The mds Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mds Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mds and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mds content recommended for you
Homeostatic T-cell activation involves a network of stimulatory and inhibitory responses. Immune checkpoint protein interaction helps to avoid out-of-control immune responses and autoimmune conditions. Immune checkpoint proteins include programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1), its corresponding ligand (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA-4).1,2
Dysregulation of immune checkpoint proteins has been observed in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), resulting in a number of clinical trials investigating the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI).3 However, observations in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have suggested an increased incidence of severe acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT) in patients previously treated with CPIs.4
Betül Oran and colleagues recently conducted a retrospective study of patients with AML and/or MDS that had been treated with CPI(s) prior to HSCT. The study pays particular attention to a subset of patients receiving post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy), and the impact of GvHD prophylaxis on patient outcome was evaluated. The data was recently published in Cancer, and we hereby present a summary.3
Aim: to retrospectively investigate transplantation outcomes after previous CPI treatment and correlate it with different GVHD prophylaxis (PTCy vs no PTCy) in patients with AML/MDS. Patient data from four investigational clinical trials (NCT02530463, NCT02397720, NCT02464657, and NCT02532231) were evaluated
Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), disease progression, nonrecurrence mortality (NRM), and aGVHD
Table 1. CPI treatment prior to HSCT3
CPI, checkpoint inhibitor; 5-AC, 5-azacytidine *Chemotherapy regimens included cytarabine and idarubicin |
|
CPI |
Patients (N = 43), n |
---|---|
Nivolumab Single agent + 5-AC + chemotherapy* |
34 2 11 19 |
Ipilimumab Single agent + 5-AC |
9 3 6 |
Nivolumab + ipilimumab + 5-AC |
2 |
Previous response to CPI therapy
Table 2. Baseline patient characteristics by GvHD prophylaxis3
AML, acute myeloid leukemia; MDS, myelodysplastic syndromes; PBSCs, peripheral blood stem cells; PTCy, post-transplant cyclophosphamide |
||||
|
Patients, % |
p |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
All patients |
No PTCy |
PTCy |
||
Characteristics |
N = 43 |
N = 21 |
N = 22 |
|
Disease type AML MDS |
67 33 |
81 19 |
55 45 |
0.1 |
Hematopoietic stem cell source PBSCs Bone marrow Cord blood |
53 40 7 |
57 29 14 |
50 50 0 |
0.1 |
Donor type Matched related donor Matched unrelated donor Haploidentical donor Cord blood donor |
16 58 19 7 |
14 71 0 14 |
18 45 36 0 |
0.01 |
Incidence of aGvHD
Table 3. Incidence of Grade 3–4 aGvHD in patients receiving HSCT3
aGvHD, acute graft-versus-host disease; CI, confidence interval; CPI, checkpoint inhibitor; GvHD, graft-versus-host disease; PBSCs, peripheral blood stem cells; PTCy, post-transplant cyclophosphamide |
||
Treatment |
Patients developing Grade 3–4 aGvHD, % |
p |
---|---|---|
GvHD prophylaxis PTCy No PTCy |
5 22 |
0.2
|
Hematopoietic stem cell source (95% CI) PBSCs Bone marrow |
20 (8–48) 6 (1–42) |
0.3 |
Matched unrelated donor (n = 25) PBSCs · + PTCy · − PTCy Bone marrow · + PTCy · − PTCy |
0 44
0 0 |
0.048
|
> 4 CPI treatments · + PTCy · − PTCy
|
12 43 |
0.01 |
Patient outcomes
Table 4. Patient survival outcomes by GvHD prophylaxis3
CI, confidence ratio; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; PTCy, post-transplant cyclophosphamide; TRM, transplant-related mortality |
|||||
|
Patients |
|
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
All patients |
No PTCy |
PTCy |
|||
Outcome, % (95% CI) |
N = 43 |
n = 21 |
n = 22 |
HR |
p |
6-month OS |
71 (53–83) |
60 (36–78) |
81 (51–94) |
0.3 (0.1–1.3) |
0.1 |
1-year OS |
54 (34–70) |
33 (13–55) |
81 (51–94) |
0.2 (0.1–0.8) |
0.02 |
6-month PFS |
66 (49–79) |
50 (27–69) |
81 (51–94) |
0.2 (0.1–0.9) |
0.03 |
1-year PFS |
39 (21–57) |
25 (8–46) |
56 (20–81) |
0.3 (0.1–0.8) |
0.02 |
6-month TRM |
19 (9–36) |
25 (12–53) |
14 (4–51) |
0.4 (0.1–1.9) |
0.2 |
1-year TRM |
23 (12–43) |
31 (16–61) |
14 (5–51) |
0.3 (0.1–1.6) |
0.2 |
Cumulative incidences of disease recurrence |
13 (6–29) |
— |
— |
— |
— |
Table 5. Cause of death at one year3
|
Patients |
||
---|---|---|---|
All patients |
No PTCy |
PTCy |
|
|
N = 43 |
n = 21 |
n = 22 |
Cause of death at one year, n |
15 |
12 |
3 |
Disease recurrence and/or progression |
7 |
6 |
1 |
aGvHD |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Infections |
4 |
3 |
1 |
Graft failure |
1 |
1 |
- |
aGvHD, acute graft-versus-host disease |
Matched case control study
The findings from this study are consistent with those previously published — highlighting the impact of CPIs on aGvHD establishment. Immune checkpoint blockade prior to HSCT increased the incidence of Grade 3–4 aGvHD, in addition to the impact of stem cell source and donor type in patients with AML/MDS. GvHD prophylaxis treatment with PTCy appears to reduce the incidence of CPI induced aGvHD establishment considerably. A more substantial study cohort is required to determine the significance of the findings, but the results from this study ought to be considered should CPIs emerge into the routine treatment programs of patients with AML/MDS.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content