This review highlights new findings that have deepened our understanding of the mechanisms of leukemogenesis, therapy and resistance in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). Promyelocytic ...leukemia-retinoic acid receptor α (PML-RARa) sets the cellular landscape of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) by repressing the transcription of RARa target genes and disrupting PML-NBs. The RAR receptors control the homeostasis of tissue growth, modeling and regeneration, and PML-NBs are involved in self-renewal of normal and cancer stem cells, DNA damage response, senescence and stress response. The additional somatic mutations in APL mainly involve FLT3, WT1, NRAS, KRAS, ARID1B and ARID1A genes. The treatment outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed APL improved dramatically since the advent of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). ATRA activates the transcription of blocked genes and degrades PML-RARα, while ATO degrades PML-RARa by promoting apoptosis and has a pro-oxidant effect. The resistance to ATRA and ATO may derive from the mutations in the RARa ligand binding domain (LBD) and in the PML-B2 domain of PML-RARa, but such mutations cannot explain the majority of resistances experienced in the clinic, globally accounting for 5–10% of cases. Several studies are ongoing to unravel clonal evolution and resistance, suggesting the therapeutic potential of new retinoid molecules and combinatorial treatments of ATRA or ATO with different drugs acting through alternative mechanisms of action, which may lead to synergistic effects on growth control or the induction of apoptosis in APL cells.
Outcomes after unmanipulated haploidentical stem cell transplantation (Haplo) and after unrelated cord blood transplantation (UCBT) are encouraging and have become alternative options to treat ...patients with high-risk acute leukemia without human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matched donor. We compared outcomes after UCBT and Haplo in adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Median follow-up was 24 months. Analysis was performed separately for patients with AML, n=918 (Haplo=360, UCBT=558) and ALL, n=528 (Haplo=158 and UCBT=370). UCBT was associated with delayed engraftment and higher graft failure in both AML and ALL recipients. In multivariate analysis, UCBT was associated with lower incidence of chronic graft-vs-host disease both in the AML group (hazard ratio (HR)=0.63, P=0.008) and in the ALL group (HR=0.58, P=0.01). Not statistically significant differences were observed between Haplo and UCBT for relapse incidence (HR=0.95, P=0.76 for AML and HR=0.82, P=0.31 for ALL), non-relapse mortality (HR=1.16, P=0.47 for AML and HR=1.23, P=0.23 for ALL) and leukemia-free survival (HR 0.78, P=0.78 for AML and HR=1.00, P=0.84 for ALL). There were no statistically differences on main outcomes after unmanipulated Haplo and UCBT, and both approaches are valid for acute leukemia patients lacking a HLA matched donor. Both strategies expand the donor pool for patients in need.
In the absence of a HLA-matched related or matched unrelated donor, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) from mismatched unrelated donors or haploidentical donors are potential ...alternatives for patients with acute leukemia with an indication to allo-SCT. The objective of this study was to compare the outcome of allo-SCT from T cell-replete haploidentical (Haplo) versus matched (MUD 10/10) or mismatched unrelated donor at a single HLA-locus (MMUD 9/10) for patients with acute leukemia in remission.
Two hundred sixty-five adult patients with de novo acute leukemia in first or second remission that received a Haplo-SCT between January 2007 and December 2013 were compared with 2490 patients receiving a MUD 10/10 and 813 receiving a MMUD 9/10. Propensity score weighted analysis was conducted in order to control for disease risk imbalances between the groups.
The weighted 3-year non-relapse mortality and relapse incidence were 29 and 30% for Haplo, 21 and 29% for MUD 10/10, and 29 and 25% for MMUD 9/10, respectively. The weighted 3-year leukemia-free survival (LFS) and overall survival (OS) were 41 and 46% for Haplo, 50 and 56% for MUD 10/10, and 46 and 48% for MMUD 9/10, respectively. Using weighted Cox model, both LFS and OS were significantly higher in transplants from MUD 10/10 compared from those in Haplo but not different between transplants from MMUD 9/10 and Haplo. The type of donor was not significantly associated with neither acute nor chronic graft-versus-host disease.
Patients with acute leukemia in remission have better outcomes if transplanted from a MUD 10/10. We did not find any significant difference in outcome between transplants from MMUD 9/10 and Haplo, suggesting that both can be equally used in the absence of a 10/10 MUD. KEY POINT 1: Better outcomes using fully (10/10) matched unrelated donor for allo-SCT in acute leukemia in remission. KEY POINT 2: Similar outcomes after allo-SCT from unmanipulated haploidentical graft or mismatched (9/10) unrelated donor in acute leukemia in remission.
Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection reactivation is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with haematologic malignancy and/or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). ...However, information on this issue is limited. The scope of this position paper is to provide recommendations on HBV screening, monitoring, prophylaxis, treatment and vaccination in the patients described above.
These recommendations were developed from one meeting of experts attended by different Italian scientific societies as well as from a systematic literature review (of articles published through December 31, 2016) on HBV infection in haematologic patients and in patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation published in the same issue of the journal. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess each recommendation's quality.
These recommendations provide the answers to the following questions: (a) HBV screening and monitoring: Who should be screened before chemotherapy? Which screening tests should be used? Should HBV-DNA detection be used to monitor HBV reactivation before starting antivirals? What is the best timeline to monitor HBV reactivation? (b) Prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive patients: Which antiviral drugs should be used to treat HBsAg-positive patients? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided to HBsAg-positive patients? (c) Prophylaxis in patients with resolved HBV infection: Which patients with resolved HBV infection should receive antiviral prophylaxis? Which antiviral drug should be used? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided? (d) HBV infection management strategy in autologous (auto-HSCT) and allogeneic HSCT (allo-HSCT): Which HSCT recipients should receive antiviral prophylaxis? Which antiviral drug should be used? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided? (e) Choice of antiviral drugs in the treatment of HBV reactivation: Should third-generation anti-HBV drugs be preferred to first- or second-generation antiviral drugs in the treatment of HBV reactivation with or without hepatitis flare in haematologic patients? (f) Immunization against HBV in patients with haematologic malignancies and/or patients who underwent HSCT: Should these patients be vaccinated? Which HBV vaccination schedule should be adopted?
Haematologic patients should be screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) plus anti-hepatitis B core protein (HBc), and HBV DNA before chemotherapy. HBV DNA levels should be monitored monthly in all HBV-positive patients who do not receive prophylaxis. HBsAg-positive haematologic patients and those undergoing HSCT should receive third-generation antiviral therapy as prophylaxis. Anti-HBc-positive lymphoma patients and those receiving HSCT should receive antiviral prophylaxis. All HBV-negative haematologic patients should be vaccinated for HBV. The acquisition of data from well-designed studies is desirable in the near future.
Haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) are increasingly used, but it is unknown whether they have a stronger graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect. We analyzed 10 679 acute leukemia ...patients who underwent HSCT from an HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD, n=9815) or a haploidentical donor (⩾2 HLA-antigen disparity, n=864) between 2007 and 2012, reported to the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. In a Cox regression model, acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was added as time-dependent variables. There was no difference in probability of relapse between recipients of haploidentical and MSD grafts. Factors of importance for relapse after T-cell-replete grafts included remission status at HSCT, Karnofsky score ⩽80, acute GVHD of grade II or higher and chronic GVHD (P<10(-5)). Patients with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (n=194) had similar outcome as other T-cell-replete haploidentical transplants (n=369). Non-relapse mortality was significantly higher in the haploidentical group compared with that in MSD patients (P<10(-5)). Leukemia-free survival was superior in the MSD patients receiving T-cell-replete (P<10(-5)) or T-cell-depleted grafts (P=0.0006). The risk of relapse was the same in acute leukemia patients who received haploidentical donor grafts as in those given MSD transplants, suggesting a similar GVL effect.
We report outcomes after single (s) and double (d) umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) after myeloablative conditioning (MAC) regimen for 239 patients transplanted for acute leukemia in first ...complete remission (CR1). All sUCBT patients received a total nucleated cell dose >2.5 × 10(7)/kg. Conditioning regimen for sUCBT was total body irradiation (TBI)12 Gy- or busulfan (BU)-based ± fludarabine (Flu) (n=68, group 1), thiotepa+BU+Flu (TBF) (n=88, group 2), and for dUCBT it was TBI12 Gy+cyclophosphamide ± Flu (n=83, group 3). dUCBT recipients were younger, received higher cell dose and less frequently antithymocyte globulin. In multivariate analysis, we found similar neutrophil recovery among the three groups; however, acute graft-versus-host disease II-IV was higher in dUCBT compared with others. Non-relapse mortality and relapse incidence were not statistically different among the three groups. Leukemia-free survival was 30% for sUCBT using TBI- or BU-based MAC compared with 48% for sUCBT TBF and 48% for dUCBT (P=0.02 and P=0.03, respectively), and it was not statistically different between sUCBT with TBF and dUCBT. In conclusion, use of sUCBT with adequate cell dose (>2.5 × 10(7)/kg) and a specific conditioning regimen in the MAC setting results in similar outcomes as dUCBT. The choice of TBF conditioning regimen for sUCBT may improve results, and whether this regimen may be effective in dUCBT should be further analyzed.
The use of unmanipulated graft is increasingly adopted in the setting of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from haploidentical family donors (haplo-SCT) in acute leukemia (AL). We ...analyzed the outcome of 229 adult patients with de novo AL, who received an unmanipulated haploidentical transplant as their first allo-SCT between 2007 and 2011. Median follow-up was 30 months. Disease status at transplant was: first complete remission (CR1) for 77, second CR (CR2) for 56, and advanced for 96 patients. One hundred and seventy-one patients received in vivo T-cell depletion by monoclonal antibodies (75%). The 60-day cumulative incidence (CI) of engraftment was 93±2%. The 100-day CI of acute graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) was 32±3% for grade II-IV, 12±3% for grade III-IV. The 3-year CI of chronic GvHD was 34±3%. The 3-year CI of non-relapse mortality was 31±4% with in vivo T-cell depletion and 17±5% without. At 3 years, for patients transplanted in CR1, CR2 or advanced disease leukemia-free survival was 44±6, 42±7 and 12±3%, overall survival was 55±6, 51±7 and 14±4% and CI of relapse was 32±6, 24±6 and 61±5%, respectively. These data suggest that unmanipulated haplo-SCT is a valid treatment option for adult AL patients in complete remission lacking a matched donor.
PDF
