Full donor chimerism after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cells transplant for myelofibrosis: The role of the conditioning regimen

2024 update on allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for myelofibrosis: A review of current data and applications on risk stratification and management

BACKGROUND

Allogeneic hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) currently remains the only curative treatment for patients with myelofibrosis (MF). Transplant related mortality (TRM) and relapse, remain two significant complications which need to be addressed.

AIMS

The aim of this manuscript is to review current available reports on changes which have recently occurred, to improve the outcome of MF patients undergoing an allogeneic HSCT.

METHODS

Published papers were used to analyze different aspects of allogeneic HSCT.

RESULTS

Changes and updates are provided on selection of patients, prognostic systems, managing splenomegaly, conditioning regimens, predicting transplant outcome, stem cell sources, stem cell donors, graft versus host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis, patients with blast phase, hematopoietic reconstitution, disease markers, donor chimerism, and treatment of relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

The review outlines new transplant platforms which are now available for patients with myelofibrosis, together with persisting problems, among which, older age combined with marrow fibrosis and an inflammatory disease. Relapse also requires aggressive monitoring of drivers mutations, and early cellular therapy.

Strategies to reduce relapse risk in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukaemia

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation is a centrally important curative strategy in adults with acute myeloid leukaemia; however, relapse occurs in a significant proportion of patients and remains the leading cause of treatment failure. The prognosis for patients who relapse post-transplant remains poor, and the development of new strategies with the ability to reduce disease recurrence without increasing transplant toxicity remains a priority. In this review, within the context of our understanding of disease biology and the graft-versus-leukaemia (GVL) effect, we will discuss established, evolving and novel approaches for increasing remission rates, decreasing measurable residual disease pretransplant, future methods to augment the GVL effect and the opportunities for post-transplant maintenance. Future progress depends upon the development of innovative trials and networks, which will ensure the rapid assessment of emerging therapies in prospective clinical trials.

Treosulfan compared to busulfan in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelofibrosis: a registry-based study from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT

We aimed to compare outcomes following treosulfan (TREO) or busulfan (BU) conditioning in a large cohort of myelofibrosis (MF) patients from the EBMT registry. A total of 530 patients were included; 73 received TREO and 457 BU (BU ≤ 6.4 mg/kg in 134, considered RIC, BU > 6.4 mg/kg in 323 considered higher dose (HD)). Groups were compared using adjusted Cox models. Cumulative incidences of engraftment and acute GVHD were similar across the 3 groups. The TREO group had significantly better OS than BU-HD (HR:0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.93) and a trend towards better OS over BU-RIC (HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.41-1.05). Moreover, the TREO cohort had a significantly better Progression-Free-Survival (PFS) than both the BU-HD (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.84) and BU-RIC (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39-0.91) cohorts, which had similar PFS estimates. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was reduced in the TREO and BU-RIC cohorts (HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.24-0.80 TREO vs BU-HD; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.28-1.04 TREO vs BU-RIC). Of note, relapse risk did not significantly differ across the three groups. In summary, within the limits of a registry-based study, TREO conditioning may improve PFS in MF HSCT and have lower NRM than BU-HD with a similar relapse risk to BU-RIC. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Laboratory methods of monitoring disease response after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelofibrosis

The era of molecular prognostication in myelofibrosis has allowed comprehensive assessment of disease risk and informed decisions regarding allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, monitoring disease response after transplantation is difficult, and limited by disease and sample-related factors. The emergence of laboratory techniques sensitive enough to monitor measurable residual disease is promising in predicting molecular and haematological relapse and guiding management. This paper summarises the existing literature regarding methods for detecting and monitoring disease response after HSCT in myelofibrosis and explores the therapeutic use of measurable residual disease (MRD) assays in transplant recipients. Laboratory assessment of disease response in myelofibrosis post-allogeneic transplant is limited by disease and treatment characteristics and by the sensitivity of available conventional molecular assays. The identification of MRD has prognostic implications and may allow early intervention to prevent relapse. Further applicability is limited by mutation-specific assay variability, a lack of standardisation and sample considerations.

Innovative strategies to improve hematopoietic stem cell transplant outcomes in myelofibrosis

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by inflammation, marrow fibrosis, and an inherent risk of blastic transformation. Hematopoietic allogeneic stem cell transplant is the only potentially curative therapy for this disease, however, survival gains observed for other transplant indications over the past two decades have not been realized for MF. The role of transplantation may also evolve with the use of novel targeted agents. The chronic inflammatory state associated with MF necessitates pretransplantation assessment of end-organ function. Applying the transplant methodology employed for other myeloid disorders to patients with MF fails to acknowledge differences in the underlying disease pathophysiology. Limited understanding of the causes of poor transplant outcomes in this cohort has prevented refinement of transplant eligibility criteria in MF. There is increasing evidence of heterogeneity in molecular disease grade, beyond the clinical manifestations which have traditionally guided transplant timing. Exploring the physiological consequences of disease chronicity unique to MF, acknowledging the heterogeneity in disease grade, and using advanced prognostic models, molecular diagnostics and other organ function diagnostic tools, we present an innovative review of strategies with the potential to improve transplant outcomes in this disease. Larger, prospective studies which consider the impact of molecular-based disease grade are needed for MF transplantation.

How We Manage Myelofibrosis Candidates for Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

Moving from indication to transplantation is a critical process in myelofibrosis. Most of guidelines specifically focus on either myelofibrosis disease or transplant procedure, and, currently, no distinct indication for the management of MF candidates to transplant is available. Nevertheless, this period of time is crucial for the transplant outcome because engraftment, non-relapse mortality, and relapse incidence are greatly dependent upon the pre-transplant management. Based on these premises, in this review, we will go through the path of identification of the MF patients suitable for a transplant, by using disease-specific prognostic scores, and the evaluation of eligibility for a transplant, based on performance, comorbidity, and other combined tools. Then, we will focus on the process of donor and conditioning regimens’ choice. The pre-transplant management of splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms, cytopenias, iron overload and transplant timing will be comprehensively discussed. The principal aim of this review is, therefore, to give a practical guidance for managing MF patients who are potential candidates for allo-HCT.

2021 Update on allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for myelofibrosis: A review of current data and applications on risk stratification and management

The number of patients with myelofibrosis (MF) undergoing an allogeneic hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is increasing: in the analysis of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) the number of MF has increased from 515 in 2014 to 748 in 2018 . This reflects the fact that HSCT is currently the only curative treatment, capable of inducing prolonged disease‐free survival. Nevertheless, several problems prevent more patients from undergoing an allogeneic HSCT: we will be discussing indications for HSCT, comorbidities, splenomegaly, older age and disease phase. Donor type and stem cell source are less of a problem. Several transplant platforms exist, including different strategies for graft versus host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis, Age tailored conditioning regimens need to be implemented, to allow older and fragile patients to undergo an allogeneic HSCT.

ABO Mismatch in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant: Effect on Short- and Long-term Outcomes

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background.

The impact of ABO incompatibility (ABO-I) on hematopoietic stem cell transplant outcomes is still debated.

Methods.

We retrospectively investigated 432 consecutive transplants performed at our center (2012–2020). All patients but 6 were affected by hematologic malignancies. The effect of different ABO match combinations on engraftment rate, transfusion support, acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease incidences, nonrelapse mortality (NRM), disease-free survival, and overall survival was assessed in univariate and multivariate analysis. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results.

ABO match distribution among transplants was as follows: 223 ABO-compatible, 94 major ABO-I, 82 minor ABO-I, and 33 bidirectional ABO-I. At univariate analysis, major ABO-I delayed the engraftment of neutrophils, platelets, and erythroid cells. At multivariate analysis, major ABO-I transplants displayed delayed erythroid engraftment (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.38-0.70; P < 0.0001) and hindered transfusion independence for both red blood cells (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.72; P = 0.0001) and platelets (0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.86; P = 0.0048). Moreover, major ABO-I transplants received greater amounts of blood products (P < 0.0001 for red blood cells and P = 0.0447 for platelets). In comparison with other ABO matches, major ABO-I was associated with an increased NRM (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75; P = 0.0427). No effects of ABO-mismatch were found on graft-versus-host disease, disease-free survival, and overall survival.

Conclusions.

Major ABO mismatch delays multilineage engraftment hinders transfusion independence and increases NRM. The prognostic impact of transfusion burden in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation deserves to be explored.

Allogeneic Hemopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Myelofibrosis: 2021

The aim of this review is to update the current status of allogeneic hemopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) for patients with myelofibrosis (MF). We have first summarized the issue of an indication for allogeneic HSCT, discussing several prognostic scoring systems, developed to predict the outcome of MF, and therefore to identify patients who will benefit of an allogeneic HSCT. Patients with low risk MF are usually not selected for a transplant, whereas patients with intermediate or high risk MF are eligible. A separate issue, is how to predict the outcome of HSCT: we will outline a clinical molecular myelofibrosis transplant scoring system (MTSS), which predicts overall survival, ranging from 90% for low risk patients, to 20% for very high risk patients. We will also discuss transfusion burden and spleen size, as predictors of transplant outcome. The choice of a transplant platform including the conditioning regimen, the stem cell source and GvHD prophylaxis, are crucial for a successful program in MF, and will be outlined. Complications such as poor graft function, graft failure, GvHD and relapse of the disease, will also be reviewed. Finally we discuss monitoring the disease after HSCT with donor chimerism, driver mutations and hematologic data. We have made an effort to make this review as comprehensive and up to date as possible, and we hope it will provide some useful data for the clinicians.