Comparison of Transplantation Outcomes after Foscarnet and Ganciclovir Administration as First-Line Anti-Cytomegalovirus Preemptive Therapy

At-Home Foscarnet Administration in Patients with Cytomegalovirus Infection Post-Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Unicentric, Safe, and Feasible Program

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a relevant cause of morbimortality in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Foscarnet (FCN) is an effective drug against CMV administered intravenously and usually on an inpatient basis. The Home Care Unit (HCU) for hematologic patients at our hospital designed an at-home FCN administration model to avoid the hospitalization of patients requiring FCN treatment. This study analyzes whether the at-home administration of FCN is as safe and effective as its hospital administration. We collected and compared demographic, clinical, analytical, and economic data of patients with CMV infection post-allo-HCT who received FCN in the hospital (n = 16, 17 episodes) vs. at-home (n = 67, 88 episodes). The proportions of patients with cured CMV infections were comparable between the two groups (65.9% vs. 76.5%, p = 0.395). The median duration of FCN treatment was 15 (interquartile range [IQR] 9-23) and 14 (IQR 11-19) days in the HCU and inpatient cohorts, respectively (p = 0.692). There were no significant differences in the FCN toxicities between groups except for hypocalcemia (26.1% vs. 58.8%, p = 0.007), which was more prevalent in the inpatient cohort. A significant cost-effectiveness was found in the HCU cohort, with a median savings per episode of EUR 5270. It may be concluded that home administration of FCN is a safe, effective, and cost-efficient therapeutic option for patients with CMV infection and disease.

Ganciclovir-induced mutations are present in a diverse spectrum of post-transplant malignancies

Background

Ganciclovir (GCV) is widely used in solid organ and haematopoietic stem cell transplant patients for prophylaxis and treatment of cytomegalovirus. It has long been considered a mutagen and carcinogen. However, the contribution of GCV to cancer incidence and other factors that influence its mutagenicity remains unknown.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study analysed genomics data for 121,771 patients who had undergone targeted sequencing compiled by the Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange (GENIE) or Foundation Medicine (FM). A statistical approach was developed to identify patients with GCV-associated mutational signature (GCV^sig) from targeted sequenced data of tumour samples. Cell line exposure models were further used to quantify mutation burden and DNA damage caused by GCV and other antiviral and immunosuppressive drugs.

Results

Mutational profiles from 22 of 121,771 patient samples in the GENIE and FM cohorts showed evidence of GCV^sig. A diverse range of cancers was represented. All patients with detailed clinical history available had previously undergone solid organ transplantation and received GCV and mycophenolate treatment. RAS hotspot mutations associated with GCV^sig were present in 9 of the 22 samples, with all samples harbouring multiple GCV-associated protein-altering mutations in cancer driver genes. In vitro testing in cell lines showed that elevated DNA damage response and GCV^sig are uniquely associated with GCV but not acyclovir, a structurally similar antiviral. Combination treatment of GCV with the immunosuppressant, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), increased the misincorporation of GCV in genomic DNA and mutations attributed to GCV^sig in cell lines and organoids.

Conclusions

In summary, GCV can cause a diverse range of cancers. Its mutagenicity may be potentiated by other therapies, such as mycophenolate, commonly co-prescribed with GCV for post-transplant patients. Further investigation of the optimal use of these drugs could help reduce GCV-associated mutagenesis in post-transplant patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-022-01131-w.