS is now underway.

Dr. Halpern and Ms. Garcia reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The phase 1 trial was sponsored by the University of Washington in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, and funding was provided by Bayer.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

Studies that look at the relationship between environment and childhood leukemia usually consider exposure at only a single residential address, such as the child’s home at birth or at time of diagnosis, say researchers from University of California and University of Southern California. But residential mobility, they contend, can have an impact on a number of relevant factors.

For instance, mobility can affect selection through the availability of data; cases are usually required to reside and be diagnosed in the same geographic area. It can affect exposure to electromagnetic fields and overhead power lines.  Residential mobility can also function as a marker for other risk factors for childhood leukemia, such as maternal place of birth and younger maternal age at birth, as well as increased exposure to viruses or other infections potentially linked to higher leukemia risk. Finally, the type of dwelling can affect not only exposure but exposure assessment. Mobile homes and apartments, for instance, are more likely to lead to poor geographic information system (GIS) matching of the residential address.

The researchers hoped with their study to “disentangle the effect of mobility.” Using the California Power Lines Study, they analyzed data from 4,879 childhood leukemia patients born in California and diagnosed between 1988 and 2008.

Many childhood leukemia cases were mobile, the researchers found: 2,982 (61%) children changed residence between birth and diagnosis. Of those who moved, 618 stayed within 2 km of their birth home; 1,992 moved outside of their birth neighborhood. Children who moved tended to be older, lived in housing other than single-family homes, had younger mothers and fewer siblings, and were of lower socioeconomic status.

However, the effects of distance to power lines and magnetic field exposure on childhood leukemia were similar for a subset of residentially stable cases, and overall results were unchanged when the researchers controlled for proxies of mobility (except for dwelling). They found an OR for childhood leukemia of 1.44 for those whose birth residence was within 50 m of a 200+ kV line, and an OR of 1.50 for the highest exposure of calculated fields, compared with 1.62 and 1.71, respectively, among children who stayed in place.

While they believe their findings on mobility are relevant to other environmental exposures and other childhood outcome studies, the researchers conclude that confounding by mobility is an unlikely explanation for the associations observed between power lines exposure and childhood leukemia.

Studies that look at the relationship between environment and childhood leukemia usually consider exposure at only a single residential address, such as the child’s home at birth or at time of diagnosis, say researchers from University of California and University of Southern California. But residential mobility, they contend, can have an impact on a number of relevant factors.

For instance, mobility can affect selection through the availability of data; cases are usually required to reside and be diagnosed in the same geographic area. It can affect exposure to electromagnetic fields and overhead power lines.  Residential mobility can also function as a marker for other risk factors for childhood leukemia, such as maternal place of birth and younger maternal age at birth, as well as increased exposure to viruses or other infections potentially linked to higher leukemia risk. Finally, the type of dwelling can affect not only exposure but exposure assessment. Mobile homes and apartments, for instance, are more likely to lead to poor geographic information system (GIS) matching of the residential address.

The researchers hoped with their study to “disentangle the effect of mobility.” Using the California Power Lines Study, they analyzed data from 4,879 childhood leukemia patients born in California and diagnosed between 1988 and 2008.

Many childhood leukemia cases were mobile, the researchers found: 2,982 (61%) children changed residence between birth and diagnosis. Of those who moved, 618 stayed within 2 km of their birth home; 1,992 moved outside of their birth neighborhood. Children who moved tended to be older, lived in housing other than single-family homes, had younger mothers and fewer siblings, and were of lower socioeconomic status.

However, the effects of distance to power lines and magnetic field exposure on childhood leukemia were similar for a subset of residentially stable cases, and overall results were unchanged when the researchers controlled for proxies of mobility (except for dwelling). They found an OR for childhood leukemia of 1.44 for those whose birth residence was within 50 m of a 200+ kV line, and an OR of 1.50 for the highest exposure of calculated fields, compared with 1.62 and 1.71, respectively, among children who stayed in place.

While they believe their findings on mobility are relevant to other environmental exposures and other childhood outcome studies, the researchers conclude that confounding by mobility is an unlikely explanation for the associations observed between power lines exposure and childhood leukemia.

Studies that look at the relationship between environment and childhood leukemia usually consider exposure at only a single residential address, such as the child’s home at birth or at time of diagnosis, say researchers from University of California and University of Southern California. But residential mobility, they contend, can have an impact on a number of relevant factors.

For instance, mobility can affect selection through the availability of data; cases are usually required to reside and be diagnosed in the same geographic area. It can affect exposure to electromagnetic fields and overhead power lines.  Residential mobility can also function as a marker for other risk factors for childhood leukemia, such as maternal place of birth and younger maternal age at birth, as well as increased exposure to viruses or other infections potentially linked to higher leukemia risk. Finally, the type of dwelling can affect not only exposure but exposure assessment. Mobile homes and apartments, for instance, are more likely to lead to poor geographic information system (GIS) matching of the residential address.

The researchers hoped with their study to “disentangle the effect of mobility.” Using the California Power Lines Study, they analyzed data from 4,879 childhood leukemia patients born in California and diagnosed between 1988 and 2008.

Many childhood leukemia cases were mobile, the researchers found: 2,982 (61%) children changed residence between birth and diagnosis. Of those who moved, 618 stayed within 2 km of their birth home; 1,992 moved outside of their birth neighborhood. Children who moved tended to be older, lived in housing other than single-family homes, had younger mothers and fewer siblings, and were of lower socioeconomic status.

However, the effects of distance to power lines and magnetic field exposure on childhood leukemia were similar for a subset of residentially stable cases, and overall results were unchanged when the researchers controlled for proxies of mobility (except for dwelling). They found an OR for childhood leukemia of 1.44 for those whose birth residence was within 50 m of a 200+ kV line, and an OR of 1.50 for the highest exposure of calculated fields, compared with 1.62 and 1.71, respectively, among children who stayed in place.

While they believe their findings on mobility are relevant to other environmental exposures and other childhood outcome studies, the researchers conclude that confounding by mobility is an unlikely explanation for the associations observed between power lines exposure and childhood leukemia.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers have shown they can identify transgender leukemia patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches, but some transgender patients may be overlooked with this method.

The researchers’ work also highlights how little we know about transgender patients with leukemia and other cancers.

Alison Alpert, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, and her colleagues conducted this research and presented their findings in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“There’s almost no data about transgender people with cancer ... in terms of prevalence or anything else,” Dr. Alpert noted. “And because we don’t know which patients with cancer are transgender, we can’t begin to answer any of the other big questions for patients.”

Specifically, it’s unclear what kinds of cancer transgender patients have, if there are health disparities among transgender patients, if it is safe to continue hormone therapy during cancer treatment, and if it is possible to do transition-related surgeries in the context of cancer care.

With this in mind, Dr. Alpert and her colleagues set out to identify transgender patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches. The team analyzed data on patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes enrolled in five Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials.

Of the 1,748 patients analyzed, six (0.3%) had a gender-karyotype mismatch. Five patients had a 46,XY karyotype and identified as female, and one patient had a 46,XX karyotype and identified as male.

“Some transgender patients have their gender identity accurately reflected in the electronic medical record, [but] some transgender patients probably don’t,” Dr. Alpert noted. “So we identified some, but probably not all, and probably not even most, transgender patients with leukemia in this cohort.”

All six of the transgender patients identified had AML, and all were white. They ranged in age from 18 to 57 years. Four patients had achieved a complete response to therapy, and two had refractory disease.

Four patients, including one who was refractory, were still alive at last follow-up. The remaining two patients, including one who had achieved a complete response, had died.

The transgender patients identified in this analysis represent a very small percentage of the population studied, Dr. Alpert noted. Therefore, the researchers could not draw any conclusions about transgender patients with AML.

“Mostly, what we did was, we pointed out how little information we have,” Dr. Alpert said. “Oncologists don’t routinely collect gender identity information, and this information doesn’t exist in cooperative group databases either.”

“But going forward, what probably really needs to happen is that oncologists need to ask their patients whether they are transgender or not. And then, ideally, consent forms for large cooperative groups like SWOG would include gender identity data, and then we would be able to answer some of our other questions and better counsel our patients.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues are hoping to gain insights regarding transgender patients with lymphoma as well. The researchers are analyzing the lymphoma database at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which includes about 2,200 patients.

The team is attempting to identify transgender lymphoma patients using gender-karyotype mismatch as well as other methods, including assessing patients’ medication and surgical histories, determining whether patients have any aliases, and looking for the word “transgender” in patient charts.

“Given that the country is finally starting to talk about transgender patients, their health disparities, and their needs and experiences, it’s really time that we start collecting this data,” Dr. Alpert said.

“[I]f we are able to start to collect this data, it can help us build relationships with our patients, improve their care and outcomes, and, hopefully, be able to better counsel them about hormones and surgery.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers have shown they can identify transgender leukemia patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches, but some transgender patients may be overlooked with this method.

The researchers’ work also highlights how little we know about transgender patients with leukemia and other cancers.

Alison Alpert, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, and her colleagues conducted this research and presented their findings in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“There’s almost no data about transgender people with cancer ... in terms of prevalence or anything else,” Dr. Alpert noted. “And because we don’t know which patients with cancer are transgender, we can’t begin to answer any of the other big questions for patients.”

Specifically, it’s unclear what kinds of cancer transgender patients have, if there are health disparities among transgender patients, if it is safe to continue hormone therapy during cancer treatment, and if it is possible to do transition-related surgeries in the context of cancer care.

With this in mind, Dr. Alpert and her colleagues set out to identify transgender patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches. The team analyzed data on patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes enrolled in five Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials.

Of the 1,748 patients analyzed, six (0.3%) had a gender-karyotype mismatch. Five patients had a 46,XY karyotype and identified as female, and one patient had a 46,XX karyotype and identified as male.

“Some transgender patients have their gender identity accurately reflected in the electronic medical record, [but] some transgender patients probably don’t,” Dr. Alpert noted. “So we identified some, but probably not all, and probably not even most, transgender patients with leukemia in this cohort.”

All six of the transgender patients identified had AML, and all were white. They ranged in age from 18 to 57 years. Four patients had achieved a complete response to therapy, and two had refractory disease.

Four patients, including one who was refractory, were still alive at last follow-up. The remaining two patients, including one who had achieved a complete response, had died.

The transgender patients identified in this analysis represent a very small percentage of the population studied, Dr. Alpert noted. Therefore, the researchers could not draw any conclusions about transgender patients with AML.

“Mostly, what we did was, we pointed out how little information we have,” Dr. Alpert said. “Oncologists don’t routinely collect gender identity information, and this information doesn’t exist in cooperative group databases either.”

“But going forward, what probably really needs to happen is that oncologists need to ask their patients whether they are transgender or not. And then, ideally, consent forms for large cooperative groups like SWOG would include gender identity data, and then we would be able to answer some of our other questions and better counsel our patients.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues are hoping to gain insights regarding transgender patients with lymphoma as well. The researchers are analyzing the lymphoma database at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which includes about 2,200 patients.

The team is attempting to identify transgender lymphoma patients using gender-karyotype mismatch as well as other methods, including assessing patients’ medication and surgical histories, determining whether patients have any aliases, and looking for the word “transgender” in patient charts.

“Given that the country is finally starting to talk about transgender patients, their health disparities, and their needs and experiences, it’s really time that we start collecting this data,” Dr. Alpert said.

“[I]f we are able to start to collect this data, it can help us build relationships with our patients, improve their care and outcomes, and, hopefully, be able to better counsel them about hormones and surgery.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers have shown they can identify transgender leukemia patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches, but some transgender patients may be overlooked with this method.

The researchers’ work also highlights how little we know about transgender patients with leukemia and other cancers.

Alison Alpert, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, and her colleagues conducted this research and presented their findings in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

“There’s almost no data about transgender people with cancer ... in terms of prevalence or anything else,” Dr. Alpert noted. “And because we don’t know which patients with cancer are transgender, we can’t begin to answer any of the other big questions for patients.”

Specifically, it’s unclear what kinds of cancer transgender patients have, if there are health disparities among transgender patients, if it is safe to continue hormone therapy during cancer treatment, and if it is possible to do transition-related surgeries in the context of cancer care.

With this in mind, Dr. Alpert and her colleagues set out to identify transgender patients by detecting gender-karyotype mismatches. The team analyzed data on patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes enrolled in five Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trials.

Of the 1,748 patients analyzed, six (0.3%) had a gender-karyotype mismatch. Five patients had a 46,XY karyotype and identified as female, and one patient had a 46,XX karyotype and identified as male.

“Some transgender patients have their gender identity accurately reflected in the electronic medical record, [but] some transgender patients probably don’t,” Dr. Alpert noted. “So we identified some, but probably not all, and probably not even most, transgender patients with leukemia in this cohort.”

All six of the transgender patients identified had AML, and all were white. They ranged in age from 18 to 57 years. Four patients had achieved a complete response to therapy, and two had refractory disease.

Four patients, including one who was refractory, were still alive at last follow-up. The remaining two patients, including one who had achieved a complete response, had died.

The transgender patients identified in this analysis represent a very small percentage of the population studied, Dr. Alpert noted. Therefore, the researchers could not draw any conclusions about transgender patients with AML.

“Mostly, what we did was, we pointed out how little information we have,” Dr. Alpert said. “Oncologists don’t routinely collect gender identity information, and this information doesn’t exist in cooperative group databases either.”

“But going forward, what probably really needs to happen is that oncologists need to ask their patients whether they are transgender or not. And then, ideally, consent forms for large cooperative groups like SWOG would include gender identity data, and then we would be able to answer some of our other questions and better counsel our patients.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues are hoping to gain insights regarding transgender patients with lymphoma as well. The researchers are analyzing the lymphoma database at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which includes about 2,200 patients.

The team is attempting to identify transgender lymphoma patients using gender-karyotype mismatch as well as other methods, including assessing patients’ medication and surgical histories, determining whether patients have any aliases, and looking for the word “transgender” in patient charts.

“Given that the country is finally starting to talk about transgender patients, their health disparities, and their needs and experiences, it’s really time that we start collecting this data,” Dr. Alpert said.

“[I]f we are able to start to collect this data, it can help us build relationships with our patients, improve their care and outcomes, and, hopefully, be able to better counsel them about hormones and surgery.”

Dr. Alpert and her colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The evolving treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was highlighted at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

In a video interview, Martin Tallman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discussed several meeting presentations on the treatment of AML.

In his presentation, Craig Jordan, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explained how the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine appears to target leukemic stem cells in AML.

Courtney DiNardo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, presented information on novel agents for AML, including antibody-drug conjugates; bispecific therapies; checkpoint inhibitors; and inhibitors of IDH1/2, MCL1, and MDM2.

Richard Larson, MD, of the University of Chicago, explored the possibility of an individualized approach to postremission therapy in AML.

Frederick Appelbaum, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, showed that various maintenance therapies given after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have not proven beneficial for AML patients.

Richard Jones, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, presented data showing that post-HSCT cyclophosphamide has made haploidentical transplants safer and more effective for AML patients.

And James Ferrara, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, detailed research showing that biomarkers of graft-versus-host disease can predict nonrelapse mortality after HSCT.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The evolving treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was highlighted at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

In a video interview, Martin Tallman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discussed several meeting presentations on the treatment of AML.

In his presentation, Craig Jordan, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explained how the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine appears to target leukemic stem cells in AML.

Courtney DiNardo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, presented information on novel agents for AML, including antibody-drug conjugates; bispecific therapies; checkpoint inhibitors; and inhibitors of IDH1/2, MCL1, and MDM2.

Richard Larson, MD, of the University of Chicago, explored the possibility of an individualized approach to postremission therapy in AML.

Frederick Appelbaum, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, showed that various maintenance therapies given after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have not proven beneficial for AML patients.

Richard Jones, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, presented data showing that post-HSCT cyclophosphamide has made haploidentical transplants safer and more effective for AML patients.

And James Ferrara, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, detailed research showing that biomarkers of graft-versus-host disease can predict nonrelapse mortality after HSCT.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The evolving treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was highlighted at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

In a video interview, Martin Tallman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discussed several meeting presentations on the treatment of AML.

In his presentation, Craig Jordan, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, explained how the combination of venetoclax and azacitidine appears to target leukemic stem cells in AML.

Courtney DiNardo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, presented information on novel agents for AML, including antibody-drug conjugates; bispecific therapies; checkpoint inhibitors; and inhibitors of IDH1/2, MCL1, and MDM2.

Richard Larson, MD, of the University of Chicago, explored the possibility of an individualized approach to postremission therapy in AML.

Frederick Appelbaum, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, showed that various maintenance therapies given after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) have not proven beneficial for AML patients.

Richard Jones, MD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, presented data showing that post-HSCT cyclophosphamide has made haploidentical transplants safer and more effective for AML patients.

And James Ferrara, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, detailed research showing that biomarkers of graft-versus-host disease can predict nonrelapse mortality after HSCT.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine will not proceed to a phase 3 trial in patients with accelerated or blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs).

The combination demonstrated activity and tolerability in a phase 2 trial, but outcomes were not optimal, according to Raajit K. Rampal, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“[P]erhaps the outcomes might be favorable compared to standard induction chemotherapy regimens,” Dr. Rampal said. “Nonetheless, it’s clear that we still have a lot of work to do, and the outcomes are not optimal in these patients.”

However, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues are investigating the possibility of combining ruxolitinib and decitabine with other agents to treat patients with accelerated or blast phase MPNs.

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues presented results from the phase 2 trial in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

The trial (NCT02076191) enrolled 25 patients, 10 with accelerated phase MPN (10%-19% blasts) and 15 with blast phase MPN (at least 20% blasts). The patients’ median age was 71 years.

Patients had a median disease duration of 72.9 months. Six patients (25%) had received prior ruxolitinib, and two (8.3%) had received prior decitabine.

Treatment and safety

For the first cycle, patients received decitabine at 20 mg/m² per day on days 8-12 and ruxolitinib at 25 mg twice a day on days 1-35. For subsequent cycles, patients received the same dose of decitabine on days 1-5 and ruxolitinib at 10 mg twice a day on days 6-28. Patients were treated until progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

“The adverse events we saw in this study were typical for this population, including fevers, mostly neutropenic fevers, as well as anemia and thrombocytopenia,” Dr. Rampal said.

Nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) included fatigue, abdominal pain, pneumonia, diarrhea, dizziness, and constipation. Hematologic AEs included anemia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Response and survival

Eighteen patients were evaluable for response. Four patients were not evaluable because they withdrew from the study due to secondary AEs and completed one cycle of therapy or less, two patients did not have circulating blasts at baseline, and one patient refused further treatment.

Among the evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved a partial response, including four patients with accelerated phase MPN and five with blast phase MPN.

Two patients (11.1%), one with accelerated phase MPN and one with blast phase MPN, achieved a complete response with incomplete count recovery.

The remaining seven patients (38.9%), five with blast phase MPN and two with accelerated phase MPN, did not respond.

The median overall survival was 7.6 months for the entire cohort, 9.7 months for patients with blast phase MPN, and 5.8 months for patients with accelerated phase MPN.

Based on these results, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues theorized that ruxolitinib plus decitabine might be improved by the addition of other agents. The researchers are currently investigating this possibility.

“The work for this trial really came out of preclinical work in the laboratory where we combined these drugs and saw efficacy in murine models,” Dr. Rampal said. “So we’re going back to the drawing board and looking at those again to see, ‘Can we come up with new rational combinations?’ ”

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest. Their study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and Incyte Corporation.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine will not proceed to a phase 3 trial in patients with accelerated or blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs).

The combination demonstrated activity and tolerability in a phase 2 trial, but outcomes were not optimal, according to Raajit K. Rampal, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“[P]erhaps the outcomes might be favorable compared to standard induction chemotherapy regimens,” Dr. Rampal said. “Nonetheless, it’s clear that we still have a lot of work to do, and the outcomes are not optimal in these patients.”

However, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues are investigating the possibility of combining ruxolitinib and decitabine with other agents to treat patients with accelerated or blast phase MPNs.

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues presented results from the phase 2 trial in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

The trial (NCT02076191) enrolled 25 patients, 10 with accelerated phase MPN (10%-19% blasts) and 15 with blast phase MPN (at least 20% blasts). The patients’ median age was 71 years.

Patients had a median disease duration of 72.9 months. Six patients (25%) had received prior ruxolitinib, and two (8.3%) had received prior decitabine.

Treatment and safety

For the first cycle, patients received decitabine at 20 mg/m² per day on days 8-12 and ruxolitinib at 25 mg twice a day on days 1-35. For subsequent cycles, patients received the same dose of decitabine on days 1-5 and ruxolitinib at 10 mg twice a day on days 6-28. Patients were treated until progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

“The adverse events we saw in this study were typical for this population, including fevers, mostly neutropenic fevers, as well as anemia and thrombocytopenia,” Dr. Rampal said.

Nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) included fatigue, abdominal pain, pneumonia, diarrhea, dizziness, and constipation. Hematologic AEs included anemia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Response and survival

Eighteen patients were evaluable for response. Four patients were not evaluable because they withdrew from the study due to secondary AEs and completed one cycle of therapy or less, two patients did not have circulating blasts at baseline, and one patient refused further treatment.

Among the evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved a partial response, including four patients with accelerated phase MPN and five with blast phase MPN.

Two patients (11.1%), one with accelerated phase MPN and one with blast phase MPN, achieved a complete response with incomplete count recovery.

The remaining seven patients (38.9%), five with blast phase MPN and two with accelerated phase MPN, did not respond.

The median overall survival was 7.6 months for the entire cohort, 9.7 months for patients with blast phase MPN, and 5.8 months for patients with accelerated phase MPN.

Based on these results, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues theorized that ruxolitinib plus decitabine might be improved by the addition of other agents. The researchers are currently investigating this possibility.

“The work for this trial really came out of preclinical work in the laboratory where we combined these drugs and saw efficacy in murine models,” Dr. Rampal said. “So we’re going back to the drawing board and looking at those again to see, ‘Can we come up with new rational combinations?’ ”

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest. Their study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and Incyte Corporation.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – The combination of ruxolitinib and decitabine will not proceed to a phase 3 trial in patients with accelerated or blast phase myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs).

The combination demonstrated activity and tolerability in a phase 2 trial, but outcomes were not optimal, according to Raajit K. Rampal, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“[P]erhaps the outcomes might be favorable compared to standard induction chemotherapy regimens,” Dr. Rampal said. “Nonetheless, it’s clear that we still have a lot of work to do, and the outcomes are not optimal in these patients.”

However, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues are investigating the possibility of combining ruxolitinib and decitabine with other agents to treat patients with accelerated or blast phase MPNs.

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues presented results from the phase 2 trial in a poster at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.

The trial (NCT02076191) enrolled 25 patients, 10 with accelerated phase MPN (10%-19% blasts) and 15 with blast phase MPN (at least 20% blasts). The patients’ median age was 71 years.

Patients had a median disease duration of 72.9 months. Six patients (25%) had received prior ruxolitinib, and two (8.3%) had received prior decitabine.

Treatment and safety

For the first cycle, patients received decitabine at 20 mg/m² per day on days 8-12 and ruxolitinib at 25 mg twice a day on days 1-35. For subsequent cycles, patients received the same dose of decitabine on days 1-5 and ruxolitinib at 10 mg twice a day on days 6-28. Patients were treated until progression, withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

“The adverse events we saw in this study were typical for this population, including fevers, mostly neutropenic fevers, as well as anemia and thrombocytopenia,” Dr. Rampal said.

Nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) included fatigue, abdominal pain, pneumonia, diarrhea, dizziness, and constipation. Hematologic AEs included anemia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.

Response and survival

Eighteen patients were evaluable for response. Four patients were not evaluable because they withdrew from the study due to secondary AEs and completed one cycle of therapy or less, two patients did not have circulating blasts at baseline, and one patient refused further treatment.

Among the evaluable patients, nine (50%) achieved a partial response, including four patients with accelerated phase MPN and five with blast phase MPN.

Two patients (11.1%), one with accelerated phase MPN and one with blast phase MPN, achieved a complete response with incomplete count recovery.

The remaining seven patients (38.9%), five with blast phase MPN and two with accelerated phase MPN, did not respond.

The median overall survival was 7.6 months for the entire cohort, 9.7 months for patients with blast phase MPN, and 5.8 months for patients with accelerated phase MPN.

Based on these results, Dr. Rampal and his colleagues theorized that ruxolitinib plus decitabine might be improved by the addition of other agents. The researchers are currently investigating this possibility.

“The work for this trial really came out of preclinical work in the laboratory where we combined these drugs and saw efficacy in murine models,” Dr. Rampal said. “So we’re going back to the drawing board and looking at those again to see, ‘Can we come up with new rational combinations?’ ”

Dr. Rampal and his colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest. Their study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and Incyte Corporation.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Preclinical research has revealed workarounds that may make chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy feasible for patients with T-cell malignancies.

Researchers have found that using allogeneic cells for CAR T-cell therapy can eliminate contamination by malignant T cells, and editing those allogeneic T cells to delete the target antigen and the T-cell receptor alpha chain (TRAC) can prevent fratricide and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Additionally, an interleukin-7 molecule called NT-I7 has been shown to enhance CAR T-cell proliferation, differentiation, and tumor killing in a mouse model of a T-cell malignancy.

John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, described this work in a presentation at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
 

Obstacles to development

“The primary obstacle for targeting T-cell malignancies with a T cell is that all of the targets that are on the [malignant] T cells are also expressed on the normal T cells,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So when you put a CAR into a normal T cell, it just kills itself. It’s called fratricide.”

A second issue that has limited development is that the phenotype of the malignant T cell in the blood is similar to a normal T cell, so they can’t be separated, he explained.

“So if you were to do anything to a normal T cell, you would also be doing it, in theory, to the malignant T cell – in theory, making it resistant to therapy,” he said.

A third obstacle, which has been seen in patients with B-cell malignancies as well, is the inability to harvest enough T cells to generate effective CAR T-cell therapy.

And a fourth obstacle is that T cells from patients with malignancies may not function normally because they have been exposed to prior therapies.

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues believe these obstacles can be overcome by creating CAR T-cell therapies using T cells derived from healthy donors or cord blood, using gene editing to remove the target antigen and TRAC, and using NT-I7 to enhance the efficacy of these universal, “off-the-shelf” CAR T cells.

The researchers have tested these theories, and achieved successes, in preclinical models. The team is now planning a clinical trial in patients at Washington University. Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues also created a company called WUGEN that will develop the universal CAR T-cell therapies if the initial proof-of-principle trial proves successful.
 

UCART7

One of the universal CAR T-cell therapies Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have tested is UCART7, which targets CD7. Dr. DiPersio noted that CD7 is expressed on 98% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs), 24% of acute myeloid leukemias, natural killer (NK) cells, and T cells.

The researchers created UCART7 by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete CD7 and TRAC from allogeneic T cells and following this with lentiviral transduction with a third-generation CD7-CAR. The team found a way to delete both TRAC and CD7 in a single day with 95% efficiency, Dr. DiPersio noted.

“Knocking out CD7 doesn’t seem to have any impact on the expansion or trafficking of these T cells in vivo,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So we think that deleting that target in a normal T cell will not affect its overall ability to kill a target when we put a CAR into those T cells.”

In fact, the researchers’ experiments showed that UCART7 can kill T-ALL cells in vitro and target primary T-ALL in vivo without inducing GVHD (Leukemia. 2018 Sep;32[9]:1970-83.)
 

UCART2 and NT-I7

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have also tested UCART2, an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy in which CD2 and TRAC are deleted. The therapy targets CD2 because this antigen is expressed on T-ALL and other T-cell and NK-cell malignancies. Experiments showed that UCART2 targets T-cell malignancies, including T-ALL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, in vitro.

The researchers also tested UCART2 in a mouse model of Sézary syndrome. In these experiments, UCART2 was combined with NT-I7.

NT-I7 enhanced the proliferation, persistence, and tumor killing ability of UCART2. Sézary mice that received UCART2 and NT-I7 had “virtually no tumor burden,” according to researchers, and survived longer than mice treated with UCART2 alone (Blood. 2018;132:340).

Dr. DiPersio noted that there was no cytokine release syndrome because these were immunodeficient mice. However, cytokine release syndrome may be a side effect of NT-I7 in patients as NT-I7 induces rapid expansion of CAR T cells.

Dr. DiPersio reported ownership and investment in WUGEN and Magenta Therapeutics. He also has relationships with Cellworks Group, Tioma Therapeutics, RiverVest Venture Partners, Bioline, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, Celgene, Incyte, NeoImuneTech, and MacroGenics.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Preclinical research has revealed workarounds that may make chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy feasible for patients with T-cell malignancies.

Researchers have found that using allogeneic cells for CAR T-cell therapy can eliminate contamination by malignant T cells, and editing those allogeneic T cells to delete the target antigen and the T-cell receptor alpha chain (TRAC) can prevent fratricide and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Additionally, an interleukin-7 molecule called NT-I7 has been shown to enhance CAR T-cell proliferation, differentiation, and tumor killing in a mouse model of a T-cell malignancy.

John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, described this work in a presentation at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
 

Obstacles to development

“The primary obstacle for targeting T-cell malignancies with a T cell is that all of the targets that are on the [malignant] T cells are also expressed on the normal T cells,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So when you put a CAR into a normal T cell, it just kills itself. It’s called fratricide.”

A second issue that has limited development is that the phenotype of the malignant T cell in the blood is similar to a normal T cell, so they can’t be separated, he explained.

“So if you were to do anything to a normal T cell, you would also be doing it, in theory, to the malignant T cell – in theory, making it resistant to therapy,” he said.

A third obstacle, which has been seen in patients with B-cell malignancies as well, is the inability to harvest enough T cells to generate effective CAR T-cell therapy.

And a fourth obstacle is that T cells from patients with malignancies may not function normally because they have been exposed to prior therapies.

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues believe these obstacles can be overcome by creating CAR T-cell therapies using T cells derived from healthy donors or cord blood, using gene editing to remove the target antigen and TRAC, and using NT-I7 to enhance the efficacy of these universal, “off-the-shelf” CAR T cells.

The researchers have tested these theories, and achieved successes, in preclinical models. The team is now planning a clinical trial in patients at Washington University. Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues also created a company called WUGEN that will develop the universal CAR T-cell therapies if the initial proof-of-principle trial proves successful.
 

UCART7

One of the universal CAR T-cell therapies Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have tested is UCART7, which targets CD7. Dr. DiPersio noted that CD7 is expressed on 98% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs), 24% of acute myeloid leukemias, natural killer (NK) cells, and T cells.

The researchers created UCART7 by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete CD7 and TRAC from allogeneic T cells and following this with lentiviral transduction with a third-generation CD7-CAR. The team found a way to delete both TRAC and CD7 in a single day with 95% efficiency, Dr. DiPersio noted.

“Knocking out CD7 doesn’t seem to have any impact on the expansion or trafficking of these T cells in vivo,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So we think that deleting that target in a normal T cell will not affect its overall ability to kill a target when we put a CAR into those T cells.”

In fact, the researchers’ experiments showed that UCART7 can kill T-ALL cells in vitro and target primary T-ALL in vivo without inducing GVHD (Leukemia. 2018 Sep;32[9]:1970-83.)
 

UCART2 and NT-I7

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have also tested UCART2, an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy in which CD2 and TRAC are deleted. The therapy targets CD2 because this antigen is expressed on T-ALL and other T-cell and NK-cell malignancies. Experiments showed that UCART2 targets T-cell malignancies, including T-ALL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, in vitro.

The researchers also tested UCART2 in a mouse model of Sézary syndrome. In these experiments, UCART2 was combined with NT-I7.

NT-I7 enhanced the proliferation, persistence, and tumor killing ability of UCART2. Sézary mice that received UCART2 and NT-I7 had “virtually no tumor burden,” according to researchers, and survived longer than mice treated with UCART2 alone (Blood. 2018;132:340).

Dr. DiPersio noted that there was no cytokine release syndrome because these were immunodeficient mice. However, cytokine release syndrome may be a side effect of NT-I7 in patients as NT-I7 induces rapid expansion of CAR T cells.

Dr. DiPersio reported ownership and investment in WUGEN and Magenta Therapeutics. He also has relationships with Cellworks Group, Tioma Therapeutics, RiverVest Venture Partners, Bioline, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, Celgene, Incyte, NeoImuneTech, and MacroGenics.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Preclinical research has revealed workarounds that may make chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy feasible for patients with T-cell malignancies.

Researchers have found that using allogeneic cells for CAR T-cell therapy can eliminate contamination by malignant T cells, and editing those allogeneic T cells to delete the target antigen and the T-cell receptor alpha chain (TRAC) can prevent fratricide and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

Additionally, an interleukin-7 molecule called NT-I7 has been shown to enhance CAR T-cell proliferation, differentiation, and tumor killing in a mouse model of a T-cell malignancy.

John F. DiPersio, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, described this work in a presentation at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
 

Obstacles to development

“The primary obstacle for targeting T-cell malignancies with a T cell is that all of the targets that are on the [malignant] T cells are also expressed on the normal T cells,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So when you put a CAR into a normal T cell, it just kills itself. It’s called fratricide.”

A second issue that has limited development is that the phenotype of the malignant T cell in the blood is similar to a normal T cell, so they can’t be separated, he explained.

“So if you were to do anything to a normal T cell, you would also be doing it, in theory, to the malignant T cell – in theory, making it resistant to therapy,” he said.

A third obstacle, which has been seen in patients with B-cell malignancies as well, is the inability to harvest enough T cells to generate effective CAR T-cell therapy.

And a fourth obstacle is that T cells from patients with malignancies may not function normally because they have been exposed to prior therapies.

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues believe these obstacles can be overcome by creating CAR T-cell therapies using T cells derived from healthy donors or cord blood, using gene editing to remove the target antigen and TRAC, and using NT-I7 to enhance the efficacy of these universal, “off-the-shelf” CAR T cells.

The researchers have tested these theories, and achieved successes, in preclinical models. The team is now planning a clinical trial in patients at Washington University. Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues also created a company called WUGEN that will develop the universal CAR T-cell therapies if the initial proof-of-principle trial proves successful.
 

UCART7

One of the universal CAR T-cell therapies Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have tested is UCART7, which targets CD7. Dr. DiPersio noted that CD7 is expressed on 98% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs), 24% of acute myeloid leukemias, natural killer (NK) cells, and T cells.

The researchers created UCART7 by using CRISPR/Cas9 to delete CD7 and TRAC from allogeneic T cells and following this with lentiviral transduction with a third-generation CD7-CAR. The team found a way to delete both TRAC and CD7 in a single day with 95% efficiency, Dr. DiPersio noted.

“Knocking out CD7 doesn’t seem to have any impact on the expansion or trafficking of these T cells in vivo,” Dr. DiPersio said. “So we think that deleting that target in a normal T cell will not affect its overall ability to kill a target when we put a CAR into those T cells.”

In fact, the researchers’ experiments showed that UCART7 can kill T-ALL cells in vitro and target primary T-ALL in vivo without inducing GVHD (Leukemia. 2018 Sep;32[9]:1970-83.)
 

UCART2 and NT-I7

Dr. DiPersio and his colleagues have also tested UCART2, an allogeneic CAR T-cell therapy in which CD2 and TRAC are deleted. The therapy targets CD2 because this antigen is expressed on T-ALL and other T-cell and NK-cell malignancies. Experiments showed that UCART2 targets T-cell malignancies, including T-ALL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, in vitro.

The researchers also tested UCART2 in a mouse model of Sézary syndrome. In these experiments, UCART2 was combined with NT-I7.

NT-I7 enhanced the proliferation, persistence, and tumor killing ability of UCART2. Sézary mice that received UCART2 and NT-I7 had “virtually no tumor burden,” according to researchers, and survived longer than mice treated with UCART2 alone (Blood. 2018;132:340).

Dr. DiPersio noted that there was no cytokine release syndrome because these were immunodeficient mice. However, cytokine release syndrome may be a side effect of NT-I7 in patients as NT-I7 induces rapid expansion of CAR T cells.

Dr. DiPersio reported ownership and investment in WUGEN and Magenta Therapeutics. He also has relationships with Cellworks Group, Tioma Therapeutics, RiverVest Venture Partners, Bioline, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Amphivena Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, Celgene, Incyte, NeoImuneTech, and MacroGenics.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is organized by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

[email protected]

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is widely used in the economically developed world to treat a variety of hematologic malignancies as well as nonmalignant diseases and solid tumors. An estimated 17,900 HSCTs were performed in 2011, and survival rates continue to increase.¹ Pulmonary complications post HSCT are common, with rates ranging from 40% to 60%, and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality.²

Clinical diagnosis of pulmonary complications in the HSCT population has been aided by a previously well-defined chronology of the most common diseases.³ Historically, early pulmonary complications were defined as pulmonary complications occurring within 100 days of HSCT (corresponding to the acute graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] period). Late pulmonary complications are those that occur thereafter. This timeline, however, is now more variable given the increasing indications for HSCT, the use of reduced-intensity conditioning strategies, and varied individual immune reconstitution. This article discusses the management of early post-HSCT pulmonary complications; late post-HSCT pulmonary complications will be discussed in a separate follow-up article.

Transplant Basics

The development of pulmonary complications is affected by many factors associated with the transplant. Autologous transplantation involves the collection of a patient’s own stem cells, appropriate storage and processing, and re-implantation after induction therapy. During induction therapy, the patient undergoes high-dose chemotherapy or radiation therapy that ablates the bone marrow. The stem cells are then transfused back into the patient to repopulate the bone marrow. Allogeneic transplants involve the collection of stem cells from a donor. Donors are matched as closely as possible to the recipient’s histocompatibility antigen (HLA) haplotypes to prevent graft failure and rejection. The donor can be related or unrelated to the recipient. If there is not a possibility of a related match (from a sibling), then a national search is undertaken to look for a match through the National Marrow Donor Program. There are fewer transplant reactions and occurrences of GVHD if the major HLAs of the donor and recipient match. Table 1 reviews basic definitions pertaining to HSCT.

How the cells for transplantation are obtained is also an important factor in the rate of complications. There are 3 main sources: peripheral blood, bone marrow, and umbilical cord. Peripheral stem cell harvesting involves exposing the donor to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (gCSF), which increases peripheral circulation of stem cells. These cells are then collected and infused into the recipient after the recipient has completed an induction regimen involving chemotherapy and/or radiation, depending on the protocol. This procedure is called peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT). Stem cells can also be directly harvested from bone marrow cells, which are collected from repeated aspiration of bone marrow from the posterior iliac crest.⁴ This technique is most common in children, whereas in adults peripheral blood stem cells are the most common source. Overall mortality does not differ based on the source of the stem cells. It is postulated that GVHD may be more common in patients undergoing PBSCT, but the graft failure rate may be lower.⁵

The third option is umbilical cord blood (UCB) as the source of stem cells. This involves the collection of umbilical cord blood that is prepared and frozen after birth. It has a smaller volume of cells, and although fewer cells are needed when using UCB, 2 separate donors may be required for a single adult recipient. The engraftment of the stem cells is slower and infections in the post-transplant period are more common. Prior reports indicate GVHD rates may be lower.⁴ While the use of UCB is not common in adults, the incidence has doubled over the past decade, increasing from 3% to 6%.

The conditioning regimen can influence pulmonary complications. Traditionally, an ablative transplant involves high-dose chemotherapy or radiation to eradicate the recipient’s bone marrow. This regimen can lead to many complications, especially in the immediate post-transplant period. In the past 10 years, there has been increasing interest in non-myeloablative, or reduced-intensity, conditioning transplants.⁶ These “mini transplants” involve smaller doses of chemotherapy or radiation, which do not totally eradicate the bone marrow; after the transplant a degree of chimerism develops where the donor and recipient stem cells coexist. The medications in the preparative regimen also should be considered because they can affect pulmonary complications after transplant. Certain chemotherapeutic agents such as carmustine, bleomycin, and many others can lead to acute and chronic presentations of pulmonary diseases such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis, pulmonary fibrosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and abnormal pulmonary function testing.

After the HSCT, GVHD can develop in more than 50% of allogeneic recipients.³ The incidence of GVHD has been reported to be increasing over the past 12 years.It is divided into acute GVHD (which traditionally happens in the first 100 days after transplant) and chronic GVHD (after day 100). This calendar-day–based system has been augmented based on a 2006 National Institutes of Health working group report emphasizing the importance of organ-specific features of chronic GVHD in the clinical presentation of GVHD.⁷ Histologic changes in chronic organ GVHD tend to include more fibrotic features, whereas in acute GVHD more inflammatory changes are seen. The NIH working group report also stressed the importance of obtaining a biopsy specimen for histopathologic review and interdisciplinary collaboration to arrive at a consensus diagnosis, and noted the limitations of using histologic changes as the sole determinant of a “gold standard” diagnosis.⁷ GVHD can directly predispose patients to pulmonary GVHD and indirectly predispose them to infectious complications because the mainstay of therapy for GVHD is increased immunosuppression.

Pretransplant Evaluation

Case Patient 1

A 56-year-old man is diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after presenting with signs and symptoms consistent with pancytopenia. He has a past medical history of chronic sinus congestion, arthritis, depression, chronic pain, and carpal tunnel surgery. He is employed as an oilfield worker and has a 40-pack-year smoking history, but he recently cut back to half a pack per day. He is being evaluated for allogeneic transplant with his brother as the donor and the planned conditioning regimen is total body irradiation (TBI), thiotepa, cyclophosphamide, and antithymocyte globulin with T-cell depletion. Routine pretransplant pulmonary function testing (PFT) reveals a restrictive pattern and he is sent for pretransplant pulmonary evaluation.

Physical exam reveals a chronically ill appearing man. He is afebrile, the respiratory rate is 16 breaths/min, blood pressure is 145/88 mm Hg, heart rate is 92 beats/min, and oxygen saturation is 95%. He is in no distress. Auscultation of the chest reveals slightly diminished breath sounds bilaterally but is clear and without wheezes, rhonchi, or rales. Heart exam shows regular rate and rhythm without murmurs, rubs, or gallops. Extremities reveal no edema or rashes. Otherwise, the remainder of the exam is normal. The patient’s PFT results are shown in Table 2.

• What aspects of this patient’s history put him at risk for pulmonary complications after transplantation?

Risk Factors for Pulmonary Complications

Predicting who is at risk for pulmonary complications is difficult. Complications are generally divided into infectious and noninfectious categories. Regardless of category, allogeneic HSCT recipients are at increased risk compared with autologous recipients, but even in autologous transplants, more than 25% of patients will develop pulmonary complications in the first year.⁸ Prior to transplant, patients undergo full PFT. Early on, many studies attempted to show relationships between various factors and post-transplant pulmonary complications. Factors that were implicated were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco), total lung capacity (TLC), GVHD prophylaxis, TBI, and FEV₁/forced vital capacity (FEV₁/FVC) ratio.^9-15 Generally, poor baseline pulmonary functional status has been shown to correlate with higher risk for pulmonary complications. The most widely accepted pre-transplant PFT values examined for determining risk for developing pulmonary complications are FEV₁ and Dlco.

Another sometimes overlooked risk before transplantation is restrictive lung disease. One study showed a twofold increase in respiratory failure and mortality if there was pretransplant restriction based on TLC < 80%.¹⁶

An interesting study by one group in pretransplant evaluation found decreased muscle strength by maximal inspiratory muscle strength (PImax), maximal expiratory muscle strength (PEmax), dominant hand grip strength, and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance prior to allogeneic transplant, but did not find a relationship between these variables and mortality.¹⁷ While this study had a small sample size, these findings likely deserve continued investigation.¹⁸

• What methods are used to calculate risk for complications?

Risk Scoring Systems

Several pretransplantation risk scores have been developed. In a study that looked at more than 2500 allogeneic transplants, Parimon et al showed that risk of mortality and respiratory failure could be estimated prior to transplant using a scoring system—the Lung Function Score (LFS)—that combines the FEV₁ and Dlco.¹⁹ They assigned a score to the FEV₁ and Dlco based on the percentage of predicted values on PFT. Values greater than 80% were assigned 1 point, values 70% to 80% 2 points, 60% to 70% 3 points, and less than 60% 4 points. Combining the values for the FEV₁ and Dlco provides the LFS. A normal score is 2 (1 point each for FEV₁ and Dlco values > 80%) and is category I. A score of 3–4 is mildly decreased, category II; a score of 5–6 is moderately decreased, category III; and 7–8 is severely decreased, category IV. The hazard ratios (HR) for acute respiratory failure after transplant were 1.4, 2.2, and 3.1 for categories II, III, and IV, respectively. The HRs for mortality were 1.2, 2.2, and 2.7 for the same categories.¹⁹ This LFS has been used post-transplantation as well to categorize pulmonary GVHD.²⁰

The Pretransplantation Assessment of Mortality score, initially developed in 2006, predicts mortality within the first 2 years after HSCT based on 8 clinical factors: disease risk, age at transplant, donor type, conditioning regimen, and markers of organ function (percentage of predicted FEV₁, percentage of predicted Dlco, serum creatinine level, serum alanine aminotransferase level). Given the increased use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens, the authors reevaluated the PAM score and following this analysis, creatinine, percent predicted Dlco, and liver function tests were found to no longer be statistically significant and were removed from the PAM score in 2015.^21,22 Another widely used score is the Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI),²³ which predicts mortality following allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The HCT-CI also uses the FEV₁ and the Dlco as the 2 objective measures of pulmonary function.²³ While these pulmonary tests help with risk stratification, they are not perfect and it is not advised to use an isolated low Dlco to exclude individuals from transplant.²⁴ Recently, Coffey et al looked at the practice of correcting Dlco for hemoglobin by the Cotes method as suggested by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) versus the Dinakara method that was used in the HCT-CI.²⁵ In this study, the use of the Cotes method resulted in an elevated HCT-CI in 45% of patients, and in 33% it resulted in higher mortality risk predictions. Since the HCT-CI is validated using the Dinakara method, that method should be used in the HCT-CI calculations.²⁵

• What other preoperative testing or interventions should be considered in this patient?

Since there is a high risk of infectious complications after transplant, the question of whether pretransplantation patients should undergo screening imaging may arise. There is no evidence that routine chest computed tomography (CT) reduces the risk of infectious complications after transplantation.²⁶ An area that may be insufficiently addressed in the pretransplantation evaluation is smoking cessation counseling.²⁷ Studies have shown an elevated risk of mortality in smokers.^28-30 Others have found a higher incidence of respiratory failure but not an increased mortality.³¹ Overall, with the good rates of smoking cessation that can be accomplished, smokers should be counseled to quit before transplantation.

In summary, patients should undergo full PFTs prior to transplantation to help stratify risk for pulmonary complications and mortality and to establish a clinical baseline. The LFS (using FEV₁ and Dlco) can help categorize risk of respiratory failure and mortality after transplant. Absolute cut-off values for FEV₁ and Dlco are debated, but < 40% predicted and < 30% to 40% predicted, respectively, are considered contraindications to transplant. Smoking cessation should be advised if applicable during the pretransplant visit and optimization of reversible lung conditions should be stressed. There are no formal recommendations about reducing risk of early complications, but early mobilization, incentive spirometry, and use of inhalers if there is any history of obstructive lung disease should be considered.

Case Patient 1 Conclusion

The patient undergoes transplantation due to his lack of other treatment options. Evaluation prior to transplant, however, shows that he is at high risk for pulmonary complications. He has a LFS of 7 prior to transplant (using the Dlco corrected for hemoglobin), which puts him in class IV, with a HR of 3.1 for early respiratory failure and a HR of 2.7 for mortality. Additionally, he is still smoking at the time of transplantation. He does well immediately after transplantation, but has a complicated course with worsening mixed restrictive and obstructive pulmonary function abnormality. He becomes oxygen dependent and eventually undergoes video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), which shows both usual interstitial pneumonia and restrictive bronchiolitis with changes consistent with mild to moderate pulmonary hypertension. He dies 2 years to the month after transplantation.

Early Infectious Pulmonary Complications

Case Patient 2

A 27-year-old man with a medical history significant for AML and allogeneic HSCT presents with cough productive of a small amount of clear to white sputum, dyspnea on exertion, and fevers for 1 week. He also has mild nausea and a decrease in appetite. He underwent HSCT 2.5 months prior to admission, which was a matched unrelated bone marrow transplant with TBI and cyclophosphamide conditioning. His past medical history is significant only for exercise-induced asthma for which he takes a rescue inhaler infrequently prior to transplantation. His pretransplant PFTs showed normal spirometry with an FEV₁ of 106% of predicted and Dlco of 54% of predicted. He does not smoke. His post-transplant medical course was complicated by severe acute skin GVHD as well as diarrhea, with sigmoidoscopy showing GVHD.

Physical exam is notable for fever of 101.0°F, heart rate 80 beats/min, respiratory rate 16 breaths/ min, and blood pressure 142/78 mm Hg; an admission oxygen saturation is 93% on room air. Lungs show bibasilar crackles and the remainder of the exam is normal. Laboratory testing shows a white blood cell count of 2400 cells/μL, hemoglobin 7.6 g/dL, and platelet count 66 × 10³/μL. Creatinine is 1.0 mg/dL. Chest radiograph shows ill-defined bilateral lower-lobe infiltrates. CT scans are shown in the Figure.

• For which infectious complications is this patient most at risk?

Pneumonia

A prospective trial in the HSCT population reported a pneumonia incidence rate of 68%, and pneumonia is more common in allogeneic HSCT with prolonged immunosuppressive therapy.³² Development of pneumonia within 100 days of transplant directly correlates with nonrelapsed mortality.³³ Early detection is key, and bronchoscopy within the first 5 days of symptoms has been shown to change therapy in approximately 40% of cases but has not been shown to affect mortality.³⁴ The clinical presentation of pneumonia in the HSCT population can be variable because of the presence of neutropenia and profound immunosuppression. Traditionally accepted diagnostic criteria of fevers, sputum production, and new infiltrates should be used with caution, and an appropriately high index of suspicion should be maintained. Progression to respiratory failure, regardless of causative organism of infection, portends a poor prognosis, with mortality rates estimated at 70% to 90%.^35,36 Several transplant-specific factors may affect early infections. For instance, UCB transplants have been found to have a higher incidence of invasive aspergillosis and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections but without higher mortality attributed to the infections.³⁷

Bacterial Pneumonia

Bacterial pneumonia accounts for 20% to 50% of pneumonia cases in HSCT recipients.³⁸ Gram-negative organisms, specifically Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli, were reported to be the most common pathologic bacteria in recent prospective trials, whereas previous retrospective trials showed that common community-acquired organisms were the most common cause of pneumonia in HSCT recipients.^32,39 This underscores the importance of being aware of the clinical prevalence of microorganisms and local antibiograms, along with associated institutional susceptibility profiles. Initiation of immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics is essential when bacterial pneumonia is suspected.

Viral Pneumonia

The prevalence of viral pneumonia in stem cell transplant recipients is estimated at 28%,³² with most cases being caused by community viral pathogens such as rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza A and B, and parainfluenza.³⁹ The prevention, prophylaxis, and early treatment of viral pneumonias, specifically CMV infection, have decreased the mortality associated with early pneumonia after HSCT. Co-infection with bacterial organisms must be considered and has been associated with increased mortality in the intensive care unit setting.⁴⁰

Supportive treatment with rhinovirus infection is sufficient as the disease is usually self-limited in immunocompromised patients. In contrast, infection with RSV in the lower respiratory tract is associated with increased mortality in prior reports, and recent studies suggest that further exploration of prophylaxis strategies is warranted.⁴¹ Treatment with ribavirin remains the backbone of therapy, but drug toxicity continues to limit its use. The addition of immunomodulators such as RSV immune globulin or palivizumab to ribavirin remains controversial, but a retrospective review suggests that early treatment may prevent progression to lower respiratory tract infection and lead to improved mortality.⁴² Infection with influenza A/B must be considered during influenza season. Treatment with oseltamivir may shorten the duration of disease when influenza A/B or parainfluenza are detected. Reactivation of latent herpes simplex virus during the pre-engraftment phase should also be considered. Treatment is similar to that in nonimmunocompromised hosts. When CMV pneumonia is suspected, careful history regarding compliance with prophylactic antivirals and CMV status of both the recipient and donor are key. A presumptive diagnosis can be made with the presence of appropriate clinical scenario, supportive radiographic images showing areas of ground-glass opacification or consolidation, and positive CMV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Visualization of inclusion bodies on lung biopsy tissue remains the gold standard for diagnosis. Treatment consists of CMV immunoglobulin and ganciclovir.

Fungal Pneumonia

Early fungal pneumonias have been associated with increased mortality in the HSCT population.⁴³ Clinical suspicion should remain high and compliance with antifungal prophylaxis should be questioned thoroughly. Invasive aspergillosis (IA) remains the most common fungal infection. A bimodal distribution of onset of infection peaking on day 16 and again on day 96 has been described in the literature.⁴⁴ Patients often present with classic pneumonia symptoms, but these may be accompanied by hemoptysis. Proven IA diagnosis requires visualization of fungal forms from biopsy or needle aspiration or a positive culture obtained in a sterile fashion.⁴⁵ Most clinical data comes from experience with probable and possible diagnosis of IA. Bronchoalveolar lavage with testing with Aspergillus galactomannan assay has been shown to be clinically useful in establishing the clinical diagnosis in the HSCT population.⁴⁶ Classic air-crescent findings on chest CT are helpful in establishing a possible diagnosis, but retrospective analysis reveals CT findings such as focal infiltrates and pulmonary nodular patterns are more common.⁴⁷ First-line treatment with voriconazole has been shown to decrease short-term mortality attributable to IA but has not had an effect on long-term, all-cause mortality.⁴⁸ Surgical resection is reserved for patients with refractory disease or patients presenting with massive hemoptysis.

Mucormycosis is an emerging disease with ever increasing prevalence in the HSCT population, reflecting the improved prophylaxis and treatment of IA. Initial clinical presentation is similar to IA, most commonly affecting the lung, although craniofacial involvement is classic for mucormycosis, especially in HSCT patients with diabetes.⁴⁹Mucor infections can present with massive hemoptysis due to tissue invasion and disregard for tissue and fascial planes. Diagnosis of mucormycosis is associated with as much as a six-fold increase in risk for death. Diagnosis requires identification of the organism by examination or culture and biopsy is often necessary.^50,51 Amphotericin B remains first-line therapy as mucormycosis is resistant to azole antifungals, with higher doses recommended for cerebral involvement.⁵²

Candida pulmonary infections during the early HSCT period are becoming increasingly rare due to widespread use of fluconazole prophylaxis and early treatment of mucosal involvement during neutropenia. Endemic fungal infections such as blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, and histoplasmosis should be considered in patients inhabiting specific geographic areas or with recent travel to these areas.

• What test should be performed to evaluate for infectious causes of pneumonia?

Role of Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy

The utility of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) in immune-compromised patients for the evaluation of pulmonary infiltrates is a frequently debated topic. Current studies suggest a diagnosis can be made in approximately 80% of cases in the immune-compromised population.^32,53 Noninvasive testing such as urine and serum antigens, sputum cultures, Aspergillus galactomannan assays, viral nasal swabs, and PCR studies often lead to a diagnosis in appropriate clinical scenarios. Conservative management would dictate the use of noninvasive testing whenever possible, and randomized controlled trials have shown noninvasive testing to be noninferior to FOB in preventing need for mechanical ventilation, with no difference in overall mortality.⁵⁴ FOB has been shown to be most useful in establishing a diagnosis when an infectious etiology is suspected.⁵⁵ In multivariate analysis, a delay in the identification of the etiology of pulmonary infiltrate was associated with increased mortality.⁵⁶ Additionally, early FOB was found to be superior to late FOB in revealing a diagnosis. ^32,57 Despite its ability to detect the cause of pulmonary disease, direct antibiotic therapy, and possibly change therapy, FOB with diagnostic maneuvers has not been shown to affect mortality.⁵⁸ In a large case series, FOB with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) revealed a diagnosis in approximately 30% to 50% of cases. The addition of transbronchial biopsy did not improve diagnostic utility.⁵⁸ More recent studies have confirmed that the addition of transbronchial biopsy does not add to diagnostic yield and is associated with increased adverse events.⁵⁹ The appropriate use of advanced techniques such as endobronchial ultrasound–guided transbronchial needle aspirations, endobronchial biopsy, and CT-guided navigational bronchoscopy has not been established and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In summary, routine early BAL is the diagnostic test of choice, especially when infectious pulmonary complications are suspected.

Contraindications for FOB in this population mirror those in the general population. These include acute severe hypoxemic respiratory failure, myocardial ischemia or acute coronary syndrome within 2 weeks of procedure, severe thrombocytopenia, and inability to provide or obtain informed consent from patient or health care power of attorney. Coagulopathy and thrombocytopenia are common comorbid conditions in the HSCT population. A platelet count of < 20 × 10³/µL has generally been used as a cut-off for routine FOB with BAL.⁶⁰ Risks of the procedures should be discussed clearly with the patient, but simple FOB for airway evaluation and BAL is generally well tolerated even under these conditions.

Early Nonifectious Pulmonary Complications

Case Patient 2 Continued

Bronchoscopy with BAL performed the day after admission is unremarkable and stains and cultures are negative for viral, bacterial, and fungal organisms. The patient is initially started on broad-spectrum antibiotics, but his oxygenation continues to worsen to the point that he is placed on noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. He is started empirically on amphotericin B and eventually is intubated. VATS lung biopsy is ultimately performed and pathology is consistent with diffuse alveolar damage.

• Based on these biopsy findings, what is the diagnosis?

Based on the pathology consistent with diffuse alveolar damage, a diagnosis of idiopathic pneumonia syndrome (IPS) is made.

• What noninfectious pulmonary complications occur in the early post-transplant period?

The overall incidence of noninfectious pulmonary complications after HSCT is generally estimated at 20% to 30%.³² Acute pulmonary edema is a common very early noninfectious pulmonary complication and clinically the most straightforward to treat. Three distinct clinical syndromes—peri-engraftment respiratory distress syndrome (PERDS), diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH), and IPS—comprise the remainder of the pertinent early noninfectious complications. Clinical presentation differs based upon the disease entity. Recent studies have evaluated the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme polymorphisms as a predictive marker for risk of developing early noninfectious pulmonary complications.⁶¹

Peri-Engraftment Respiratory Distress Syndrome

PERDS is a clinical syndrome comprising the cardinal features of erythematous rash and fever along with noncardiogenic pulmonary infiltrates and hypoxemia that occur in the peri-engraftment period, defined as recovery of absolute neutrophil count to > 500/μL on 2 consecutive days.⁶² PERDS occurs in the autologous HSCT population and may be a clinical correlate to early GVHD in the allogeneic HSCT population. It is hypothesized that the pathophysiology underlying PERDS is an autoimmune-related capillary leak caused by pro-inflammatory cytokine release.⁶³ Treatment remains anecdotal and currently consists of supportive care and high-dose corticosteroids. Some have favored limiting the use of gCSF given its role in stimulating rapid white blood cell recovery.³³ Prognosis is favorable, but progression to fulminant respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation portends a poor prognosis.

Diffuse Alveolar Hemorrhage

DAH is clinical syndrome consisting of diffuse alveolar infiltrates on pulmonary imaging combined with progressively bloodier return per aliquot during BAL in 3 different subsegments or more than 20% hemosiderin-laden macrophages on BAL fluid evaluation. Classically, DAH is defined in the absence of pulmonary infection or cardiac dysfunction. The pathophysiology is thought to be related to inflammation of pulmonary vasculature within the alveolar walls leading to alveolitis. Although no prospective trials exist, early use of high-dose corticosteroid therapy is thought to improve outcomes;^64,65 a recent study, however, showed low-dose steroids may be associated with the lowest mortality.⁶⁶ Mortality is directly linked to the presence of superimposed infection, need for mechanical ventilation, late onset, and development of multiorgan failure.⁶⁷

Idiopathic Pneumonia Syndrome

IPS is a complex clinical syndrome whose pathology is felt to stem from a variety of possible lung insults such as direct myeloablative drug toxicity, occult pulmonary infection, or cytokine-driven inflammation. The ATS published an article further subcategorizing IPS as different clinical entities based upon whether the primary insult involves the vascular endothelium, interstitial tissue, and airway tissue, truly idiopathic, or unclassified.⁶⁸ In clinical practice, IPS is defined as widespread alveolar injury in the absence of evidence of renal failure, heart failure, and excessive fluid resuscitation. In addition, negative testing for a variety of bacterial, viral, and fungal causes is also necessary.⁶⁹ Clinical syndromes included within the IPS definition are ARDS, acute interstitial pneumonia, DAH, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, and BOS.⁷⁰ Risk factors for developing IPS include TBI, older age of recipient, acute GVHD, and underlying diagnosis of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome.¹² In addition, it has been shown that risk for developing IPS is lower in patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT who receive non-myeloablative conditioning regimens.⁷¹ The pathologic finding in IPS is diffuse alveolar damage. A 2006 study in which investigators reviewed BAL samples from patients with IPS found that 3% of the patients had PCR evidence of human metapneumovirus infection, and a study in 2015 found PCR evidence of infection in 53% of BAL samples from patients diagnosed with IPS.^72,73 This fuels the debate on whether IPS is truly an infection-driven process where the source of infection, pulmonary or otherwise, simply escapes detection. Various surfactant proteins, which play a role in decreasing surface tension within the alveolar interface and function as mediators within the innate immunity of the lung, have been studied in regard to development of IPS. Small retrospective studies have shown a trend toward lower pre-transplant serum protein surfactant D and the development of IPS.⁷⁴

The diagnosis of IPS does not require pathologic diagnosis in most circumstances. The correct clinical findings in association with a negative infectious workup lead to a presumptive diagnosis of IPS. The extent of the infectious workup that must be completed to adequately rule out infection is often a difficult clinical question. Recent recommendations include BAL fluid evaluation for routine bacterial cultures, appropriate viral culture, and consideration of PCR testing to evaluate for Mycoplasma, Chlamydia, and Aspergillus antigens.⁷⁵ Transbronchial biopsy continues to appear in recommendations, but is not routinely performed and should be completed as the patient’s clinical status permits.^8,68 Table 3 reviews basic features of early noninfectious pulmonary complications.

• What treatment should be offered to the patient with diffuse alveolar damage on biopsy?

Treatment consists of supportive care and empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics with consideration of high-dose corticosteroids. Based upon early studies in murine models implicating TNF, pilot studies were performed evaluating etanercept as a possible safe and effective addition to high-dose systemic corticosteroids.⁷⁷ Although these results were promising, data from a truncated randomized control clinical trial failed to show improvement in patient response in the adult population.⁷⁶ More recent data from the same author suggests that pediatric populations with IPS are, however, responsive to etanercept and high-dose corticosteroid therapy.⁷⁸ When IPS develops as a late complication, treatment with high-dose corticosteroids (2 mg/kg/day) and etanercept (0.4 mg/kg twice weekly) has been shown to improve 2-year survival.⁷⁹

Case Patient 2 Conclusion

The patient is started on steroids and makes a speedy recovery. He is successfully extubated 5 days later.

Conclusion

Careful pretransplant evaluation, including a full set of pulmonary function tests, can help predict a patient’s risk for pulmonary complications after transplant, allowing risk factor modification strategies to be implemented prior to transplant, including smoking cessation. It also helps identify patients at high risk for complications who will require closer monitoring after transplantation. Early posttransplant complications include infectious and noninfectious entities. Bacterial, viral, and fungal pneumonias are in the differential of infectious pneumonia, and bronchoscopy can be helpful in establishing a diagnosis. A common, important noninfectious cause of early pulmonary complications is IPS, which is treated with steroids and sometimes anti-TNF therapy.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is widely used in the economically developed world to treat a variety of hematologic malignancies as well as nonmalignant diseases and solid tumors. An estimated 17,900 HSCTs were performed in 2011, and survival rates continue to increase.¹ Pulmonary complications post HSCT are common, with rates ranging from 40% to 60%, and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality.²

Clinical diagnosis of pulmonary complications in the HSCT population has been aided by a previously well-defined chronology of the most common diseases.³ Historically, early pulmonary complications were defined as pulmonary complications occurring within 100 days of HSCT (corresponding to the acute graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] period). Late pulmonary complications are those that occur thereafter. This timeline, however, is now more variable given the increasing indications for HSCT, the use of reduced-intensity conditioning strategies, and varied individual immune reconstitution. This article discusses the management of early post-HSCT pulmonary complications; late post-HSCT pulmonary complications will be discussed in a separate follow-up article.

Transplant Basics

The development of pulmonary complications is affected by many factors associated with the transplant. Autologous transplantation involves the collection of a patient’s own stem cells, appropriate storage and processing, and re-implantation after induction therapy. During induction therapy, the patient undergoes high-dose chemotherapy or radiation therapy that ablates the bone marrow. The stem cells are then transfused back into the patient to repopulate the bone marrow. Allogeneic transplants involve the collection of stem cells from a donor. Donors are matched as closely as possible to the recipient’s histocompatibility antigen (HLA) haplotypes to prevent graft failure and rejection. The donor can be related or unrelated to the recipient. If there is not a possibility of a related match (from a sibling), then a national search is undertaken to look for a match through the National Marrow Donor Program. There are fewer transplant reactions and occurrences of GVHD if the major HLAs of the donor and recipient match. Table 1 reviews basic definitions pertaining to HSCT.

How the cells for transplantation are obtained is also an important factor in the rate of complications. There are 3 main sources: peripheral blood, bone marrow, and umbilical cord. Peripheral stem cell harvesting involves exposing the donor to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (gCSF), which increases peripheral circulation of stem cells. These cells are then collected and infused into the recipient after the recipient has completed an induction regimen involving chemotherapy and/or radiation, depending on the protocol. This procedure is called peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT). Stem cells can also be directly harvested from bone marrow cells, which are collected from repeated aspiration of bone marrow from the posterior iliac crest.⁴ This technique is most common in children, whereas in adults peripheral blood stem cells are the most common source. Overall mortality does not differ based on the source of the stem cells. It is postulated that GVHD may be more common in patients undergoing PBSCT, but the graft failure rate may be lower.⁵

The third option is umbilical cord blood (UCB) as the source of stem cells. This involves the collection of umbilical cord blood that is prepared and frozen after birth. It has a smaller volume of cells, and although fewer cells are needed when using UCB, 2 separate donors may be required for a single adult recipient. The engraftment of the stem cells is slower and infections in the post-transplant period are more common. Prior reports indicate GVHD rates may be lower.⁴ While the use of UCB is not common in adults, the incidence has doubled over the past decade, increasing from 3% to 6%.

The conditioning regimen can influence pulmonary complications. Traditionally, an ablative transplant involves high-dose chemotherapy or radiation to eradicate the recipient’s bone marrow. This regimen can lead to many complications, especially in the immediate post-transplant period. In the past 10 years, there has been increasing interest in non-myeloablative, or reduced-intensity, conditioning transplants.⁶ These “mini transplants” involve smaller doses of chemotherapy or radiation, which do not totally eradicate the bone marrow; after the transplant a degree of chimerism develops where the donor and recipient stem cells coexist. The medications in the preparative regimen also should be considered because they can affect pulmonary complications after transplant. Certain chemotherapeutic agents such as carmustine, bleomycin, and many others can lead to acute and chronic presentations of pulmonary diseases such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis, pulmonary fibrosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and abnormal pulmonary function testing.

After the HSCT, GVHD can develop in more than 50% of allogeneic recipients.³ The incidence of GVHD has been reported to be increasing over the past 12 years.It is divided into acute GVHD (which traditionally happens in the first 100 days after transplant) and chronic GVHD (after day 100). This calendar-day–based system has been augmented based on a 2006 National Institutes of Health working group report emphasizing the importance of organ-specific features of chronic GVHD in the clinical presentation of GVHD.⁷ Histologic changes in chronic organ GVHD tend to include more fibrotic features, whereas in acute GVHD more inflammatory changes are seen. The NIH working group report also stressed the importance of obtaining a biopsy specimen for histopathologic review and interdisciplinary collaboration to arrive at a consensus diagnosis, and noted the limitations of using histologic changes as the sole determinant of a “gold standard” diagnosis.⁷ GVHD can directly predispose patients to pulmonary GVHD and indirectly predispose them to infectious complications because the mainstay of therapy for GVHD is increased immunosuppression.

Pretransplant Evaluation

Case Patient 1

A 56-year-old man is diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after presenting with signs and symptoms consistent with pancytopenia. He has a past medical history of chronic sinus congestion, arthritis, depression, chronic pain, and carpal tunnel surgery. He is employed as an oilfield worker and has a 40-pack-year smoking history, but he recently cut back to half a pack per day. He is being evaluated for allogeneic transplant with his brother as the donor and the planned conditioning regimen is total body irradiation (TBI), thiotepa, cyclophosphamide, and antithymocyte globulin with T-cell depletion. Routine pretransplant pulmonary function testing (PFT) reveals a restrictive pattern and he is sent for pretransplant pulmonary evaluation.

Physical exam reveals a chronically ill appearing man. He is afebrile, the respiratory rate is 16 breaths/min, blood pressure is 145/88 mm Hg, heart rate is 92 beats/min, and oxygen saturation is 95%. He is in no distress. Auscultation of the chest reveals slightly diminished breath sounds bilaterally but is clear and without wheezes, rhonchi, or rales. Heart exam shows regular rate and rhythm without murmurs, rubs, or gallops. Extremities reveal no edema or rashes. Otherwise, the remainder of the exam is normal. The patient’s PFT results are shown in Table 2.

• What aspects of this patient’s history put him at risk for pulmonary complications after transplantation?

Risk Factors for Pulmonary Complications

Predicting who is at risk for pulmonary complications is difficult. Complications are generally divided into infectious and noninfectious categories. Regardless of category, allogeneic HSCT recipients are at increased risk compared with autologous recipients, but even in autologous transplants, more than 25% of patients will develop pulmonary complications in the first year.⁸ Prior to transplant, patients undergo full PFT. Early on, many studies attempted to show relationships between various factors and post-transplant pulmonary complications. Factors that were implicated were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco), total lung capacity (TLC), GVHD prophylaxis, TBI, and FEV₁/forced vital capacity (FEV₁/FVC) ratio.^9-15 Generally, poor baseline pulmonary functional status has been shown to correlate with higher risk for pulmonary complications. The most widely accepted pre-transplant PFT values examined for determining risk for developing pulmonary complications are FEV₁ and Dlco.

Another sometimes overlooked risk before transplantation is restrictive lung disease. One study showed a twofold increase in respiratory failure and mortality if there was pretransplant restriction based on TLC < 80%.¹⁶

An interesting study by one group in pretransplant evaluation found decreased muscle strength by maximal inspiratory muscle strength (PImax), maximal expiratory muscle strength (PEmax), dominant hand grip strength, and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance prior to allogeneic transplant, but did not find a relationship between these variables and mortality.¹⁷ While this study had a small sample size, these findings likely deserve continued investigation.¹⁸

• What methods are used to calculate risk for complications?

Risk Scoring Systems

Several pretransplantation risk scores have been developed. In a study that looked at more than 2500 allogeneic transplants, Parimon et al showed that risk of mortality and respiratory failure could be estimated prior to transplant using a scoring system—the Lung Function Score (LFS)—that combines the FEV₁ and Dlco.¹⁹ They assigned a score to the FEV₁ and Dlco based on the percentage of predicted values on PFT. Values greater than 80% were assigned 1 point, values 70% to 80% 2 points, 60% to 70% 3 points, and less than 60% 4 points. Combining the values for the FEV₁ and Dlco provides the LFS. A normal score is 2 (1 point each for FEV₁ and Dlco values > 80%) and is category I. A score of 3–4 is mildly decreased, category II; a score of 5–6 is moderately decreased, category III; and 7–8 is severely decreased, category IV. The hazard ratios (HR) for acute respiratory failure after transplant were 1.4, 2.2, and 3.1 for categories II, III, and IV, respectively. The HRs for mortality were 1.2, 2.2, and 2.7 for the same categories.¹⁹ This LFS has been used post-transplantation as well to categorize pulmonary GVHD.²⁰

The Pretransplantation Assessment of Mortality score, initially developed in 2006, predicts mortality within the first 2 years after HSCT based on 8 clinical factors: disease risk, age at transplant, donor type, conditioning regimen, and markers of organ function (percentage of predicted FEV₁, percentage of predicted Dlco, serum creatinine level, serum alanine aminotransferase level). Given the increased use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens, the authors reevaluated the PAM score and following this analysis, creatinine, percent predicted Dlco, and liver function tests were found to no longer be statistically significant and were removed from the PAM score in 2015.^21,22 Another widely used score is the Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI),²³ which predicts mortality following allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The HCT-CI also uses the FEV₁ and the Dlco as the 2 objective measures of pulmonary function.²³ While these pulmonary tests help with risk stratification, they are not perfect and it is not advised to use an isolated low Dlco to exclude individuals from transplant.²⁴ Recently, Coffey et al looked at the practice of correcting Dlco for hemoglobin by the Cotes method as suggested by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) versus the Dinakara method that was used in the HCT-CI.²⁵ In this study, the use of the Cotes method resulted in an elevated HCT-CI in 45% of patients, and in 33% it resulted in higher mortality risk predictions. Since the HCT-CI is validated using the Dinakara method, that method should be used in the HCT-CI calculations.²⁵

• What other preoperative testing or interventions should be considered in this patient?

Since there is a high risk of infectious complications after transplant, the question of whether pretransplantation patients should undergo screening imaging may arise. There is no evidence that routine chest computed tomography (CT) reduces the risk of infectious complications after transplantation.²⁶ An area that may be insufficiently addressed in the pretransplantation evaluation is smoking cessation counseling.²⁷ Studies have shown an elevated risk of mortality in smokers.^28-30 Others have found a higher incidence of respiratory failure but not an increased mortality.³¹ Overall, with the good rates of smoking cessation that can be accomplished, smokers should be counseled to quit before transplantation.

In summary, patients should undergo full PFTs prior to transplantation to help stratify risk for pulmonary complications and mortality and to establish a clinical baseline. The LFS (using FEV₁ and Dlco) can help categorize risk of respiratory failure and mortality after transplant. Absolute cut-off values for FEV₁ and Dlco are debated, but < 40% predicted and < 30% to 40% predicted, respectively, are considered contraindications to transplant. Smoking cessation should be advised if applicable during the pretransplant visit and optimization of reversible lung conditions should be stressed. There are no formal recommendations about reducing risk of early complications, but early mobilization, incentive spirometry, and use of inhalers if there is any history of obstructive lung disease should be considered.

Case Patient 1 Conclusion

The patient undergoes transplantation due to his lack of other treatment options. Evaluation prior to transplant, however, shows that he is at high risk for pulmonary complications. He has a LFS of 7 prior to transplant (using the Dlco corrected for hemoglobin), which puts him in class IV, with a HR of 3.1 for early respiratory failure and a HR of 2.7 for mortality. Additionally, he is still smoking at the time of transplantation. He does well immediately after transplantation, but has a complicated course with worsening mixed restrictive and obstructive pulmonary function abnormality. He becomes oxygen dependent and eventually undergoes video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), which shows both usual interstitial pneumonia and restrictive bronchiolitis with changes consistent with mild to moderate pulmonary hypertension. He dies 2 years to the month after transplantation.

Early Infectious Pulmonary Complications

Case Patient 2

A 27-year-old man with a medical history significant for AML and allogeneic HSCT presents with cough productive of a small amount of clear to white sputum, dyspnea on exertion, and fevers for 1 week. He also has mild nausea and a decrease in appetite. He underwent HSCT 2.5 months prior to admission, which was a matched unrelated bone marrow transplant with TBI and cyclophosphamide conditioning. His past medical history is significant only for exercise-induced asthma for which he takes a rescue inhaler infrequently prior to transplantation. His pretransplant PFTs showed normal spirometry with an FEV₁ of 106% of predicted and Dlco of 54% of predicted. He does not smoke. His post-transplant medical course was complicated by severe acute skin GVHD as well as diarrhea, with sigmoidoscopy showing GVHD.

Physical exam is notable for fever of 101.0°F, heart rate 80 beats/min, respiratory rate 16 breaths/ min, and blood pressure 142/78 mm Hg; an admission oxygen saturation is 93% on room air. Lungs show bibasilar crackles and the remainder of the exam is normal. Laboratory testing shows a white blood cell count of 2400 cells/μL, hemoglobin 7.6 g/dL, and platelet count 66 × 10³/μL. Creatinine is 1.0 mg/dL. Chest radiograph shows ill-defined bilateral lower-lobe infiltrates. CT scans are shown in the Figure.

• For which infectious complications is this patient most at risk?

Pneumonia

A prospective trial in the HSCT population reported a pneumonia incidence rate of 68%, and pneumonia is more common in allogeneic HSCT with prolonged immunosuppressive therapy.³² Development of pneumonia within 100 days of transplant directly correlates with nonrelapsed mortality.³³ Early detection is key, and bronchoscopy within the first 5 days of symptoms has been shown to change therapy in approximately 40% of cases but has not been shown to affect mortality.³⁴ The clinical presentation of pneumonia in the HSCT population can be variable because of the presence of neutropenia and profound immunosuppression. Traditionally accepted diagnostic criteria of fevers, sputum production, and new infiltrates should be used with caution, and an appropriately high index of suspicion should be maintained. Progression to respiratory failure, regardless of causative organism of infection, portends a poor prognosis, with mortality rates estimated at 70% to 90%.^35,36 Several transplant-specific factors may affect early infections. For instance, UCB transplants have been found to have a higher incidence of invasive aspergillosis and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections but without higher mortality attributed to the infections.³⁷

Bacterial Pneumonia

Bacterial pneumonia accounts for 20% to 50% of pneumonia cases in HSCT recipients.³⁸ Gram-negative organisms, specifically Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli, were reported to be the most common pathologic bacteria in recent prospective trials, whereas previous retrospective trials showed that common community-acquired organisms were the most common cause of pneumonia in HSCT recipients.^32,39 This underscores the importance of being aware of the clinical prevalence of microorganisms and local antibiograms, along with associated institutional susceptibility profiles. Initiation of immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics is essential when bacterial pneumonia is suspected.

Viral Pneumonia

The prevalence of viral pneumonia in stem cell transplant recipients is estimated at 28%,³² with most cases being caused by community viral pathogens such as rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza A and B, and parainfluenza.³⁹ The prevention, prophylaxis, and early treatment of viral pneumonias, specifically CMV infection, have decreased the mortality associated with early pneumonia after HSCT. Co-infection with bacterial organisms must be considered and has been associated with increased mortality in the intensive care unit setting.⁴⁰

Supportive treatment with rhinovirus infection is sufficient as the disease is usually self-limited in immunocompromised patients. In contrast, infection with RSV in the lower respiratory tract is associated with increased mortality in prior reports, and recent studies suggest that further exploration of prophylaxis strategies is warranted.⁴¹ Treatment with ribavirin remains the backbone of therapy, but drug toxicity continues to limit its use. The addition of immunomodulators such as RSV immune globulin or palivizumab to ribavirin remains controversial, but a retrospective review suggests that early treatment may prevent progression to lower respiratory tract infection and lead to improved mortality.⁴² Infection with influenza A/B must be considered during influenza season. Treatment with oseltamivir may shorten the duration of disease when influenza A/B or parainfluenza are detected. Reactivation of latent herpes simplex virus during the pre-engraftment phase should also be considered. Treatment is similar to that in nonimmunocompromised hosts. When CMV pneumonia is suspected, careful history regarding compliance with prophylactic antivirals and CMV status of both the recipient and donor are key. A presumptive diagnosis can be made with the presence of appropriate clinical scenario, supportive radiographic images showing areas of ground-glass opacification or consolidation, and positive CMV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Visualization of inclusion bodies on lung biopsy tissue remains the gold standard for diagnosis. Treatment consists of CMV immunoglobulin and ganciclovir.

Fungal Pneumonia

Early fungal pneumonias have been associated with increased mortality in the HSCT population.⁴³ Clinical suspicion should remain high and compliance with antifungal prophylaxis should be questioned thoroughly. Invasive aspergillosis (IA) remains the most common fungal infection. A bimodal distribution of onset of infection peaking on day 16 and again on day 96 has been described in the literature.⁴⁴ Patients often present with classic pneumonia symptoms, but these may be accompanied by hemoptysis. Proven IA diagnosis requires visualization of fungal forms from biopsy or needle aspiration or a positive culture obtained in a sterile fashion.⁴⁵ Most clinical data comes from experience with probable and possible diagnosis of IA. Bronchoalveolar lavage with testing with Aspergillus galactomannan assay has been shown to be clinically useful in establishing the clinical diagnosis in the HSCT population.⁴⁶ Classic air-crescent findings on chest CT are helpful in establishing a possible diagnosis, but retrospective analysis reveals CT findings such as focal infiltrates and pulmonary nodular patterns are more common.⁴⁷ First-line treatment with voriconazole has been shown to decrease short-term mortality attributable to IA but has not had an effect on long-term, all-cause mortality.⁴⁸ Surgical resection is reserved for patients with refractory disease or patients presenting with massive hemoptysis.

Mucormycosis is an emerging disease with ever increasing prevalence in the HSCT population, reflecting the improved prophylaxis and treatment of IA. Initial clinical presentation is similar to IA, most commonly affecting the lung, although craniofacial involvement is classic for mucormycosis, especially in HSCT patients with diabetes.⁴⁹Mucor infections can present with massive hemoptysis due to tissue invasion and disregard for tissue and fascial planes. Diagnosis of mucormycosis is associated with as much as a six-fold increase in risk for death. Diagnosis requires identification of the organism by examination or culture and biopsy is often necessary.^50,51 Amphotericin B remains first-line therapy as mucormycosis is resistant to azole antifungals, with higher doses recommended for cerebral involvement.⁵²

Candida pulmonary infections during the early HSCT period are becoming increasingly rare due to widespread use of fluconazole prophylaxis and early treatment of mucosal involvement during neutropenia. Endemic fungal infections such as blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, and histoplasmosis should be considered in patients inhabiting specific geographic areas or with recent travel to these areas.

• What test should be performed to evaluate for infectious causes of pneumonia?

Role of Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy

The utility of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) in immune-compromised patients for the evaluation of pulmonary infiltrates is a frequently debated topic. Current studies suggest a diagnosis can be made in approximately 80% of cases in the immune-compromised population.^32,53 Noninvasive testing such as urine and serum antigens, sputum cultures, Aspergillus galactomannan assays, viral nasal swabs, and PCR studies often lead to a diagnosis in appropriate clinical scenarios. Conservative management would dictate the use of noninvasive testing whenever possible, and randomized controlled trials have shown noninvasive testing to be noninferior to FOB in preventing need for mechanical ventilation, with no difference in overall mortality.⁵⁴ FOB has been shown to be most useful in establishing a diagnosis when an infectious etiology is suspected.⁵⁵ In multivariate analysis, a delay in the identification of the etiology of pulmonary infiltrate was associated with increased mortality.⁵⁶ Additionally, early FOB was found to be superior to late FOB in revealing a diagnosis. ^32,57 Despite its ability to detect the cause of pulmonary disease, direct antibiotic therapy, and possibly change therapy, FOB with diagnostic maneuvers has not been shown to affect mortality.⁵⁸ In a large case series, FOB with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) revealed a diagnosis in approximately 30% to 50% of cases. The addition of transbronchial biopsy did not improve diagnostic utility.⁵⁸ More recent studies have confirmed that the addition of transbronchial biopsy does not add to diagnostic yield and is associated with increased adverse events.⁵⁹ The appropriate use of advanced techniques such as endobronchial ultrasound–guided transbronchial needle aspirations, endobronchial biopsy, and CT-guided navigational bronchoscopy has not been established and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In summary, routine early BAL is the diagnostic test of choice, especially when infectious pulmonary complications are suspected.

Contraindications for FOB in this population mirror those in the general population. These include acute severe hypoxemic respiratory failure, myocardial ischemia or acute coronary syndrome within 2 weeks of procedure, severe thrombocytopenia, and inability to provide or obtain informed consent from patient or health care power of attorney. Coagulopathy and thrombocytopenia are common comorbid conditions in the HSCT population. A platelet count of < 20 × 10³/µL has generally been used as a cut-off for routine FOB with BAL.⁶⁰ Risks of the procedures should be discussed clearly with the patient, but simple FOB for airway evaluation and BAL is generally well tolerated even under these conditions.

Early Nonifectious Pulmonary Complications

Case Patient 2 Continued

Bronchoscopy with BAL performed the day after admission is unremarkable and stains and cultures are negative for viral, bacterial, and fungal organisms. The patient is initially started on broad-spectrum antibiotics, but his oxygenation continues to worsen to the point that he is placed on noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. He is started empirically on amphotericin B and eventually is intubated. VATS lung biopsy is ultimately performed and pathology is consistent with diffuse alveolar damage.

• Based on these biopsy findings, what is the diagnosis?

Based on the pathology consistent with diffuse alveolar damage, a diagnosis of idiopathic pneumonia syndrome (IPS) is made.

• What noninfectious pulmonary complications occur in the early post-transplant period?

The overall incidence of noninfectious pulmonary complications after HSCT is generally estimated at 20% to 30%.³² Acute pulmonary edema is a common very early noninfectious pulmonary complication and clinically the most straightforward to treat. Three distinct clinical syndromes—peri-engraftment respiratory distress syndrome (PERDS), diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH), and IPS—comprise the remainder of the pertinent early noninfectious complications. Clinical presentation differs based upon the disease entity. Recent studies have evaluated the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme polymorphisms as a predictive marker for risk of developing early noninfectious pulmonary complications.⁶¹

Peri-Engraftment Respiratory Distress Syndrome

PERDS is a clinical syndrome comprising the cardinal features of erythematous rash and fever along with noncardiogenic pulmonary infiltrates and hypoxemia that occur in the peri-engraftment period, defined as recovery of absolute neutrophil count to > 500/μL on 2 consecutive days.⁶² PERDS occurs in the autologous HSCT population and may be a clinical correlate to early GVHD in the allogeneic HSCT population. It is hypothesized that the pathophysiology underlying PERDS is an autoimmune-related capillary leak caused by pro-inflammatory cytokine release.⁶³ Treatment remains anecdotal and currently consists of supportive care and high-dose corticosteroids. Some have favored limiting the use of gCSF given its role in stimulating rapid white blood cell recovery.³³ Prognosis is favorable, but progression to fulminant respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation portends a poor prognosis.

Diffuse Alveolar Hemorrhage

DAH is clinical syndrome consisting of diffuse alveolar infiltrates on pulmonary imaging combined with progressively bloodier return per aliquot during BAL in 3 different subsegments or more than 20% hemosiderin-laden macrophages on BAL fluid evaluation. Classically, DAH is defined in the absence of pulmonary infection or cardiac dysfunction. The pathophysiology is thought to be related to inflammation of pulmonary vasculature within the alveolar walls leading to alveolitis. Although no prospective trials exist, early use of high-dose corticosteroid therapy is thought to improve outcomes;^64,65 a recent study, however, showed low-dose steroids may be associated with the lowest mortality.⁶⁶ Mortality is directly linked to the presence of superimposed infection, need for mechanical ventilation, late onset, and development of multiorgan failure.⁶⁷

Idiopathic Pneumonia Syndrome

IPS is a complex clinical syndrome whose pathology is felt to stem from a variety of possible lung insults such as direct myeloablative drug toxicity, occult pulmonary infection, or cytokine-driven inflammation. The ATS published an article further subcategorizing IPS as different clinical entities based upon whether the primary insult involves the vascular endothelium, interstitial tissue, and airway tissue, truly idiopathic, or unclassified.⁶⁸ In clinical practice, IPS is defined as widespread alveolar injury in the absence of evidence of renal failure, heart failure, and excessive fluid resuscitation. In addition, negative testing for a variety of bacterial, viral, and fungal causes is also necessary.⁶⁹ Clinical syndromes included within the IPS definition are ARDS, acute interstitial pneumonia, DAH, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, and BOS.⁷⁰ Risk factors for developing IPS include TBI, older age of recipient, acute GVHD, and underlying diagnosis of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome.¹² In addition, it has been shown that risk for developing IPS is lower in patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT who receive non-myeloablative conditioning regimens.⁷¹ The pathologic finding in IPS is diffuse alveolar damage. A 2006 study in which investigators reviewed BAL samples from patients with IPS found that 3% of the patients had PCR evidence of human metapneumovirus infection, and a study in 2015 found PCR evidence of infection in 53% of BAL samples from patients diagnosed with IPS.^72,73 This fuels the debate on whether IPS is truly an infection-driven process where the source of infection, pulmonary or otherwise, simply escapes detection. Various surfactant proteins, which play a role in decreasing surface tension within the alveolar interface and function as mediators within the innate immunity of the lung, have been studied in regard to development of IPS. Small retrospective studies have shown a trend toward lower pre-transplant serum protein surfactant D and the development of IPS.⁷⁴

The diagnosis of IPS does not require pathologic diagnosis in most circumstances. The correct clinical findings in association with a negative infectious workup lead to a presumptive diagnosis of IPS. The extent of the infectious workup that must be completed to adequately rule out infection is often a difficult clinical question. Recent recommendations include BAL fluid evaluation for routine bacterial cultures, appropriate viral culture, and consideration of PCR testing to evaluate for Mycoplasma, Chlamydia, and Aspergillus antigens.⁷⁵ Transbronchial biopsy continues to appear in recommendations, but is not routinely performed and should be completed as the patient’s clinical status permits.^8,68 Table 3 reviews basic features of early noninfectious pulmonary complications.

• What treatment should be offered to the patient with diffuse alveolar damage on biopsy?

Treatment consists of supportive care and empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics with consideration of high-dose corticosteroids. Based upon early studies in murine models implicating TNF, pilot studies were performed evaluating etanercept as a possible safe and effective addition to high-dose systemic corticosteroids.⁷⁷ Although these results were promising, data from a truncated randomized control clinical trial failed to show improvement in patient response in the adult population.⁷⁶ More recent data from the same author suggests that pediatric populations with IPS are, however, responsive to etanercept and high-dose corticosteroid therapy.⁷⁸ When IPS develops as a late complication, treatment with high-dose corticosteroids (2 mg/kg/day) and etanercept (0.4 mg/kg twice weekly) has been shown to improve 2-year survival.⁷⁹

Case Patient 2 Conclusion

The patient is started on steroids and makes a speedy recovery. He is successfully extubated 5 days later.

Conclusion

Careful pretransplant evaluation, including a full set of pulmonary function tests, can help predict a patient’s risk for pulmonary complications after transplant, allowing risk factor modification strategies to be implemented prior to transplant, including smoking cessation. It also helps identify patients at high risk for complications who will require closer monitoring after transplantation. Early posttransplant complications include infectious and noninfectious entities. Bacterial, viral, and fungal pneumonias are in the differential of infectious pneumonia, and bronchoscopy can be helpful in establishing a diagnosis. A common, important noninfectious cause of early pulmonary complications is IPS, which is treated with steroids and sometimes anti-TNF therapy.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is widely used in the economically developed world to treat a variety of hematologic malignancies as well as nonmalignant diseases and solid tumors. An estimated 17,900 HSCTs were performed in 2011, and survival rates continue to increase.¹ Pulmonary complications post HSCT are common, with rates ranging from 40% to 60%, and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality.²

Clinical diagnosis of pulmonary complications in the HSCT population has been aided by a previously well-defined chronology of the most common diseases.³ Historically, early pulmonary complications were defined as pulmonary complications occurring within 100 days of HSCT (corresponding to the acute graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] period). Late pulmonary complications are those that occur thereafter. This timeline, however, is now more variable given the increasing indications for HSCT, the use of reduced-intensity conditioning strategies, and varied individual immune reconstitution. This article discusses the management of early post-HSCT pulmonary complications; late post-HSCT pulmonary complications will be discussed in a separate follow-up article.

Transplant Basics

The development of pulmonary complications is affected by many factors associated with the transplant. Autologous transplantation involves the collection of a patient’s own stem cells, appropriate storage and processing, and re-implantation after induction therapy. During induction therapy, the patient undergoes high-dose chemotherapy or radiation therapy that ablates the bone marrow. The stem cells are then transfused back into the patient to repopulate the bone marrow. Allogeneic transplants involve the collection of stem cells from a donor. Donors are matched as closely as possible to the recipient’s histocompatibility antigen (HLA) haplotypes to prevent graft failure and rejection. The donor can be related or unrelated to the recipient. If there is not a possibility of a related match (from a sibling), then a national search is undertaken to look for a match through the National Marrow Donor Program. There are fewer transplant reactions and occurrences of GVHD if the major HLAs of the donor and recipient match. Table 1 reviews basic definitions pertaining to HSCT.

How the cells for transplantation are obtained is also an important factor in the rate of complications. There are 3 main sources: peripheral blood, bone marrow, and umbilical cord. Peripheral stem cell harvesting involves exposing the donor to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (gCSF), which increases peripheral circulation of stem cells. These cells are then collected and infused into the recipient after the recipient has completed an induction regimen involving chemotherapy and/or radiation, depending on the protocol. This procedure is called peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT). Stem cells can also be directly harvested from bone marrow cells, which are collected from repeated aspiration of bone marrow from the posterior iliac crest.⁴ This technique is most common in children, whereas in adults peripheral blood stem cells are the most common source. Overall mortality does not differ based on the source of the stem cells. It is postulated that GVHD may be more common in patients undergoing PBSCT, but the graft failure rate may be lower.⁵

The third option is umbilical cord blood (UCB) as the source of stem cells. This involves the collection of umbilical cord blood that is prepared and frozen after birth. It has a smaller volume of cells, and although fewer cells are needed when using UCB, 2 separate donors may be required for a single adult recipient. The engraftment of the stem cells is slower and infections in the post-transplant period are more common. Prior reports indicate GVHD rates may be lower.⁴ While the use of UCB is not common in adults, the incidence has doubled over the past decade, increasing from 3% to 6%.

The conditioning regimen can influence pulmonary complications. Traditionally, an ablative transplant involves high-dose chemotherapy or radiation to eradicate the recipient’s bone marrow. This regimen can lead to many complications, especially in the immediate post-transplant period. In the past 10 years, there has been increasing interest in non-myeloablative, or reduced-intensity, conditioning transplants.⁶ These “mini transplants” involve smaller doses of chemotherapy or radiation, which do not totally eradicate the bone marrow; after the transplant a degree of chimerism develops where the donor and recipient stem cells coexist. The medications in the preparative regimen also should be considered because they can affect pulmonary complications after transplant. Certain chemotherapeutic agents such as carmustine, bleomycin, and many others can lead to acute and chronic presentations of pulmonary diseases such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis, pulmonary fibrosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and abnormal pulmonary function testing.

After the HSCT, GVHD can develop in more than 50% of allogeneic recipients.³ The incidence of GVHD has been reported to be increasing over the past 12 years.It is divided into acute GVHD (which traditionally happens in the first 100 days after transplant) and chronic GVHD (after day 100). This calendar-day–based system has been augmented based on a 2006 National Institutes of Health working group report emphasizing the importance of organ-specific features of chronic GVHD in the clinical presentation of GVHD.⁷ Histologic changes in chronic organ GVHD tend to include more fibrotic features, whereas in acute GVHD more inflammatory changes are seen. The NIH working group report also stressed the importance of obtaining a biopsy specimen for histopathologic review and interdisciplinary collaboration to arrive at a consensus diagnosis, and noted the limitations of using histologic changes as the sole determinant of a “gold standard” diagnosis.⁷ GVHD can directly predispose patients to pulmonary GVHD and indirectly predispose them to infectious complications because the mainstay of therapy for GVHD is increased immunosuppression.

Pretransplant Evaluation

Case Patient 1

A 56-year-old man is diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after presenting with signs and symptoms consistent with pancytopenia. He has a past medical history of chronic sinus congestion, arthritis, depression, chronic pain, and carpal tunnel surgery. He is employed as an oilfield worker and has a 40-pack-year smoking history, but he recently cut back to half a pack per day. He is being evaluated for allogeneic transplant with his brother as the donor and the planned conditioning regimen is total body irradiation (TBI), thiotepa, cyclophosphamide, and antithymocyte globulin with T-cell depletion. Routine pretransplant pulmonary function testing (PFT) reveals a restrictive pattern and he is sent for pretransplant pulmonary evaluation.

Physical exam reveals a chronically ill appearing man. He is afebrile, the respiratory rate is 16 breaths/min, blood pressure is 145/88 mm Hg, heart rate is 92 beats/min, and oxygen saturation is 95%. He is in no distress. Auscultation of the chest reveals slightly diminished breath sounds bilaterally but is clear and without wheezes, rhonchi, or rales. Heart exam shows regular rate and rhythm without murmurs, rubs, or gallops. Extremities reveal no edema or rashes. Otherwise, the remainder of the exam is normal. The patient’s PFT results are shown in Table 2.

• What aspects of this patient’s history put him at risk for pulmonary complications after transplantation?

Risk Factors for Pulmonary Complications

Predicting who is at risk for pulmonary complications is difficult. Complications are generally divided into infectious and noninfectious categories. Regardless of category, allogeneic HSCT recipients are at increased risk compared with autologous recipients, but even in autologous transplants, more than 25% of patients will develop pulmonary complications in the first year.⁸ Prior to transplant, patients undergo full PFT. Early on, many studies attempted to show relationships between various factors and post-transplant pulmonary complications. Factors that were implicated were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco), total lung capacity (TLC), GVHD prophylaxis, TBI, and FEV₁/forced vital capacity (FEV₁/FVC) ratio.^9-15 Generally, poor baseline pulmonary functional status has been shown to correlate with higher risk for pulmonary complications. The most widely accepted pre-transplant PFT values examined for determining risk for developing pulmonary complications are FEV₁ and Dlco.

Another sometimes overlooked risk before transplantation is restrictive lung disease. One study showed a twofold increase in respiratory failure and mortality if there was pretransplant restriction based on TLC < 80%.¹⁶

An interesting study by one group in pretransplant evaluation found decreased muscle strength by maximal inspiratory muscle strength (PImax), maximal expiratory muscle strength (PEmax), dominant hand grip strength, and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance prior to allogeneic transplant, but did not find a relationship between these variables and mortality.¹⁷ While this study had a small sample size, these findings likely deserve continued investigation.¹⁸

• What methods are used to calculate risk for complications?

Risk Scoring Systems

Several pretransplantation risk scores have been developed. In a study that looked at more than 2500 allogeneic transplants, Parimon et al showed that risk of mortality and respiratory failure could be estimated prior to transplant using a scoring system—the Lung Function Score (LFS)—that combines the FEV₁ and Dlco.¹⁹ They assigned a score to the FEV₁ and Dlco based on the percentage of predicted values on PFT. Values greater than 80% were assigned 1 point, values 70% to 80% 2 points, 60% to 70% 3 points, and less than 60% 4 points. Combining the values for the FEV₁ and Dlco provides the LFS. A normal score is 2 (1 point each for FEV₁ and Dlco values > 80%) and is category I. A score of 3–4 is mildly decreased, category II; a score of 5–6 is moderately decreased, category III; and 7–8 is severely decreased, category IV. The hazard ratios (HR) for acute respiratory failure after transplant were 1.4, 2.2, and 3.1 for categories II, III, and IV, respectively. The HRs for mortality were 1.2, 2.2, and 2.7 for the same categories.¹⁹ This LFS has been used post-transplantation as well to categorize pulmonary GVHD.²⁰

The Pretransplantation Assessment of Mortality score, initially developed in 2006, predicts mortality within the first 2 years after HSCT based on 8 clinical factors: disease risk, age at transplant, donor type, conditioning regimen, and markers of organ function (percentage of predicted FEV₁, percentage of predicted Dlco, serum creatinine level, serum alanine aminotransferase level). Given the increased use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens, the authors reevaluated the PAM score and following this analysis, creatinine, percent predicted Dlco, and liver function tests were found to no longer be statistically significant and were removed from the PAM score in 2015.^21,22 Another widely used score is the Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI),²³ which predicts mortality following allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The HCT-CI also uses the FEV₁ and the Dlco as the 2 objective measures of pulmonary function.²³ While these pulmonary tests help with risk stratification, they are not perfect and it is not advised to use an isolated low Dlco to exclude individuals from transplant.²⁴ Recently, Coffey et al looked at the practice of correcting Dlco for hemoglobin by the Cotes method as suggested by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) versus the Dinakara method that was used in the HCT-CI.²⁵ In this study, the use of the Cotes method resulted in an elevated HCT-CI in 45% of patients, and in 33% it resulted in higher mortality risk predictions. Since the HCT-CI is validated using the Dinakara method, that method should be used in the HCT-CI calculations.²⁵

• What other preoperative testing or interventions should be considered in this patient?

Since there is a high risk of infectious complications after transplant, the question of whether pretransplantation patients should undergo screening imaging may arise. There is no evidence that routine chest computed tomography (CT) reduces the risk of infectious complications after transplantation.²⁶ An area that may be insufficiently addressed in the pretransplantation evaluation is smoking cessation counseling.²⁷ Studies have shown an elevated risk of mortality in smokers.^28-30 Others have found a higher incidence of respiratory failure but not an increased mortality.³¹ Overall, with the good rates of smoking cessation that can be accomplished, smokers should be counseled to quit before transplantation.

In summary, patients should undergo full PFTs prior to transplantation to help stratify risk for pulmonary complications and mortality and to establish a clinical baseline. The LFS (using FEV₁ and Dlco) can help categorize risk of respiratory failure and mortality after transplant. Absolute cut-off values for FEV₁ and Dlco are debated, but < 40% predicted and < 30% to 40% predicted, respectively, are considered contraindications to transplant. Smoking cessation should be advised if applicable during the pretransplant visit and optimization of reversible lung conditions should be stressed. There are no formal recommendations about reducing risk of early complications, but early mobilization, incentive spirometry, and use of inhalers if there is any history of obstructive lung disease should be considered.

Case Patient 1 Conclusion

The patient undergoes transplantation due to his lack of other treatment options. Evaluation prior to transplant, however, shows that he is at high risk for pulmonary complications. He has a LFS of 7 prior to transplant (using the Dlco corrected for hemoglobin), which puts him in class IV, with a HR of 3.1 for early respiratory failure and a HR of 2.7 for mortality. Additionally, he is still smoking at the time of transplantation. He does well immediately after transplantation, but has a complicated course with worsening mixed restrictive and obstructive pulmonary function abnormality. He becomes oxygen dependent and eventually undergoes video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), which shows both usual interstitial pneumonia and restrictive bronchiolitis with changes consistent with mild to moderate pulmonary hypertension. He dies 2 years to the month after transplantation.

Early Infectious Pulmonary Complications

Case Patient 2

A 27-year-old man with a medical history significant for AML and allogeneic HSCT presents with cough productive of a small amount of clear to white sputum, dyspnea on exertion, and fevers for 1 week. He also has mild nausea and a decrease in appetite. He underwent HSCT 2.5 months prior to admission, which was a matched unrelated bone marrow transplant with TBI and cyclophosphamide conditioning. His past medical history is significant only for exercise-induced asthma for which he takes a rescue inhaler infrequently prior to transplantation. His pretransplant PFTs showed normal spirometry with an FEV₁ of 106% of predicted and Dlco of 54% of predicted. He does not smoke. His post-transplant medical course was complicated by severe acute skin GVHD as well as diarrhea, with sigmoidoscopy showing GVHD.

Physical exam is notable for fever of 101.0°F, heart rate 80 beats/min, respiratory rate 16 breaths/ min, and blood pressure 142/78 mm Hg; an admission oxygen saturation is 93% on room air. Lungs show bibasilar crackles and the remainder of the exam is normal. Laboratory testing shows a white blood cell count of 2400 cells/μL, hemoglobin 7.6 g/dL, and platelet count 66 × 10³/μL. Creatinine is 1.0 mg/dL. Chest radiograph shows ill-defined bilateral lower-lobe infiltrates. CT scans are shown in the Figure.

• For which infectious complications is this patient most at risk?

Pneumonia

A prospective trial in the HSCT population reported a pneumonia incidence rate of 68%, and pneumonia is more common in allogeneic HSCT with prolonged immunosuppressive therapy.³² Development of pneumonia within 100 days of transplant directly correlates with nonrelapsed mortality.³³ Early detection is key, and bronchoscopy within the first 5 days of symptoms has been shown to change therapy in approximately 40% of cases but has not been shown to affect mortality.³⁴ The clinical presentation of pneumonia in the HSCT population can be variable because of the presence of neutropenia and profound immunosuppression. Traditionally accepted diagnostic criteria of fevers, sputum production, and new infiltrates should be used with caution, and an appropriately high index of suspicion should be maintained. Progression to respiratory failure, regardless of causative organism of infection, portends a poor prognosis, with mortality rates estimated at 70% to 90%.^35,36 Several transplant-specific factors may affect early infections. For instance, UCB transplants have been found to have a higher incidence of invasive aspergillosis and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections but without higher mortality attributed to the infections.³⁷

Bacterial Pneumonia

Bacterial pneumonia accounts for 20% to 50% of pneumonia cases in HSCT recipients.³⁸ Gram-negative organisms, specifically Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli, were reported to be the most common pathologic bacteria in recent prospective trials, whereas previous retrospective trials showed that common community-acquired organisms were the most common cause of pneumonia in HSCT recipients.^32,39 This underscores the importance of being aware of the clinical prevalence of microorganisms and local antibiograms, along with associated institutional susceptibility profiles. Initiation of immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics is essential when bacterial pneumonia is suspected.

Viral Pneumonia

The prevalence of viral pneumonia in stem cell transplant recipients is estimated at 28%,³² with most cases being caused by community viral pathogens such as rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza A and B, and parainfluenza.³⁹ The prevention, prophylaxis, and early treatment of viral pneumonias, specifically CMV infection, have decreased the mortality associated with early pneumonia after HSCT. Co-infection with bacterial organisms must be considered and has been associated with increased mortality in the intensive care unit setting.⁴⁰

Supportive treatment with rhinovirus infection is sufficient as the disease is usually self-limited in immunocompromised patients. In contrast, infection with RSV in the lower respiratory tract is associated with increased mortality in prior reports, and recent studies suggest that further exploration of prophylaxis strategies is warranted.⁴¹ Treatment with ribavirin remains the backbone of therapy, but drug toxicity continues to limit its use. The addition of immunomodulators such as RSV immune globulin or palivizumab to ribavirin remains controversial, but a retrospective review suggests that early treatment may prevent progression to lower respiratory tract infection and lead to improved mortality.⁴² Infection with influenza A/B must be considered during influenza season. Treatment with oseltamivir may shorten the duration of disease when influenza A/B or parainfluenza are detected. Reactivation of latent herpes simplex virus during the pre-engraftment phase should also be considered. Treatment is similar to that in nonimmunocompromised hosts. When CMV pneumonia is suspected, careful history regarding compliance with prophylactic antivirals and CMV status of both the recipient and donor are key. A presumptive diagnosis can be made with the presence of appropriate clinical scenario, supportive radiographic images showing areas of ground-glass opacification or consolidation, and positive CMV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Visualization of inclusion bodies on lung biopsy tissue remains the gold standard for diagnosis. Treatment consists of CMV immunoglobulin and ganciclovir.

Fungal Pneumonia

Early fungal pneumonias have been associated with increased mortality in the HSCT population.⁴³ Clinical suspicion should remain high and compliance with antifungal prophylaxis should be questioned thoroughly. Invasive aspergillosis (IA) remains the most common fungal infection. A bimodal distribution of onset of infection peaking on day 16 and again on day 96 has been described in the literature.⁴⁴ Patients often present with classic pneumonia symptoms, but these may be accompanied by hemoptysis. Proven IA diagnosis requires visualization of fungal forms from biopsy or needle aspiration or a positive culture obtained in a sterile fashion.⁴⁵ Most clinical data comes from experience with probable and possible diagnosis of IA. Bronchoalveolar lavage with testing with Aspergillus galactomannan assay has been shown to be clinically useful in establishing the clinical diagnosis in the HSCT population.⁴⁶ Classic air-crescent findings on chest CT are helpful in establishing a possible diagnosis, but retrospective analysis reveals CT findings such as focal infiltrates and pulmonary nodular patterns are more common.⁴⁷ First-line treatment with voriconazole has been shown to decrease short-term mortality attributable to IA but has not had an effect on long-term, all-cause mortality.⁴⁸ Surgical resection is reserved for patients with refractory disease or patients presenting with massive hemoptysis.

Mucormycosis is an emerging disease with ever increasing prevalence in the HSCT population, reflecting the improved prophylaxis and treatment of IA. Initial clinical presentation is similar to IA, most commonly affecting the lung, although craniofacial involvement is classic for mucormycosis, especially in HSCT patients with diabetes.⁴⁹Mucor infections can present with massive hemoptysis due to tissue invasion and disregard for tissue and fascial planes. Diagnosis of mucormycosis is associated with as much as a six-fold increase in risk for death. Diagnosis requires identification of the organism by examination or culture and biopsy is often necessary.^50,51 Amphotericin B remains first-line therapy as mucormycosis is resistant to azole antifungals, with higher doses recommended for cerebral involvement.⁵²

Candida pulmonary infections during the early HSCT period are becoming increasingly rare due to widespread use of fluconazole prophylaxis and early treatment of mucosal involvement during neutropenia. Endemic fungal infections such as blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, and histoplasmosis should be considered in patients inhabiting specific geographic areas or with recent travel to these areas.

• What test should be performed to evaluate for infectious causes of pneumonia?

Role of Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy

The utility of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) in immune-compromised patients for the evaluation of pulmonary infiltrates is a frequently debated topic. Current studies suggest a diagnosis can be made in approximately 80% of cases in the immune-compromised population.^32,53 Noninvasive testing such as urine and serum antigens, sputum cultures, Aspergillus galactomannan assays, viral nasal swabs, and PCR studies often lead to a diagnosis in appropriate clinical scenarios. Conservative management would dictate the use of noninvasive testing whenever possible, and randomized controlled trials have shown noninvasive testing to be noninferior to FOB in preventing need for mechanical ventilation, with no difference in overall mortality.⁵⁴ FOB has been shown to be most useful in establishing a diagnosis when an infectious etiology is suspected.⁵⁵ In multivariate analysis, a delay in the identification of the etiology of pulmonary infiltrate was associated with increased mortality.⁵⁶ Additionally, early FOB was found to be superior to late FOB in revealing a diagnosis. ^32,57 Despite its ability to detect the cause of pulmonary disease, direct antibiotic therapy, and possibly change therapy, FOB with diagnostic maneuvers has not been shown to affect mortality.⁵⁸ In a large case series, FOB with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) revealed a diagnosis in approximately 30% to 50% of cases. The addition of transbronchial biopsy did not improve diagnostic utility.⁵⁸ More recent studies have confirmed that the addition of transbronchial biopsy does not add to diagnostic yield and is associated with increased adverse events.⁵⁹ The appropriate use of advanced techniques such as endobronchial ultrasound–guided transbronchial needle aspirations, endobronchial biopsy, and CT-guided navigational bronchoscopy has not been established and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In summary, routine early BAL is the diagnostic test of choice, especially when infectious pulmonary complications are suspected.

Contraindications for FOB in this population mirror those in the general population. These include acute severe hypoxemic respiratory failure, myocardial ischemia or acute coronary syndrome within 2 weeks of procedure, severe thrombocytopenia, and inability to provide or obtain informed consent from patient or health care power of attorney. Coagulopathy and thrombocytopenia are common comorbid conditions in the HSCT population. A platelet count of < 20 × 10³/µL has generally been used as a cut-off for routine FOB with BAL.⁶⁰ Risks of the procedures should be discussed clearly with the patient, but simple FOB for airway evaluation and BAL is generally well tolerated even under these conditions.

Early Nonifectious Pulmonary Complications

Case Patient 2 Continued

Bronchoscopy with BAL performed the day after admission is unremarkable and stains and cultures are negative for viral, bacterial, and fungal organisms. The patient is initially started on broad-spectrum antibiotics, but his oxygenation continues to worsen to the point that he is placed on noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. He is started empirically on amphotericin B and eventually is intubated. VATS lung biopsy is ultimately performed and pathology is consistent with diffuse alveolar damage.

• Based on these biopsy findings, what is the diagnosis?

Based on the pathology consistent with diffuse alveolar damage, a diagnosis of idiopathic pneumonia syndrome (IPS) is made.

• What noninfectious pulmonary complications occur in the early post-transplant period?

The overall incidence of noninfectious pulmonary complications after HSCT is generally estimated at 20% to 30%.³² Acute pulmonary edema is a common very early noninfectious pulmonary complication and clinically the most straightforward to treat. Three distinct clinical syndromes—peri-engraftment respiratory distress syndrome (PERDS), diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH), and IPS—comprise the remainder of the pertinent early noninfectious complications. Clinical presentation differs based upon the disease entity. Recent studies have evaluated the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme polymorphisms as a predictive marker for risk of developing early noninfectious pulmonary complications.⁶¹

Peri-Engraftment Respiratory Distress Syndrome

PERDS is a clinical syndrome comprising the cardinal features of erythematous rash and fever along with noncardiogenic pulmonary infiltrates and hypoxemia that occur in the peri-engraftment period, defined as recovery of absolute neutrophil count to > 500/μL on 2 consecutive days.⁶² PERDS occurs in the autologous HSCT population and may be a clinical correlate to early GVHD in the allogeneic HSCT population. It is hypothesized that the pathophysiology underlying PERDS is an autoimmune-related capillary leak caused by pro-inflammatory cytokine release.⁶³ Treatment remains anecdotal and currently consists of supportive care and high-dose corticosteroids. Some have favored limiting the use of gCSF given its role in stimulating rapid white blood cell recovery.³³ Prognosis is favorable, but progression to fulminant respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation portends a poor prognosis.

Diffuse Alveolar Hemorrhage

DAH is clinical syndrome consisting of diffuse alveolar infiltrates on pulmonary imaging combined with progressively bloodier return per aliquot during BAL in 3 different subsegments or more than 20% hemosiderin-laden macrophages on BAL fluid evaluation. Classically, DAH is defined in the absence of pulmonary infection or cardiac dysfunction. The pathophysiology is thought to be related to inflammation of pulmonary vasculature within the alveolar walls leading to alveolitis. Although no prospective trials exist, early use of high-dose corticosteroid therapy is thought to improve outcomes;^64,65 a recent study, however, showed low-dose steroids may be associated with the lowest mortality.⁶⁶ Mortality is directly linked to the presence of superimposed infection, need for mechanical ventilation, late onset, and development of multiorgan failure.⁶⁷

Idiopathic Pneumonia Syndrome

IPS is a complex clinical syndrome whose pathology is felt to stem from a variety of possible lung insults such as direct myeloablative drug toxicity, occult pulmonary infection, or cytokine-driven inflammation. The ATS published an article further subcategorizing IPS as different clinical entities based upon whether the primary insult involves the vascular endothelium, interstitial tissue, and airway tissue, truly idiopathic, or unclassified.⁶⁸ In clinical practice, IPS is defined as widespread alveolar injury in the absence of evidence of renal failure, heart failure, and excessive fluid resuscitation. In addition, negative testing for a variety of bacterial, viral, and fungal causes is also necessary.⁶⁹ Clinical syndromes included within the IPS definition are ARDS, acute interstitial pneumonia, DAH, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, and BOS.⁷⁰ Risk factors for developing IPS include TBI, older age of recipient, acute GVHD, and underlying diagnosis of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome.¹² In addition, it has been shown that risk for developing IPS is lower in patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT who receive non-myeloablative conditioning regimens.⁷¹ The pathologic finding in IPS is diffuse alveolar damage. A 2006 study in which investigators reviewed BAL samples from patients with IPS found that 3% of the patients had PCR evidence of human metapneumovirus infection, and a study in 2015 found PCR evidence of infection in 53% of BAL samples from patients diagnosed with IPS.^72,73 This fuels the debate on whether IPS is truly an infection-driven process where the source of infection, pulmonary or otherwise, simply escapes detection. Various surfactant proteins, which play a role in decreasing surface tension within the alveolar interface and function as mediators within the innate immunity of the lung, have been studied in regard to development of IPS. Small retrospective studies have shown a trend toward lower pre-transplant serum protein surfactant D and the development of IPS.⁷⁴

The diagnosis of IPS does not require pathologic diagnosis in most circumstances. The correct clinical findings in association with a negative infectious workup lead to a presumptive diagnosis of IPS. The extent of the infectious workup that must be completed to adequately rule out infection is often a difficult clinical question. Recent recommendations include BAL fluid evaluation for routine bacterial cultures, appropriate viral culture, and consideration of PCR testing to evaluate for Mycoplasma, Chlamydia, and Aspergillus antigens.⁷⁵ Transbronchial biopsy continues to appear in recommendations, but is not routinely performed and should be completed as the patient’s clinical status permits.^8,68 Table 3 reviews basic features of early noninfectious pulmonary complications.

• What treatment should be offered to the patient with diffuse alveolar damage on biopsy?

Treatment consists of supportive care and empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics with consideration of high-dose corticosteroids. Based upon early studies in murine models implicating TNF, pilot studies were performed evaluating etanercept as a possible safe and effective addition to high-dose systemic corticosteroids.⁷⁷ Although these results were promising, data from a truncated randomized control clinical trial failed to show improvement in patient response in the adult population.⁷⁶ More recent data from the same author suggests that pediatric populations with IPS are, however, responsive to etanercept and high-dose corticosteroid therapy.⁷⁸ When IPS develops as a late complication, treatment with high-dose corticosteroids (2 mg/kg/day) and etanercept (0.4 mg/kg twice weekly) has been shown to improve 2-year survival.⁷⁹

Case Patient 2 Conclusion

The patient is started on steroids and makes a speedy recovery. He is successfully extubated 5 days later.

Conclusion

Careful pretransplant evaluation, including a full set of pulmonary function tests, can help predict a patient’s risk for pulmonary complications after transplant, allowing risk factor modification strategies to be implemented prior to transplant, including smoking cessation. It also helps identify patients at high risk for complications who will require closer monitoring after transplantation. Early posttransplant complications include infectious and noninfectious entities. Bacterial, viral, and fungal pneumonias are in the differential of infectious pneumonia, and bronchoscopy can be helpful in establishing a diagnosis. A common, important noninfectious cause of early pulmonary complications is IPS, which is treated with steroids and sometimes anti-TNF therapy.

ATLANTA – The FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (Xospata) significantly prolonged overall survival, compared with salvage chemotherapy, in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia, Alexander E. Perl, MD, from the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

In a video interview, Dr. Perl discussed the results of the ADMIRAL global phase 3 randomized trial and described the current state of therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory AML bearing FLT3 mutations. Up to 70% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia will experience a relapse, and up to 40% may have disease that is resistant to induction chemotherapy. Survival for these patients is generally poor.

In particular, patients with acute myeloid leukemia and FLT3-activating mutations are at increased risk for early relapse and poor overall survival.

The ADMIRAL trial is funded by Astellas Pharma. Dr. Perl disclosed advisory board participation, consulting fees, and institutional support from Astellas and others.

ATLANTA – The FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (Xospata) significantly prolonged overall survival, compared with salvage chemotherapy, in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia, Alexander E. Perl, MD, from the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

In a video interview, Dr. Perl discussed the results of the ADMIRAL global phase 3 randomized trial and described the current state of therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory AML bearing FLT3 mutations. Up to 70% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia will experience a relapse, and up to 40% may have disease that is resistant to induction chemotherapy. Survival for these patients is generally poor.

In particular, patients with acute myeloid leukemia and FLT3-activating mutations are at increased risk for early relapse and poor overall survival.

The ADMIRAL trial is funded by Astellas Pharma. Dr. Perl disclosed advisory board participation, consulting fees, and institutional support from Astellas and others.

ATLANTA – The FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (Xospata) significantly prolonged overall survival, compared with salvage chemotherapy, in patients with FLT3-mutated relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia, Alexander E. Perl, MD, from the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia reported at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

In a video interview, Dr. Perl discussed the results of the ADMIRAL global phase 3 randomized trial and described the current state of therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory AML bearing FLT3 mutations. Up to 70% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia will experience a relapse, and up to 40% may have disease that is resistant to induction chemotherapy. Survival for these patients is generally poor.

In particular, patients with acute myeloid leukemia and FLT3-activating mutations are at increased risk for early relapse and poor overall survival.

The ADMIRAL trial is funded by Astellas Pharma. Dr. Perl disclosed advisory board participation, consulting fees, and institutional support from Astellas and others.

A combination of bendamustine and rituximab generated an 88% overall response rate and 96% overall survival rate at 2 years among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in a study of 83 patients aged 53-83 years.

Although combined fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab has demonstrated success in younger patients with CLL, this therapy is often considered too aggressive for the majority of CLL patients, who tend to be older and have multiple comorbidities, wrote Martin Špacek, MD, of Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague and his colleagues.

The alternative treatment combination of bendamustine and rituximab (BR) has not been well studied in patients with comorbidities, they said.

In a study published in Leukemia Research, the researchers enrolled 83 previously untreated adults with progressive CLL. The average age of the participants was 71 years, and 61% were men. The median creatinine clearance for the study population was 65 mL/min, and all patients had comorbidities, defined as scores greater than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS).

All patients were prescribed 90 mg/m² bendamustine on days 1 and 2 combined with 375 mg/m² rituximab on day 0 of the first course, and 500 mg/m² rituximab on day 1 during subsequent courses every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles.

The overall response rate to BR was 88.0%, with a complete response rate of 20.5%. At 2 years, progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 69.9% and 96.2%, respectively.

A total of 51 patients (61.4%) experienced at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event. The most common hematologic effects were neutropenia (40 patients), thrombocytopenia (14 patients), and anemia (8 patients). The most common nonhematologic effects were grade 3– or grade 4–level infections in 12 patients. Six patients developed severe skin rash.

Additionally, one patient developed sepsis during treatment and died after the first course of therapy.

“Age and CIRS failed to predict any severe toxicities or BR dose reduction,” the researchers noted.

The findings support data from previous studies and represent the largest study of CLL patients with significant comorbidities to be treated with BR, the researchers said.

More prospective research is needed, but the results demonstrate that “chemoimmunotherapy with BR is an effective therapeutic option with manageable toxicity for the initial treatment of CLL patients with significant comorbidities,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, the Charles University Progres program, and the Czech CLL Study Group. Researchers reported honoraria and travel grants from Mundipharma and Roche.
 

SOURCE: Spacek M et al. Leuk Res. 2019;79:17-21.

A combination of bendamustine and rituximab generated an 88% overall response rate and 96% overall survival rate at 2 years among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in a study of 83 patients aged 53-83 years.

Although combined fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab has demonstrated success in younger patients with CLL, this therapy is often considered too aggressive for the majority of CLL patients, who tend to be older and have multiple comorbidities, wrote Martin Špacek, MD, of Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague and his colleagues.

The alternative treatment combination of bendamustine and rituximab (BR) has not been well studied in patients with comorbidities, they said.

In a study published in Leukemia Research, the researchers enrolled 83 previously untreated adults with progressive CLL. The average age of the participants was 71 years, and 61% were men. The median creatinine clearance for the study population was 65 mL/min, and all patients had comorbidities, defined as scores greater than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS).

All patients were prescribed 90 mg/m² bendamustine on days 1 and 2 combined with 375 mg/m² rituximab on day 0 of the first course, and 500 mg/m² rituximab on day 1 during subsequent courses every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles.

The overall response rate to BR was 88.0%, with a complete response rate of 20.5%. At 2 years, progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 69.9% and 96.2%, respectively.

A total of 51 patients (61.4%) experienced at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event. The most common hematologic effects were neutropenia (40 patients), thrombocytopenia (14 patients), and anemia (8 patients). The most common nonhematologic effects were grade 3– or grade 4–level infections in 12 patients. Six patients developed severe skin rash.

Additionally, one patient developed sepsis during treatment and died after the first course of therapy.

“Age and CIRS failed to predict any severe toxicities or BR dose reduction,” the researchers noted.

The findings support data from previous studies and represent the largest study of CLL patients with significant comorbidities to be treated with BR, the researchers said.

More prospective research is needed, but the results demonstrate that “chemoimmunotherapy with BR is an effective therapeutic option with manageable toxicity for the initial treatment of CLL patients with significant comorbidities,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, the Charles University Progres program, and the Czech CLL Study Group. Researchers reported honoraria and travel grants from Mundipharma and Roche.
 

SOURCE: Spacek M et al. Leuk Res. 2019;79:17-21.

A combination of bendamustine and rituximab generated an 88% overall response rate and 96% overall survival rate at 2 years among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in a study of 83 patients aged 53-83 years.

Although combined fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab has demonstrated success in younger patients with CLL, this therapy is often considered too aggressive for the majority of CLL patients, who tend to be older and have multiple comorbidities, wrote Martin Špacek, MD, of Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague and his colleagues.

The alternative treatment combination of bendamustine and rituximab (BR) has not been well studied in patients with comorbidities, they said.

In a study published in Leukemia Research, the researchers enrolled 83 previously untreated adults with progressive CLL. The average age of the participants was 71 years, and 61% were men. The median creatinine clearance for the study population was 65 mL/min, and all patients had comorbidities, defined as scores greater than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS).

All patients were prescribed 90 mg/m² bendamustine on days 1 and 2 combined with 375 mg/m² rituximab on day 0 of the first course, and 500 mg/m² rituximab on day 1 during subsequent courses every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles.

The overall response rate to BR was 88.0%, with a complete response rate of 20.5%. At 2 years, progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 69.9% and 96.2%, respectively.

A total of 51 patients (61.4%) experienced at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event. The most common hematologic effects were neutropenia (40 patients), thrombocytopenia (14 patients), and anemia (8 patients). The most common nonhematologic effects were grade 3– or grade 4–level infections in 12 patients. Six patients developed severe skin rash.

Additionally, one patient developed sepsis during treatment and died after the first course of therapy.

“Age and CIRS failed to predict any severe toxicities or BR dose reduction,” the researchers noted.

The findings support data from previous studies and represent the largest study of CLL patients with significant comorbidities to be treated with BR, the researchers said.

More prospective research is needed, but the results demonstrate that “chemoimmunotherapy with BR is an effective therapeutic option with manageable toxicity for the initial treatment of CLL patients with significant comorbidities,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic, the Charles University Progres program, and the Czech CLL Study Group. Researchers reported honoraria and travel grants from Mundipharma and Roche.
 

SOURCE: Spacek M et al. Leuk Res. 2019;79:17-21.