User login
Inclusive reminder: LGBTQ community may donate stem cells
In fact, gay men have been able to donate stem cells in the United States since 2015. That’s when National Marrow Donor Program’s Be the Match registry lifted restrictions on men who have sex with men (MSM).
Physicians say advocacy is still necessary, because LGBTQ people may assume they can’t donate or be wary of clinicians. “The LGBTQIA+ population in general has experienced a lot of issues with the medical-industrial complex in terms of discrimination and inappropriate care,” said UT Southwestern Medical Center pathologist Brian Adkins, MD, who manages the blood bank at Children’s Health in Dallas, in an interview. “There’s a weariness there that may produce some hesitancy to interact with the donation process.”
An estimated 6.8 million people give blood in the United States each year, and an estimated 9 million people are registered as potential stem cell donors. A total of 22,013 hematopoietic cell transplantation procedures were performed in 2020, according to the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration.
Expanding the number of LGBTQ donors, especially those born as biological males, could pay major dividends. As Dr. Adkins noted, the ideal stem cell donor is young – Be the Match says doctors generally prefer donors aged 18-35 – and male. According to a 2021 Gallup Poll, 21% of those born from 1997 to 2003 (Generation Z) say they’re LGBTQ, as do 11% of those born from 1981 to 1996 (Millennials).
In North America, the most extensive outreach to the LGBTQ community about stem cell donation has been launched in Canada. There, an organization called Stem Cell Club focuses on encouraging college students and other young people to register as potential stem cell donors.
Stem Cell Club has several campaigns aimed at ethnic minority groups, and its Saving Lives With Pride project focuses on MSM. The project’s web page includes testimonials from a woman whose life was saved by an unrelated gay male donor and from a gay male nurse who recovered from blood cancer thanks to a stem cell donation. The site also includes videos about stem cell donation featuring LGBTQ young people and Canadian hematologists.
“Our specialized collection center will treat donors with the highest levels of respect and courtesy, indeed as heroes of their unselfish gift that can truly save a life,” says Ottawa Hospital transplant hematologist David Allan, MD, in one of the videos.
Stem Cell Club was founded by transplant hematologist Warren Fingrut, MD, a research fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. In an interview, he said the organization’s LGBTQ project has promoted stem cell donation at several annual gay pride events and will continue the outreach this coming summer. In 2018 and 2019, advocates recruited 354 potential stem-cell donors (40% male, 42 non-White) at five pride events, Dr. Fingrut and colleagues reported last year in the journal Bone Marrow Transplantation.
For a new study, researchers interviewed 37 gay and bisexual men from five Canadian provinces about stem cell donation. Dr. Fingrut and colleagues reported the findings in February in an abstract at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
Most participants didn’t know they “are eligible to donate stem cells, with many confusing stem cell versus blood donor eligibility criteria,” the researchers reported. According to Dr. Fingrut, some of the men “felt they were treated as second-class citizens, and that translated into frustration and decreased motivation to donate. There were concerns that they would be treated as though they shouldn’t be there.”
Canada has allowed gay men to donate stem cells for at least 10 years, Dr. Fingrut said. In 2022, Canadian officials said blood banks would no longer require MSM donors to have been abstinent from sex for 3 months, the BBC reported. However, donors will be asked about high-risk sexual behaviors.
The United States, where HIV spread through the blood supply during the early years of the AIDS pandemic and killed thousands of hemophiliacs, has much been slower to change its policies. For decades, starting in the 1980s, both blood banks and stem cell donation programs chose to lower the risk by turning away MSM donors.
Policies only began to change in recent years. Be the Match’s registry led the way by welcoming MSM in 2015. Stem cell donations go through more extensive testing than blood donations, Dr. Adkins said, so it’s more likely that HIV will be screened out. Also, he said, officials probably realized “it was necessary to widen the donor pool in order to best serve the patients” because it’s so hard to find matched stem-cell donors.
Be the Match has also stepped up its outreach to the LGBTQ community. “During Pride Month in 2022, Be The Match sponsored booths at events in 12 major markets from coast to coast,” said Jamie Margolis, senior vice president of Donor Services. “These efforts enabled us to increase awareness among more than 500,000 festival attendees and added more than 2,000 new members to the Be The Match Registry. We also produced a social media awareness campaign featuring one of our own employees, who is a cofounder of the Pride Employee Resource Group at Be The Match and a recent blood stem cell donor.”
In 2020 as blood banks became desperate for donations during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA changed its policy and required MSM to be abstinent for 3 months instead of 1 year before giving blood. (Prior to December 2014, any man who’d had sex with a man, even once, was indefinitely banned from giving blood.)
The 3-month policy instituted in 2020 drew fire from critics such as the American Medical Association, which noted the regulation treated men differently if they had unprotected sex with a single man versus with multiple women.
Now, the FDA is proposing that it once again change the policy about blood donations: It is recommending that there be no special polices regarding MSM. “All prospective donors who report having a new sexual partner or more than one sexual partner and had anal sex in the past 3 months would be deferred from donation.”
Under the proposal, anyone who’s ever had HIV will not be able to donate. (They can’t donate stem cells either.) And the FDA proposes restrictions on those who take pre-exposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis for HIV.
Margolis, of Be the Match, noted that some members of the LGBTQ community may not be able to donate to Be The Match BioTherapies, which works with cell and gene therapy developers worldwide to provide cellular starting material. “These therapies may have different requirements than those for blood stem-cell transplants. Men who have had sex with men in the past 5 years or women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man in the past 5 years may not be able to donate to Be The Match BioTherapies. While we understand this could be upsetting or frustrating for someone who desires to be a part of these therapies, we are committed to following medical guidelines and regulations, while also advocating for our donors and the LBGTQIA+ community as a whole.”
MSM aren’t the only target of outreach by proponents of stem cell donation. In 2019, UT Southwestern’s Dr. Adkins and colleagues wrote a commentary in Bone Marrow Transplantation that called for bone marrow donation centers to do more to be welcoming to transgender donors. “The largest age group identifying as transgender is 18-24 years of life, which overlaps considerably with the population of hematopoietic stem cell donors, which tend to be younger individuals,” the researchers wrote.
The transgender community was “simply overlooked,” Dr. Adkins said. Since then, as he pointed out, things have changed. Now, Be the Match’s website notes that “members of the LGBTQIA+ community CAN join the registry and donate.” The organization says that “for medical reasons, everyone is asked to provide their sex assigned at birth when they register. Should you be called as a match, pronouns and gender identity are respected throughout the process.”
In addition, the site says people on prescription hormone therapy are not excluded from joining the registry. Patients who have undergone surgery within the last 12 months, including sex-reassignment procedures, “will be asked about the current status of their recovery and whether they are still seeing a physician for follow-up in regards to the surgery.”
What’s next? Dr. Fingrut said he expects the lifting of strict rules about MSM and blood donation will boost stem cell donation in the community.
There seems to be plenty of room for more outreach. Cole Williams, founder of Pride & Plasma, which advocates for allowing gay men to give blood, suggested in an interview that advocates who want to increase stem cell donation in the LGBTQ community reach out to its community centers, health organizations, providers, and clinics.
So far, though, “I haven’t seen a big call for registration of any individuals unless they have a personal relation to bone marrow donation,” he said.
Dr. Fingrut and Dr. Adkins report no disclosures.
In fact, gay men have been able to donate stem cells in the United States since 2015. That’s when National Marrow Donor Program’s Be the Match registry lifted restrictions on men who have sex with men (MSM).
Physicians say advocacy is still necessary, because LGBTQ people may assume they can’t donate or be wary of clinicians. “The LGBTQIA+ population in general has experienced a lot of issues with the medical-industrial complex in terms of discrimination and inappropriate care,” said UT Southwestern Medical Center pathologist Brian Adkins, MD, who manages the blood bank at Children’s Health in Dallas, in an interview. “There’s a weariness there that may produce some hesitancy to interact with the donation process.”
An estimated 6.8 million people give blood in the United States each year, and an estimated 9 million people are registered as potential stem cell donors. A total of 22,013 hematopoietic cell transplantation procedures were performed in 2020, according to the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration.
Expanding the number of LGBTQ donors, especially those born as biological males, could pay major dividends. As Dr. Adkins noted, the ideal stem cell donor is young – Be the Match says doctors generally prefer donors aged 18-35 – and male. According to a 2021 Gallup Poll, 21% of those born from 1997 to 2003 (Generation Z) say they’re LGBTQ, as do 11% of those born from 1981 to 1996 (Millennials).
In North America, the most extensive outreach to the LGBTQ community about stem cell donation has been launched in Canada. There, an organization called Stem Cell Club focuses on encouraging college students and other young people to register as potential stem cell donors.
Stem Cell Club has several campaigns aimed at ethnic minority groups, and its Saving Lives With Pride project focuses on MSM. The project’s web page includes testimonials from a woman whose life was saved by an unrelated gay male donor and from a gay male nurse who recovered from blood cancer thanks to a stem cell donation. The site also includes videos about stem cell donation featuring LGBTQ young people and Canadian hematologists.
“Our specialized collection center will treat donors with the highest levels of respect and courtesy, indeed as heroes of their unselfish gift that can truly save a life,” says Ottawa Hospital transplant hematologist David Allan, MD, in one of the videos.
Stem Cell Club was founded by transplant hematologist Warren Fingrut, MD, a research fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. In an interview, he said the organization’s LGBTQ project has promoted stem cell donation at several annual gay pride events and will continue the outreach this coming summer. In 2018 and 2019, advocates recruited 354 potential stem-cell donors (40% male, 42 non-White) at five pride events, Dr. Fingrut and colleagues reported last year in the journal Bone Marrow Transplantation.
For a new study, researchers interviewed 37 gay and bisexual men from five Canadian provinces about stem cell donation. Dr. Fingrut and colleagues reported the findings in February in an abstract at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
Most participants didn’t know they “are eligible to donate stem cells, with many confusing stem cell versus blood donor eligibility criteria,” the researchers reported. According to Dr. Fingrut, some of the men “felt they were treated as second-class citizens, and that translated into frustration and decreased motivation to donate. There were concerns that they would be treated as though they shouldn’t be there.”
Canada has allowed gay men to donate stem cells for at least 10 years, Dr. Fingrut said. In 2022, Canadian officials said blood banks would no longer require MSM donors to have been abstinent from sex for 3 months, the BBC reported. However, donors will be asked about high-risk sexual behaviors.
The United States, where HIV spread through the blood supply during the early years of the AIDS pandemic and killed thousands of hemophiliacs, has much been slower to change its policies. For decades, starting in the 1980s, both blood banks and stem cell donation programs chose to lower the risk by turning away MSM donors.
Policies only began to change in recent years. Be the Match’s registry led the way by welcoming MSM in 2015. Stem cell donations go through more extensive testing than blood donations, Dr. Adkins said, so it’s more likely that HIV will be screened out. Also, he said, officials probably realized “it was necessary to widen the donor pool in order to best serve the patients” because it’s so hard to find matched stem-cell donors.
Be the Match has also stepped up its outreach to the LGBTQ community. “During Pride Month in 2022, Be The Match sponsored booths at events in 12 major markets from coast to coast,” said Jamie Margolis, senior vice president of Donor Services. “These efforts enabled us to increase awareness among more than 500,000 festival attendees and added more than 2,000 new members to the Be The Match Registry. We also produced a social media awareness campaign featuring one of our own employees, who is a cofounder of the Pride Employee Resource Group at Be The Match and a recent blood stem cell donor.”
In 2020 as blood banks became desperate for donations during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA changed its policy and required MSM to be abstinent for 3 months instead of 1 year before giving blood. (Prior to December 2014, any man who’d had sex with a man, even once, was indefinitely banned from giving blood.)
The 3-month policy instituted in 2020 drew fire from critics such as the American Medical Association, which noted the regulation treated men differently if they had unprotected sex with a single man versus with multiple women.
Now, the FDA is proposing that it once again change the policy about blood donations: It is recommending that there be no special polices regarding MSM. “All prospective donors who report having a new sexual partner or more than one sexual partner and had anal sex in the past 3 months would be deferred from donation.”
Under the proposal, anyone who’s ever had HIV will not be able to donate. (They can’t donate stem cells either.) And the FDA proposes restrictions on those who take pre-exposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis for HIV.
Margolis, of Be the Match, noted that some members of the LGBTQ community may not be able to donate to Be The Match BioTherapies, which works with cell and gene therapy developers worldwide to provide cellular starting material. “These therapies may have different requirements than those for blood stem-cell transplants. Men who have had sex with men in the past 5 years or women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man in the past 5 years may not be able to donate to Be The Match BioTherapies. While we understand this could be upsetting or frustrating for someone who desires to be a part of these therapies, we are committed to following medical guidelines and regulations, while also advocating for our donors and the LBGTQIA+ community as a whole.”
MSM aren’t the only target of outreach by proponents of stem cell donation. In 2019, UT Southwestern’s Dr. Adkins and colleagues wrote a commentary in Bone Marrow Transplantation that called for bone marrow donation centers to do more to be welcoming to transgender donors. “The largest age group identifying as transgender is 18-24 years of life, which overlaps considerably with the population of hematopoietic stem cell donors, which tend to be younger individuals,” the researchers wrote.
The transgender community was “simply overlooked,” Dr. Adkins said. Since then, as he pointed out, things have changed. Now, Be the Match’s website notes that “members of the LGBTQIA+ community CAN join the registry and donate.” The organization says that “for medical reasons, everyone is asked to provide their sex assigned at birth when they register. Should you be called as a match, pronouns and gender identity are respected throughout the process.”
In addition, the site says people on prescription hormone therapy are not excluded from joining the registry. Patients who have undergone surgery within the last 12 months, including sex-reassignment procedures, “will be asked about the current status of their recovery and whether they are still seeing a physician for follow-up in regards to the surgery.”
What’s next? Dr. Fingrut said he expects the lifting of strict rules about MSM and blood donation will boost stem cell donation in the community.
There seems to be plenty of room for more outreach. Cole Williams, founder of Pride & Plasma, which advocates for allowing gay men to give blood, suggested in an interview that advocates who want to increase stem cell donation in the LGBTQ community reach out to its community centers, health organizations, providers, and clinics.
So far, though, “I haven’t seen a big call for registration of any individuals unless they have a personal relation to bone marrow donation,” he said.
Dr. Fingrut and Dr. Adkins report no disclosures.
In fact, gay men have been able to donate stem cells in the United States since 2015. That’s when National Marrow Donor Program’s Be the Match registry lifted restrictions on men who have sex with men (MSM).
Physicians say advocacy is still necessary, because LGBTQ people may assume they can’t donate or be wary of clinicians. “The LGBTQIA+ population in general has experienced a lot of issues with the medical-industrial complex in terms of discrimination and inappropriate care,” said UT Southwestern Medical Center pathologist Brian Adkins, MD, who manages the blood bank at Children’s Health in Dallas, in an interview. “There’s a weariness there that may produce some hesitancy to interact with the donation process.”
An estimated 6.8 million people give blood in the United States each year, and an estimated 9 million people are registered as potential stem cell donors. A total of 22,013 hematopoietic cell transplantation procedures were performed in 2020, according to the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration.
Expanding the number of LGBTQ donors, especially those born as biological males, could pay major dividends. As Dr. Adkins noted, the ideal stem cell donor is young – Be the Match says doctors generally prefer donors aged 18-35 – and male. According to a 2021 Gallup Poll, 21% of those born from 1997 to 2003 (Generation Z) say they’re LGBTQ, as do 11% of those born from 1981 to 1996 (Millennials).
In North America, the most extensive outreach to the LGBTQ community about stem cell donation has been launched in Canada. There, an organization called Stem Cell Club focuses on encouraging college students and other young people to register as potential stem cell donors.
Stem Cell Club has several campaigns aimed at ethnic minority groups, and its Saving Lives With Pride project focuses on MSM. The project’s web page includes testimonials from a woman whose life was saved by an unrelated gay male donor and from a gay male nurse who recovered from blood cancer thanks to a stem cell donation. The site also includes videos about stem cell donation featuring LGBTQ young people and Canadian hematologists.
“Our specialized collection center will treat donors with the highest levels of respect and courtesy, indeed as heroes of their unselfish gift that can truly save a life,” says Ottawa Hospital transplant hematologist David Allan, MD, in one of the videos.
Stem Cell Club was founded by transplant hematologist Warren Fingrut, MD, a research fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. In an interview, he said the organization’s LGBTQ project has promoted stem cell donation at several annual gay pride events and will continue the outreach this coming summer. In 2018 and 2019, advocates recruited 354 potential stem-cell donors (40% male, 42 non-White) at five pride events, Dr. Fingrut and colleagues reported last year in the journal Bone Marrow Transplantation.
For a new study, researchers interviewed 37 gay and bisexual men from five Canadian provinces about stem cell donation. Dr. Fingrut and colleagues reported the findings in February in an abstract at the Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings.
Most participants didn’t know they “are eligible to donate stem cells, with many confusing stem cell versus blood donor eligibility criteria,” the researchers reported. According to Dr. Fingrut, some of the men “felt they were treated as second-class citizens, and that translated into frustration and decreased motivation to donate. There were concerns that they would be treated as though they shouldn’t be there.”
Canada has allowed gay men to donate stem cells for at least 10 years, Dr. Fingrut said. In 2022, Canadian officials said blood banks would no longer require MSM donors to have been abstinent from sex for 3 months, the BBC reported. However, donors will be asked about high-risk sexual behaviors.
The United States, where HIV spread through the blood supply during the early years of the AIDS pandemic and killed thousands of hemophiliacs, has much been slower to change its policies. For decades, starting in the 1980s, both blood banks and stem cell donation programs chose to lower the risk by turning away MSM donors.
Policies only began to change in recent years. Be the Match’s registry led the way by welcoming MSM in 2015. Stem cell donations go through more extensive testing than blood donations, Dr. Adkins said, so it’s more likely that HIV will be screened out. Also, he said, officials probably realized “it was necessary to widen the donor pool in order to best serve the patients” because it’s so hard to find matched stem-cell donors.
Be the Match has also stepped up its outreach to the LGBTQ community. “During Pride Month in 2022, Be The Match sponsored booths at events in 12 major markets from coast to coast,” said Jamie Margolis, senior vice president of Donor Services. “These efforts enabled us to increase awareness among more than 500,000 festival attendees and added more than 2,000 new members to the Be The Match Registry. We also produced a social media awareness campaign featuring one of our own employees, who is a cofounder of the Pride Employee Resource Group at Be The Match and a recent blood stem cell donor.”
In 2020 as blood banks became desperate for donations during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA changed its policy and required MSM to be abstinent for 3 months instead of 1 year before giving blood. (Prior to December 2014, any man who’d had sex with a man, even once, was indefinitely banned from giving blood.)
The 3-month policy instituted in 2020 drew fire from critics such as the American Medical Association, which noted the regulation treated men differently if they had unprotected sex with a single man versus with multiple women.
Now, the FDA is proposing that it once again change the policy about blood donations: It is recommending that there be no special polices regarding MSM. “All prospective donors who report having a new sexual partner or more than one sexual partner and had anal sex in the past 3 months would be deferred from donation.”
Under the proposal, anyone who’s ever had HIV will not be able to donate. (They can’t donate stem cells either.) And the FDA proposes restrictions on those who take pre-exposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis for HIV.
Margolis, of Be the Match, noted that some members of the LGBTQ community may not be able to donate to Be The Match BioTherapies, which works with cell and gene therapy developers worldwide to provide cellular starting material. “These therapies may have different requirements than those for blood stem-cell transplants. Men who have had sex with men in the past 5 years or women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man in the past 5 years may not be able to donate to Be The Match BioTherapies. While we understand this could be upsetting or frustrating for someone who desires to be a part of these therapies, we are committed to following medical guidelines and regulations, while also advocating for our donors and the LBGTQIA+ community as a whole.”
MSM aren’t the only target of outreach by proponents of stem cell donation. In 2019, UT Southwestern’s Dr. Adkins and colleagues wrote a commentary in Bone Marrow Transplantation that called for bone marrow donation centers to do more to be welcoming to transgender donors. “The largest age group identifying as transgender is 18-24 years of life, which overlaps considerably with the population of hematopoietic stem cell donors, which tend to be younger individuals,” the researchers wrote.
The transgender community was “simply overlooked,” Dr. Adkins said. Since then, as he pointed out, things have changed. Now, Be the Match’s website notes that “members of the LGBTQIA+ community CAN join the registry and donate.” The organization says that “for medical reasons, everyone is asked to provide their sex assigned at birth when they register. Should you be called as a match, pronouns and gender identity are respected throughout the process.”
In addition, the site says people on prescription hormone therapy are not excluded from joining the registry. Patients who have undergone surgery within the last 12 months, including sex-reassignment procedures, “will be asked about the current status of their recovery and whether they are still seeing a physician for follow-up in regards to the surgery.”
What’s next? Dr. Fingrut said he expects the lifting of strict rules about MSM and blood donation will boost stem cell donation in the community.
There seems to be plenty of room for more outreach. Cole Williams, founder of Pride & Plasma, which advocates for allowing gay men to give blood, suggested in an interview that advocates who want to increase stem cell donation in the LGBTQ community reach out to its community centers, health organizations, providers, and clinics.
So far, though, “I haven’t seen a big call for registration of any individuals unless they have a personal relation to bone marrow donation,” he said.
Dr. Fingrut and Dr. Adkins report no disclosures.
Posttransplant NASH patients fare worse with older donor livers
All-cause mortality was twice as high and death from an infectious cause was more than three times as high for patients with NASH who received liver grafts from octogenarian donors than for those who received a liver from someone younger than 50.
“The findings from this study implicate a critical need to investigate donor age as an important risk factor for poorer host and graft survival,” wrote the authors, led by David Lee, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
“Given the possibility of infectious graft complications, post–liver transplant follow-ups may need to be more comprehensive and frequent in these individuals who receive grafts from older donors,” they add.
The study was published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.
Donor age trends
Dr. Lee and colleagues pulled data from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research database, a national database of deidentified donor and recipient transplant data. The analysis excluded recipients younger than 18, those with a living donor, those who had hepatocellular carcinoma prior to transplant, and those who had been diagnosed with additional liver disorders apart from NASH.
The team identified 8,88 recipients with NASH who received a liver transplant from 2005–2019. They stratified recipients by donor age. The 5,187 patients who received livers from donors who were younger than 50 served as the reference group. The remainder were placed into four cohorts – 1,842 whose donors were in their 50s, 1,290 whose donors were in their 60s, 504 whose donors were in their 70s, and 65 whose donors were in their 80s.
The researchers found that in comparison with the reference group, the average age of recipients in each donor-age cohort was progressively older. Two donor-age cohorts had significantly higher proportions of recipients with diabetes than the 46.5% in the reference group – the sexagenarian cohort (51.7%) and the octogenarian group (66.2%).
The median follow-up time ranged from 2.35–3.61 years across all age groups.
The researchers found that for all donor-age groups excluding donors in their 60s, recipients had higher risk of all-cause mortality after transplant than the reference group. Recipients with donors in their 50s had a 16% greater risk for death (P = .01), and recipients with donors in their 70s had a 20% greater risk (P = .05). For recipients with octogenarian donors, the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 2.01 (P < .001).
Only recipients in the octogenarian donor cohort were at increased risk of graft failure, compared with the reference group (aHR, 3.72; P = .002).
As donor age increased, the recipient’s risk of dying from sepsis and infectious causes rose, compared with the reference group. Recipients’ likelihood of sepsis death increased by 71% (P = .001) with donors in their 50s, 73% (P = .003) with donors in their 60s, and 76% (P = .03) with donors in their 70s. For recipients with octogenarian donors, the risk more than tripled (aHR, 3.58; P = .007). Likewise, recipients with donors in their 70s were 73% more likely to die from infectious causes. That risk nearly quadrupled among those with donors in their 80s.
Recipient factors at play?
While the study found a relationship between liver donor age and recipient outcomes, it is not clear whether any other recipient factors may have contributed to the higher risk of all-cause mortality, sad Nancy Reau, MD, chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago. The researchers did not parse out whether younger recipients did better with older organs than older recipients or whether older recipients fared worse with younger organs, she said in an interview.
“I wasn’t convinced that they had demonstrated that the recipient may not have played a role in that,” said Dr. Reau, who wasn’t involved with the study.
The analysis only a found an increased risk of graft failure among recipients who received organs from octogenarian donors, so factors other than liver transplant may have contributed to all-cause mortality, she noted.
The UNOS database has some limitations, noted Timothy Pruett, MD, who directs the liver transplant program at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Because the database pulls information from transplantation centers across the country, it can be difficult to standardize specific patient variables in the data.
While it’s clear that a patient died, it’s less certain whether an infection was the cause of death and whether that infection was somehow associated with the liver, noted Dr. Pruett, who wasn’t involved in the research. For example, a patient could have had broken a hip, gone to the hospital, and contracted pneumonia, which led to their death.
“There’s just not much granularity in the database, and we can’t overextrapolate what we see,” Dr. Pruett said in an interview.
Knowledge gaps
Dr. Lee agreed that more research is needed to understand what may be driving higher mortality rates among patients who receive older organs. “There are still a lot of gaps in knowledge with respect to why.”
Dr. Reau said she is curious as to whether certain comorbidities, such as previous infection, diabetes, or obesity, could predict worse outcomes for recipients with older organs.
“We would love to give all of our patients younger organs, but if that leads to even more disparity in need [compared] to availability and the alternative is not surviving, I think you have to place [this work] into context,” she said.
The study findings shouldn’t be used to deter patients with NASH from considering older organs, Dr. Reau said. More insight as to which populations might want to be choosier owing to an elevated risk would be beneficial, she added.
Dr. Lee, Dr. Pruett, and Dr. Reau reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All-cause mortality was twice as high and death from an infectious cause was more than three times as high for patients with NASH who received liver grafts from octogenarian donors than for those who received a liver from someone younger than 50.
“The findings from this study implicate a critical need to investigate donor age as an important risk factor for poorer host and graft survival,” wrote the authors, led by David Lee, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
“Given the possibility of infectious graft complications, post–liver transplant follow-ups may need to be more comprehensive and frequent in these individuals who receive grafts from older donors,” they add.
The study was published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.
Donor age trends
Dr. Lee and colleagues pulled data from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research database, a national database of deidentified donor and recipient transplant data. The analysis excluded recipients younger than 18, those with a living donor, those who had hepatocellular carcinoma prior to transplant, and those who had been diagnosed with additional liver disorders apart from NASH.
The team identified 8,88 recipients with NASH who received a liver transplant from 2005–2019. They stratified recipients by donor age. The 5,187 patients who received livers from donors who were younger than 50 served as the reference group. The remainder were placed into four cohorts – 1,842 whose donors were in their 50s, 1,290 whose donors were in their 60s, 504 whose donors were in their 70s, and 65 whose donors were in their 80s.
The researchers found that in comparison with the reference group, the average age of recipients in each donor-age cohort was progressively older. Two donor-age cohorts had significantly higher proportions of recipients with diabetes than the 46.5% in the reference group – the sexagenarian cohort (51.7%) and the octogenarian group (66.2%).
The median follow-up time ranged from 2.35–3.61 years across all age groups.
The researchers found that for all donor-age groups excluding donors in their 60s, recipients had higher risk of all-cause mortality after transplant than the reference group. Recipients with donors in their 50s had a 16% greater risk for death (P = .01), and recipients with donors in their 70s had a 20% greater risk (P = .05). For recipients with octogenarian donors, the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 2.01 (P < .001).
Only recipients in the octogenarian donor cohort were at increased risk of graft failure, compared with the reference group (aHR, 3.72; P = .002).
As donor age increased, the recipient’s risk of dying from sepsis and infectious causes rose, compared with the reference group. Recipients’ likelihood of sepsis death increased by 71% (P = .001) with donors in their 50s, 73% (P = .003) with donors in their 60s, and 76% (P = .03) with donors in their 70s. For recipients with octogenarian donors, the risk more than tripled (aHR, 3.58; P = .007). Likewise, recipients with donors in their 70s were 73% more likely to die from infectious causes. That risk nearly quadrupled among those with donors in their 80s.
Recipient factors at play?
While the study found a relationship between liver donor age and recipient outcomes, it is not clear whether any other recipient factors may have contributed to the higher risk of all-cause mortality, sad Nancy Reau, MD, chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago. The researchers did not parse out whether younger recipients did better with older organs than older recipients or whether older recipients fared worse with younger organs, she said in an interview.
“I wasn’t convinced that they had demonstrated that the recipient may not have played a role in that,” said Dr. Reau, who wasn’t involved with the study.
The analysis only a found an increased risk of graft failure among recipients who received organs from octogenarian donors, so factors other than liver transplant may have contributed to all-cause mortality, she noted.
The UNOS database has some limitations, noted Timothy Pruett, MD, who directs the liver transplant program at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Because the database pulls information from transplantation centers across the country, it can be difficult to standardize specific patient variables in the data.
While it’s clear that a patient died, it’s less certain whether an infection was the cause of death and whether that infection was somehow associated with the liver, noted Dr. Pruett, who wasn’t involved in the research. For example, a patient could have had broken a hip, gone to the hospital, and contracted pneumonia, which led to their death.
“There’s just not much granularity in the database, and we can’t overextrapolate what we see,” Dr. Pruett said in an interview.
Knowledge gaps
Dr. Lee agreed that more research is needed to understand what may be driving higher mortality rates among patients who receive older organs. “There are still a lot of gaps in knowledge with respect to why.”
Dr. Reau said she is curious as to whether certain comorbidities, such as previous infection, diabetes, or obesity, could predict worse outcomes for recipients with older organs.
“We would love to give all of our patients younger organs, but if that leads to even more disparity in need [compared] to availability and the alternative is not surviving, I think you have to place [this work] into context,” she said.
The study findings shouldn’t be used to deter patients with NASH from considering older organs, Dr. Reau said. More insight as to which populations might want to be choosier owing to an elevated risk would be beneficial, she added.
Dr. Lee, Dr. Pruett, and Dr. Reau reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All-cause mortality was twice as high and death from an infectious cause was more than three times as high for patients with NASH who received liver grafts from octogenarian donors than for those who received a liver from someone younger than 50.
“The findings from this study implicate a critical need to investigate donor age as an important risk factor for poorer host and graft survival,” wrote the authors, led by David Lee, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore.
“Given the possibility of infectious graft complications, post–liver transplant follow-ups may need to be more comprehensive and frequent in these individuals who receive grafts from older donors,” they add.
The study was published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.
Donor age trends
Dr. Lee and colleagues pulled data from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research database, a national database of deidentified donor and recipient transplant data. The analysis excluded recipients younger than 18, those with a living donor, those who had hepatocellular carcinoma prior to transplant, and those who had been diagnosed with additional liver disorders apart from NASH.
The team identified 8,88 recipients with NASH who received a liver transplant from 2005–2019. They stratified recipients by donor age. The 5,187 patients who received livers from donors who were younger than 50 served as the reference group. The remainder were placed into four cohorts – 1,842 whose donors were in their 50s, 1,290 whose donors were in their 60s, 504 whose donors were in their 70s, and 65 whose donors were in their 80s.
The researchers found that in comparison with the reference group, the average age of recipients in each donor-age cohort was progressively older. Two donor-age cohorts had significantly higher proportions of recipients with diabetes than the 46.5% in the reference group – the sexagenarian cohort (51.7%) and the octogenarian group (66.2%).
The median follow-up time ranged from 2.35–3.61 years across all age groups.
The researchers found that for all donor-age groups excluding donors in their 60s, recipients had higher risk of all-cause mortality after transplant than the reference group. Recipients with donors in their 50s had a 16% greater risk for death (P = .01), and recipients with donors in their 70s had a 20% greater risk (P = .05). For recipients with octogenarian donors, the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 2.01 (P < .001).
Only recipients in the octogenarian donor cohort were at increased risk of graft failure, compared with the reference group (aHR, 3.72; P = .002).
As donor age increased, the recipient’s risk of dying from sepsis and infectious causes rose, compared with the reference group. Recipients’ likelihood of sepsis death increased by 71% (P = .001) with donors in their 50s, 73% (P = .003) with donors in their 60s, and 76% (P = .03) with donors in their 70s. For recipients with octogenarian donors, the risk more than tripled (aHR, 3.58; P = .007). Likewise, recipients with donors in their 70s were 73% more likely to die from infectious causes. That risk nearly quadrupled among those with donors in their 80s.
Recipient factors at play?
While the study found a relationship between liver donor age and recipient outcomes, it is not clear whether any other recipient factors may have contributed to the higher risk of all-cause mortality, sad Nancy Reau, MD, chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago. The researchers did not parse out whether younger recipients did better with older organs than older recipients or whether older recipients fared worse with younger organs, she said in an interview.
“I wasn’t convinced that they had demonstrated that the recipient may not have played a role in that,” said Dr. Reau, who wasn’t involved with the study.
The analysis only a found an increased risk of graft failure among recipients who received organs from octogenarian donors, so factors other than liver transplant may have contributed to all-cause mortality, she noted.
The UNOS database has some limitations, noted Timothy Pruett, MD, who directs the liver transplant program at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Because the database pulls information from transplantation centers across the country, it can be difficult to standardize specific patient variables in the data.
While it’s clear that a patient died, it’s less certain whether an infection was the cause of death and whether that infection was somehow associated with the liver, noted Dr. Pruett, who wasn’t involved in the research. For example, a patient could have had broken a hip, gone to the hospital, and contracted pneumonia, which led to their death.
“There’s just not much granularity in the database, and we can’t overextrapolate what we see,” Dr. Pruett said in an interview.
Knowledge gaps
Dr. Lee agreed that more research is needed to understand what may be driving higher mortality rates among patients who receive older organs. “There are still a lot of gaps in knowledge with respect to why.”
Dr. Reau said she is curious as to whether certain comorbidities, such as previous infection, diabetes, or obesity, could predict worse outcomes for recipients with older organs.
“We would love to give all of our patients younger organs, but if that leads to even more disparity in need [compared] to availability and the alternative is not surviving, I think you have to place [this work] into context,” she said.
The study findings shouldn’t be used to deter patients with NASH from considering older organs, Dr. Reau said. More insight as to which populations might want to be choosier owing to an elevated risk would be beneficial, she added.
Dr. Lee, Dr. Pruett, and Dr. Reau reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Transplant vs. chemo: Similar AML survival rates
Notably, all patients who relapsed after consolidation chemotherapy were able to receive allogeneic HCT, suggesting that transplantation may be safely delayed in some patients until their first relapse.
“The results of this randomized clinical trial indicate that the probability of survival after [allogeneic] HCT is not superior to that of conventional consolidation chemotherapy” among patients 60 years or younger with intermediate-risk AML, the authors concluded.
However, two experts highlighted several caveats to the study, which suggest the results may not translate to current clinical practice.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
Approximately 50%-70% of patients with AML who receive intensive induction chemotherapy for AML and achieve a first complete remission are referred for post-remission therapy.
While consolidation chemotherapy with high-dose cytarabine has shown a benefit for those with a favorable risk profile, patients considered high-risk with adequate performance status may be candidates for allogeneic HCT.
However, determining the optimal post-remission treatment option for patients who fall into the intermediate-risk category can be more challenging.
To compare outcomes among intermediate-risk patients, researchers from Germany conducted a multicenter trial, enrolling 143 adults aged 60 or younger with intermediate-risk AML who had achieved first complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood cell count recovery following conventional induction therapy.
The patients, who had a mean age of 48.2 years, were randomly assigned to consolidation treatment with allogeneic HCT (n = 76) or chemotherapy with high-dose cytarabine (n = 67), with the option for salvage HCT in the case of relapse. Overall, 12 patients in the HCT group received one consolidation course of high-dose cytarabine after achieving complete remission to bridge until allogeneic HCT, while all other patients in this group received allogeneic HCT directly after induction therapy.
Overall, disease-free survival at 2 years was significantly higher in the allogeneic HCT group (69%), compared with the consolidation therapy group (40%; P = .001). And the cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years in the allogeneic HCT group was also lower, at 20%, compared with 58% in the consolidation therapy group (P < .001).
The overall survival data, however, painted a slightly more complex picture. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the probability of survival at 2 years was similar between the allogeneic HCT group (74%, or 56 of 76 patients), compared with consolidation chemotherapy (84%, or 56 of 67 patients; P = .22).
In addition, the rates of nonrelapse mortality at 2 years were higher in the allogeneic HCT group (9%) versus chemotherapy (2%; P = .005).
Although the rate of nonrelapse mortality was higher with allogeneic HCT, the relatively low rate with each treatment strategies was “an important and rewarding finding,” the authors noted. “This achievement is clearly due to the availability of less toxic but still effective conditioning therapies and modern antiviral and antifungal prophylaxis.”
In addition, among the 41 patients who relapsed after consolidation chemotherapy, all received allogeneic HCT, and the authors observed no significant differences between the groups in terms of health-related quality of life measures.
Results ‘may not translate to real-life clinical practice’
An important caveat is that the findings do not reflect some key updated strategies currently used in clinical practice, said Diego Adrianzen Herrera, MD, from the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, who was not involved in the study.
“A charitable interpretation of the results is that a clear, large survival benefit of transplant in first complete remission is not apparent, which in turn can inform decision-making in certain circumstances for patients meeting the trial criteria, [including] younger patients with a readily available donor,” he told this news organization.
“However, risk stratification strategies currently used were not followed,” he said.
For instance, molecular risk stratification was not universally used, which may have led the researchers to overrepresent the number of patients considered to have favorable risk disease and “could have skewed the results in favor of the chemotherapy arm,” he explained.
In addition, minimal residual disease surveillance by flow cytometry was not used. Plus, Dr. Herrera added, in practice, not all patients can be salvaged and taken to HCT when in their second complete remission, or even achieve complete remission again.
“Unfortunately, these issues make the clinical significance of these results limited,” he concluded.
Margaret Kasner, MD, who was not associated with the research, agreed that aspects of the study design may not translate to real-life clinical practice, particularly in terms of quality-of-life outcomes.
“Although the [study] showed no difference in quality of life in the patient groups, this is likely due to the patient selection,” Dr. Kasner, of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Most patients do not allow themselves to be randomized between these two very different strategies, so those who are willing to be randomized may be a different population in terms how their quality of life is affected by relapse.”
The authors acknowledged some of these limitations, adding that the routine use of minimal residual disease monitoring in some patients was only established once the trial was underway, and the number of patients with complete minimal residual disease was therefore limited.
In addition, Dr. Herrera explained that because HCT involves significant disruptions to daily life and extensive follow-up and monitoring, decisions to use the strategy are not taken lightly by clinicians or patients.
“This is a major issue,” he said. “HCT remains a therapeutic option which causes significant apprehension to patients.”
Nevertheless, “in my experience most patients would prefer an upfront strategy if there is a definitive need for transplant,” he added. “I think the main question patients have is whether they absolutely need an HCT and how can we better identify up front who will be in the relapse-free group at 2 years.”
The study received grant funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the original article. Dr. Herrera and Dr. Kasner report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Notably, all patients who relapsed after consolidation chemotherapy were able to receive allogeneic HCT, suggesting that transplantation may be safely delayed in some patients until their first relapse.
“The results of this randomized clinical trial indicate that the probability of survival after [allogeneic] HCT is not superior to that of conventional consolidation chemotherapy” among patients 60 years or younger with intermediate-risk AML, the authors concluded.
However, two experts highlighted several caveats to the study, which suggest the results may not translate to current clinical practice.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
Approximately 50%-70% of patients with AML who receive intensive induction chemotherapy for AML and achieve a first complete remission are referred for post-remission therapy.
While consolidation chemotherapy with high-dose cytarabine has shown a benefit for those with a favorable risk profile, patients considered high-risk with adequate performance status may be candidates for allogeneic HCT.
However, determining the optimal post-remission treatment option for patients who fall into the intermediate-risk category can be more challenging.
To compare outcomes among intermediate-risk patients, researchers from Germany conducted a multicenter trial, enrolling 143 adults aged 60 or younger with intermediate-risk AML who had achieved first complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood cell count recovery following conventional induction therapy.
The patients, who had a mean age of 48.2 years, were randomly assigned to consolidation treatment with allogeneic HCT (n = 76) or chemotherapy with high-dose cytarabine (n = 67), with the option for salvage HCT in the case of relapse. Overall, 12 patients in the HCT group received one consolidation course of high-dose cytarabine after achieving complete remission to bridge until allogeneic HCT, while all other patients in this group received allogeneic HCT directly after induction therapy.
Overall, disease-free survival at 2 years was significantly higher in the allogeneic HCT group (69%), compared with the consolidation therapy group (40%; P = .001). And the cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years in the allogeneic HCT group was also lower, at 20%, compared with 58% in the consolidation therapy group (P < .001).
The overall survival data, however, painted a slightly more complex picture. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the probability of survival at 2 years was similar between the allogeneic HCT group (74%, or 56 of 76 patients), compared with consolidation chemotherapy (84%, or 56 of 67 patients; P = .22).
In addition, the rates of nonrelapse mortality at 2 years were higher in the allogeneic HCT group (9%) versus chemotherapy (2%; P = .005).
Although the rate of nonrelapse mortality was higher with allogeneic HCT, the relatively low rate with each treatment strategies was “an important and rewarding finding,” the authors noted. “This achievement is clearly due to the availability of less toxic but still effective conditioning therapies and modern antiviral and antifungal prophylaxis.”
In addition, among the 41 patients who relapsed after consolidation chemotherapy, all received allogeneic HCT, and the authors observed no significant differences between the groups in terms of health-related quality of life measures.
Results ‘may not translate to real-life clinical practice’
An important caveat is that the findings do not reflect some key updated strategies currently used in clinical practice, said Diego Adrianzen Herrera, MD, from the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, who was not involved in the study.
“A charitable interpretation of the results is that a clear, large survival benefit of transplant in first complete remission is not apparent, which in turn can inform decision-making in certain circumstances for patients meeting the trial criteria, [including] younger patients with a readily available donor,” he told this news organization.
“However, risk stratification strategies currently used were not followed,” he said.
For instance, molecular risk stratification was not universally used, which may have led the researchers to overrepresent the number of patients considered to have favorable risk disease and “could have skewed the results in favor of the chemotherapy arm,” he explained.
In addition, minimal residual disease surveillance by flow cytometry was not used. Plus, Dr. Herrera added, in practice, not all patients can be salvaged and taken to HCT when in their second complete remission, or even achieve complete remission again.
“Unfortunately, these issues make the clinical significance of these results limited,” he concluded.
Margaret Kasner, MD, who was not associated with the research, agreed that aspects of the study design may not translate to real-life clinical practice, particularly in terms of quality-of-life outcomes.
“Although the [study] showed no difference in quality of life in the patient groups, this is likely due to the patient selection,” Dr. Kasner, of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Most patients do not allow themselves to be randomized between these two very different strategies, so those who are willing to be randomized may be a different population in terms how their quality of life is affected by relapse.”
The authors acknowledged some of these limitations, adding that the routine use of minimal residual disease monitoring in some patients was only established once the trial was underway, and the number of patients with complete minimal residual disease was therefore limited.
In addition, Dr. Herrera explained that because HCT involves significant disruptions to daily life and extensive follow-up and monitoring, decisions to use the strategy are not taken lightly by clinicians or patients.
“This is a major issue,” he said. “HCT remains a therapeutic option which causes significant apprehension to patients.”
Nevertheless, “in my experience most patients would prefer an upfront strategy if there is a definitive need for transplant,” he added. “I think the main question patients have is whether they absolutely need an HCT and how can we better identify up front who will be in the relapse-free group at 2 years.”
The study received grant funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the original article. Dr. Herrera and Dr. Kasner report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Notably, all patients who relapsed after consolidation chemotherapy were able to receive allogeneic HCT, suggesting that transplantation may be safely delayed in some patients until their first relapse.
“The results of this randomized clinical trial indicate that the probability of survival after [allogeneic] HCT is not superior to that of conventional consolidation chemotherapy” among patients 60 years or younger with intermediate-risk AML, the authors concluded.
However, two experts highlighted several caveats to the study, which suggest the results may not translate to current clinical practice.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
Approximately 50%-70% of patients with AML who receive intensive induction chemotherapy for AML and achieve a first complete remission are referred for post-remission therapy.
While consolidation chemotherapy with high-dose cytarabine has shown a benefit for those with a favorable risk profile, patients considered high-risk with adequate performance status may be candidates for allogeneic HCT.
However, determining the optimal post-remission treatment option for patients who fall into the intermediate-risk category can be more challenging.
To compare outcomes among intermediate-risk patients, researchers from Germany conducted a multicenter trial, enrolling 143 adults aged 60 or younger with intermediate-risk AML who had achieved first complete remission or complete remission with incomplete blood cell count recovery following conventional induction therapy.
The patients, who had a mean age of 48.2 years, were randomly assigned to consolidation treatment with allogeneic HCT (n = 76) or chemotherapy with high-dose cytarabine (n = 67), with the option for salvage HCT in the case of relapse. Overall, 12 patients in the HCT group received one consolidation course of high-dose cytarabine after achieving complete remission to bridge until allogeneic HCT, while all other patients in this group received allogeneic HCT directly after induction therapy.
Overall, disease-free survival at 2 years was significantly higher in the allogeneic HCT group (69%), compared with the consolidation therapy group (40%; P = .001). And the cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years in the allogeneic HCT group was also lower, at 20%, compared with 58% in the consolidation therapy group (P < .001).
The overall survival data, however, painted a slightly more complex picture. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the probability of survival at 2 years was similar between the allogeneic HCT group (74%, or 56 of 76 patients), compared with consolidation chemotherapy (84%, or 56 of 67 patients; P = .22).
In addition, the rates of nonrelapse mortality at 2 years were higher in the allogeneic HCT group (9%) versus chemotherapy (2%; P = .005).
Although the rate of nonrelapse mortality was higher with allogeneic HCT, the relatively low rate with each treatment strategies was “an important and rewarding finding,” the authors noted. “This achievement is clearly due to the availability of less toxic but still effective conditioning therapies and modern antiviral and antifungal prophylaxis.”
In addition, among the 41 patients who relapsed after consolidation chemotherapy, all received allogeneic HCT, and the authors observed no significant differences between the groups in terms of health-related quality of life measures.
Results ‘may not translate to real-life clinical practice’
An important caveat is that the findings do not reflect some key updated strategies currently used in clinical practice, said Diego Adrianzen Herrera, MD, from the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, who was not involved in the study.
“A charitable interpretation of the results is that a clear, large survival benefit of transplant in first complete remission is not apparent, which in turn can inform decision-making in certain circumstances for patients meeting the trial criteria, [including] younger patients with a readily available donor,” he told this news organization.
“However, risk stratification strategies currently used were not followed,” he said.
For instance, molecular risk stratification was not universally used, which may have led the researchers to overrepresent the number of patients considered to have favorable risk disease and “could have skewed the results in favor of the chemotherapy arm,” he explained.
In addition, minimal residual disease surveillance by flow cytometry was not used. Plus, Dr. Herrera added, in practice, not all patients can be salvaged and taken to HCT when in their second complete remission, or even achieve complete remission again.
“Unfortunately, these issues make the clinical significance of these results limited,” he concluded.
Margaret Kasner, MD, who was not associated with the research, agreed that aspects of the study design may not translate to real-life clinical practice, particularly in terms of quality-of-life outcomes.
“Although the [study] showed no difference in quality of life in the patient groups, this is likely due to the patient selection,” Dr. Kasner, of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Most patients do not allow themselves to be randomized between these two very different strategies, so those who are willing to be randomized may be a different population in terms how their quality of life is affected by relapse.”
The authors acknowledged some of these limitations, adding that the routine use of minimal residual disease monitoring in some patients was only established once the trial was underway, and the number of patients with complete minimal residual disease was therefore limited.
In addition, Dr. Herrera explained that because HCT involves significant disruptions to daily life and extensive follow-up and monitoring, decisions to use the strategy are not taken lightly by clinicians or patients.
“This is a major issue,” he said. “HCT remains a therapeutic option which causes significant apprehension to patients.”
Nevertheless, “in my experience most patients would prefer an upfront strategy if there is a definitive need for transplant,” he added. “I think the main question patients have is whether they absolutely need an HCT and how can we better identify up front who will be in the relapse-free group at 2 years.”
The study received grant funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the original article. Dr. Herrera and Dr. Kasner report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Pound of flesh buys less prison time
Pound of flesh buys less prison time
We should all have more Shakespeare in our lives. Yeah, yeah, Shakespeare is meant to be played, not read, and it can be a struggle to herd teenagers through the Bard’s interesting and bloody tragedies, but even a perfunctory reading of “The Merchant of Venice” would hopefully have prevented the dystopian nightmare Massachusetts has presented us with today.
The United States has a massive shortage of donor organs. This is an unfortunate truth. So, to combat this issue, a pair of Massachusetts congresspeople have proposed HD 3822, which would allow prisoners to donate organs and/or bone marrow (a pound of flesh, so to speak) in exchange for up to a year in reduced prison time. Yes, that’s right. Give up pieces of yourself and the state of Massachusetts will deign to reduce your long prison sentence.
Oh, and before you dismiss this as typical Republican antics, the bill was sponsored by two Democrats, and in a statement one of them hoped to address racial disparities in organ donation, as people of color are much less likely to receive organs. Never mind that Black people are imprisoned at a much higher rate than Whites.
Yeah, this whole thing is what people in the business like to call an ethical disaster.
Fortunately, the bill will likely never be passed and it’s probably illegal anyway. A federal law from 1984 (how’s that for a coincidence) prevents people from donating organs for use in human transplantation in exchange for “valuable consideration.” In other words, you can’t sell your organs for profit, and in this case, reducing prison time would probably count as valuable consideration in the eyes of the courts.
Oh, and in case you’ve never read Merchant of Venice, Shylock, the character looking for the pound of flesh as payment for a debt? He’s the villain. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that anyone looking to extract payment from human dismemberment is probably the bad guy of the story. Apparently that wasn’t clear.
How do you stop a fungi? With a deadly guy
Thanks to the new HBO series “The Last of Us,” there’s been a lot of talk about the upcoming fungi-pocalypse, as the show depicts the real-life “zombie fungus” Cordyceps turning humans into, you know, zombies.
No need to worry, ladies and gentleman, because science has discovered a way to turn back the fungal horde. A heroic, and environmentally friendly, alternative to chemical pesticides “in the fight against resistant fungi [that] are now resistant to antimycotics – partly because they are used in large quantities in agricultural fields,” investigators at the Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology in Jena, Germany, said in a written statement.
We are, of course, talking about Keanu Reeves. Wait a second. He’s not even in “The Last of Us.” Sorry folks, we are being told that it really is Keanu Reeves. Our champion in the inevitable fungal pandemic is movie star Keanu Reeves. Sort of. It’s actually keanumycin, a substance produced by bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas.
Really? Keanumycin? “The lipopeptides kill so efficiently that we named them after Keanu Reeves because he, too, is extremely deadly in his roles,” lead author Sebastian Götze, PhD, explained.
Dr. Götze and his associates had been working with pseudomonads for quite a while before they were able to isolate the toxins responsible for their ability to kill amoebae, which resemble fungi in some characteristics. When then finally tried the keanumycin against gray mold rot on hydrangea leaves, the intensely contemplative star of “The Matrix” and “John Wick” – sorry, wrong Keanu – the bacterial derivative significantly inhibited growth of the fungus, they said.
Additional testing has shown that keanumycin is not highly toxic to human cells and is effective against fungi such as Candida albicans in very low concentrations, which makes it a good candidate for future pharmaceutical development.
To that news there can be only one response from the substance’s namesake.
High fat, bye parasites
Fat. Fat. Fat. Seems like everyone is trying to avoid it these days, but fat may be good thing when it comes to weaseling out a parasite.
The parasite in this case is the whipworm, aka Trichuris trichiura. You can find this guy in the intestines of millions of people, where it causes long-lasting infections. Yikes … Researchers have found that the plan of attack to get rid of this invasive species is to boost the immune system, but instead of vitamin C and zinc it’s fat they’re pumping in. Yes, fat.
The developing countries with poor sewage that are at the highest risk for contracting parasites such as this also are among those where people ingest cheaper diets that are generally higher in fat. The investigators were interested to see how a high-fat diet would affect immune responses to the whipworms.
And, as with almost everything else, the researchers turned to mice, which were introduced to a closely related species, Trichuris muris.
A high-fat diet, rather than obesity itself, increases a molecule on T-helper cells called ST2, and this allows an increased T-helper 2 response, effectively giving eviction notices to the parasites in the intestinal lining.
To say the least, the researchers were surprised since “high-fat diets are mostly associated with increased pathology during disease,” said senior author Richard Grencis, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), who noted that ST2 is not normally triggered with a standard diet in mice but the high-fat diet gave it a boost and an “alternate pathway” out.
Now before you start ordering extra-large fries at the drive-through to keep the whipworms away, the researchers added that they “have previously published that weight loss can aid the expulsion of a different gut parasite worm.” Figures.
Once again, though, signs are pointing to the gut for improved health.
Pound of flesh buys less prison time
We should all have more Shakespeare in our lives. Yeah, yeah, Shakespeare is meant to be played, not read, and it can be a struggle to herd teenagers through the Bard’s interesting and bloody tragedies, but even a perfunctory reading of “The Merchant of Venice” would hopefully have prevented the dystopian nightmare Massachusetts has presented us with today.
The United States has a massive shortage of donor organs. This is an unfortunate truth. So, to combat this issue, a pair of Massachusetts congresspeople have proposed HD 3822, which would allow prisoners to donate organs and/or bone marrow (a pound of flesh, so to speak) in exchange for up to a year in reduced prison time. Yes, that’s right. Give up pieces of yourself and the state of Massachusetts will deign to reduce your long prison sentence.
Oh, and before you dismiss this as typical Republican antics, the bill was sponsored by two Democrats, and in a statement one of them hoped to address racial disparities in organ donation, as people of color are much less likely to receive organs. Never mind that Black people are imprisoned at a much higher rate than Whites.
Yeah, this whole thing is what people in the business like to call an ethical disaster.
Fortunately, the bill will likely never be passed and it’s probably illegal anyway. A federal law from 1984 (how’s that for a coincidence) prevents people from donating organs for use in human transplantation in exchange for “valuable consideration.” In other words, you can’t sell your organs for profit, and in this case, reducing prison time would probably count as valuable consideration in the eyes of the courts.
Oh, and in case you’ve never read Merchant of Venice, Shylock, the character looking for the pound of flesh as payment for a debt? He’s the villain. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that anyone looking to extract payment from human dismemberment is probably the bad guy of the story. Apparently that wasn’t clear.
How do you stop a fungi? With a deadly guy
Thanks to the new HBO series “The Last of Us,” there’s been a lot of talk about the upcoming fungi-pocalypse, as the show depicts the real-life “zombie fungus” Cordyceps turning humans into, you know, zombies.
No need to worry, ladies and gentleman, because science has discovered a way to turn back the fungal horde. A heroic, and environmentally friendly, alternative to chemical pesticides “in the fight against resistant fungi [that] are now resistant to antimycotics – partly because they are used in large quantities in agricultural fields,” investigators at the Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology in Jena, Germany, said in a written statement.
We are, of course, talking about Keanu Reeves. Wait a second. He’s not even in “The Last of Us.” Sorry folks, we are being told that it really is Keanu Reeves. Our champion in the inevitable fungal pandemic is movie star Keanu Reeves. Sort of. It’s actually keanumycin, a substance produced by bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas.
Really? Keanumycin? “The lipopeptides kill so efficiently that we named them after Keanu Reeves because he, too, is extremely deadly in his roles,” lead author Sebastian Götze, PhD, explained.
Dr. Götze and his associates had been working with pseudomonads for quite a while before they were able to isolate the toxins responsible for their ability to kill amoebae, which resemble fungi in some characteristics. When then finally tried the keanumycin against gray mold rot on hydrangea leaves, the intensely contemplative star of “The Matrix” and “John Wick” – sorry, wrong Keanu – the bacterial derivative significantly inhibited growth of the fungus, they said.
Additional testing has shown that keanumycin is not highly toxic to human cells and is effective against fungi such as Candida albicans in very low concentrations, which makes it a good candidate for future pharmaceutical development.
To that news there can be only one response from the substance’s namesake.
High fat, bye parasites
Fat. Fat. Fat. Seems like everyone is trying to avoid it these days, but fat may be good thing when it comes to weaseling out a parasite.
The parasite in this case is the whipworm, aka Trichuris trichiura. You can find this guy in the intestines of millions of people, where it causes long-lasting infections. Yikes … Researchers have found that the plan of attack to get rid of this invasive species is to boost the immune system, but instead of vitamin C and zinc it’s fat they’re pumping in. Yes, fat.
The developing countries with poor sewage that are at the highest risk for contracting parasites such as this also are among those where people ingest cheaper diets that are generally higher in fat. The investigators were interested to see how a high-fat diet would affect immune responses to the whipworms.
And, as with almost everything else, the researchers turned to mice, which were introduced to a closely related species, Trichuris muris.
A high-fat diet, rather than obesity itself, increases a molecule on T-helper cells called ST2, and this allows an increased T-helper 2 response, effectively giving eviction notices to the parasites in the intestinal lining.
To say the least, the researchers were surprised since “high-fat diets are mostly associated with increased pathology during disease,” said senior author Richard Grencis, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), who noted that ST2 is not normally triggered with a standard diet in mice but the high-fat diet gave it a boost and an “alternate pathway” out.
Now before you start ordering extra-large fries at the drive-through to keep the whipworms away, the researchers added that they “have previously published that weight loss can aid the expulsion of a different gut parasite worm.” Figures.
Once again, though, signs are pointing to the gut for improved health.
Pound of flesh buys less prison time
We should all have more Shakespeare in our lives. Yeah, yeah, Shakespeare is meant to be played, not read, and it can be a struggle to herd teenagers through the Bard’s interesting and bloody tragedies, but even a perfunctory reading of “The Merchant of Venice” would hopefully have prevented the dystopian nightmare Massachusetts has presented us with today.
The United States has a massive shortage of donor organs. This is an unfortunate truth. So, to combat this issue, a pair of Massachusetts congresspeople have proposed HD 3822, which would allow prisoners to donate organs and/or bone marrow (a pound of flesh, so to speak) in exchange for up to a year in reduced prison time. Yes, that’s right. Give up pieces of yourself and the state of Massachusetts will deign to reduce your long prison sentence.
Oh, and before you dismiss this as typical Republican antics, the bill was sponsored by two Democrats, and in a statement one of them hoped to address racial disparities in organ donation, as people of color are much less likely to receive organs. Never mind that Black people are imprisoned at a much higher rate than Whites.
Yeah, this whole thing is what people in the business like to call an ethical disaster.
Fortunately, the bill will likely never be passed and it’s probably illegal anyway. A federal law from 1984 (how’s that for a coincidence) prevents people from donating organs for use in human transplantation in exchange for “valuable consideration.” In other words, you can’t sell your organs for profit, and in this case, reducing prison time would probably count as valuable consideration in the eyes of the courts.
Oh, and in case you’ve never read Merchant of Venice, Shylock, the character looking for the pound of flesh as payment for a debt? He’s the villain. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that anyone looking to extract payment from human dismemberment is probably the bad guy of the story. Apparently that wasn’t clear.
How do you stop a fungi? With a deadly guy
Thanks to the new HBO series “The Last of Us,” there’s been a lot of talk about the upcoming fungi-pocalypse, as the show depicts the real-life “zombie fungus” Cordyceps turning humans into, you know, zombies.
No need to worry, ladies and gentleman, because science has discovered a way to turn back the fungal horde. A heroic, and environmentally friendly, alternative to chemical pesticides “in the fight against resistant fungi [that] are now resistant to antimycotics – partly because they are used in large quantities in agricultural fields,” investigators at the Leibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology in Jena, Germany, said in a written statement.
We are, of course, talking about Keanu Reeves. Wait a second. He’s not even in “The Last of Us.” Sorry folks, we are being told that it really is Keanu Reeves. Our champion in the inevitable fungal pandemic is movie star Keanu Reeves. Sort of. It’s actually keanumycin, a substance produced by bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas.
Really? Keanumycin? “The lipopeptides kill so efficiently that we named them after Keanu Reeves because he, too, is extremely deadly in his roles,” lead author Sebastian Götze, PhD, explained.
Dr. Götze and his associates had been working with pseudomonads for quite a while before they were able to isolate the toxins responsible for their ability to kill amoebae, which resemble fungi in some characteristics. When then finally tried the keanumycin against gray mold rot on hydrangea leaves, the intensely contemplative star of “The Matrix” and “John Wick” – sorry, wrong Keanu – the bacterial derivative significantly inhibited growth of the fungus, they said.
Additional testing has shown that keanumycin is not highly toxic to human cells and is effective against fungi such as Candida albicans in very low concentrations, which makes it a good candidate for future pharmaceutical development.
To that news there can be only one response from the substance’s namesake.
High fat, bye parasites
Fat. Fat. Fat. Seems like everyone is trying to avoid it these days, but fat may be good thing when it comes to weaseling out a parasite.
The parasite in this case is the whipworm, aka Trichuris trichiura. You can find this guy in the intestines of millions of people, where it causes long-lasting infections. Yikes … Researchers have found that the plan of attack to get rid of this invasive species is to boost the immune system, but instead of vitamin C and zinc it’s fat they’re pumping in. Yes, fat.
The developing countries with poor sewage that are at the highest risk for contracting parasites such as this also are among those where people ingest cheaper diets that are generally higher in fat. The investigators were interested to see how a high-fat diet would affect immune responses to the whipworms.
And, as with almost everything else, the researchers turned to mice, which were introduced to a closely related species, Trichuris muris.
A high-fat diet, rather than obesity itself, increases a molecule on T-helper cells called ST2, and this allows an increased T-helper 2 response, effectively giving eviction notices to the parasites in the intestinal lining.
To say the least, the researchers were surprised since “high-fat diets are mostly associated with increased pathology during disease,” said senior author Richard Grencis, PhD, of the University of Manchester (England), who noted that ST2 is not normally triggered with a standard diet in mice but the high-fat diet gave it a boost and an “alternate pathway” out.
Now before you start ordering extra-large fries at the drive-through to keep the whipworms away, the researchers added that they “have previously published that weight loss can aid the expulsion of a different gut parasite worm.” Figures.
Once again, though, signs are pointing to the gut for improved health.
‘Exciting’: Post-SCT, antiviral T-cell therapy shows promise
Of 58 adult and pediatric patients with a total of 70 viral infections at the time of enrollment in the open-label trial, 55 (95%) had a treatment response within 6 weeks of infusion with posoleucel, and the amount of circulating virus was reduced by an average of 97%, Thomas Pfeiffer, MD, and colleagues reported.
In 12 patients who had more than one viral infection, 10 (83%) had a response against each of the viruses, researchers noted.
The responses were defined as a reduction of viral load to normal range with complete response, or as a viral load reduction of at least 50 percent or a partial response.
The findings were published online in Clinical Cancer Research.
Specifically, the treatment evoked responses to adenovirus in 83% of 12 affected patients, BK virus in all 27 affected patients, CMV in 96% of 24 affected patients, Epstein-Barr virus in both affected patients, and human herpes virus in 75% of 4 patients. Additionally, one patient with JC virus experienced initial stabilization of viral symptoms, although the symptoms ultimately progressed, and the patient died.
“The key finding is that 95% of patients whose infections had been refractory to conventional therapies responded to posoleucel with corresponding reductions in viral load and with limited rates of GvHD [graft-versus-host disease],” Dr. Pfeiffer, a pediatric cancer specialist at Washington University in St. Louis, explained in a prepared statement. “Overall, posoleucel was found to be very effective and had a favorable safety profile in a highly vulnerable patient population.”
“Another exciting observation from this study was that posoleucel could be administered within 24 hours in some cases, with symptom resolution in a matter of days in some patients,” added senior author Bilal Omer, MD, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It was quite impressive how quickly patients could be treated.”
Dr. Omer explained that currently available treatments for patients who develop viral infections after allo-SCT have numerous limitations, including toxicities such as myelosuppression or kidney injury and limited efficacy.
In this study, 13 patients (22% percent) reported acute GvHD, but only 4 of the cases were considered de novo cases; 9 patients had been diagnosed with GvHD prior to posoleucel treatment. The most common GvHD symptoms were skin flares, which were successfully treated in the majority of cases, Dr. Omer explained.
No patients experienced cytokine release syndrome.
“The ability to target six viruses with a single therapy would be beneficial for patients with multiple viral infections,” he said, adding that posoleucel is the first T-cell therapy in development for BK virus, which can cause severe bladder infections.
Posoleucel utilizes healthy donor T cells rather than the patient’s or transplant donor’s T cells, which circumvents the lengthy development process of more customized therapies and allows for earlier treatment of viral infections, he noted.
The investigators are currently evaluating posoleucel in randomized phase 3 clinical trials to confirm these findings.
This study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies; Conquer Cancer Foundation/American Society for Clinical Oncology; the Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center; and the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Omer disclosed pending patent applications for engineered T-cell therapies unrelated to this study, and he has received research funding from AlloVir, which manufactures posoleucel. Dr. Pfeiffer declared no conflicts of interest.
Of 58 adult and pediatric patients with a total of 70 viral infections at the time of enrollment in the open-label trial, 55 (95%) had a treatment response within 6 weeks of infusion with posoleucel, and the amount of circulating virus was reduced by an average of 97%, Thomas Pfeiffer, MD, and colleagues reported.
In 12 patients who had more than one viral infection, 10 (83%) had a response against each of the viruses, researchers noted.
The responses were defined as a reduction of viral load to normal range with complete response, or as a viral load reduction of at least 50 percent or a partial response.
The findings were published online in Clinical Cancer Research.
Specifically, the treatment evoked responses to adenovirus in 83% of 12 affected patients, BK virus in all 27 affected patients, CMV in 96% of 24 affected patients, Epstein-Barr virus in both affected patients, and human herpes virus in 75% of 4 patients. Additionally, one patient with JC virus experienced initial stabilization of viral symptoms, although the symptoms ultimately progressed, and the patient died.
“The key finding is that 95% of patients whose infections had been refractory to conventional therapies responded to posoleucel with corresponding reductions in viral load and with limited rates of GvHD [graft-versus-host disease],” Dr. Pfeiffer, a pediatric cancer specialist at Washington University in St. Louis, explained in a prepared statement. “Overall, posoleucel was found to be very effective and had a favorable safety profile in a highly vulnerable patient population.”
“Another exciting observation from this study was that posoleucel could be administered within 24 hours in some cases, with symptom resolution in a matter of days in some patients,” added senior author Bilal Omer, MD, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It was quite impressive how quickly patients could be treated.”
Dr. Omer explained that currently available treatments for patients who develop viral infections after allo-SCT have numerous limitations, including toxicities such as myelosuppression or kidney injury and limited efficacy.
In this study, 13 patients (22% percent) reported acute GvHD, but only 4 of the cases were considered de novo cases; 9 patients had been diagnosed with GvHD prior to posoleucel treatment. The most common GvHD symptoms were skin flares, which were successfully treated in the majority of cases, Dr. Omer explained.
No patients experienced cytokine release syndrome.
“The ability to target six viruses with a single therapy would be beneficial for patients with multiple viral infections,” he said, adding that posoleucel is the first T-cell therapy in development for BK virus, which can cause severe bladder infections.
Posoleucel utilizes healthy donor T cells rather than the patient’s or transplant donor’s T cells, which circumvents the lengthy development process of more customized therapies and allows for earlier treatment of viral infections, he noted.
The investigators are currently evaluating posoleucel in randomized phase 3 clinical trials to confirm these findings.
This study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies; Conquer Cancer Foundation/American Society for Clinical Oncology; the Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center; and the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Omer disclosed pending patent applications for engineered T-cell therapies unrelated to this study, and he has received research funding from AlloVir, which manufactures posoleucel. Dr. Pfeiffer declared no conflicts of interest.
Of 58 adult and pediatric patients with a total of 70 viral infections at the time of enrollment in the open-label trial, 55 (95%) had a treatment response within 6 weeks of infusion with posoleucel, and the amount of circulating virus was reduced by an average of 97%, Thomas Pfeiffer, MD, and colleagues reported.
In 12 patients who had more than one viral infection, 10 (83%) had a response against each of the viruses, researchers noted.
The responses were defined as a reduction of viral load to normal range with complete response, or as a viral load reduction of at least 50 percent or a partial response.
The findings were published online in Clinical Cancer Research.
Specifically, the treatment evoked responses to adenovirus in 83% of 12 affected patients, BK virus in all 27 affected patients, CMV in 96% of 24 affected patients, Epstein-Barr virus in both affected patients, and human herpes virus in 75% of 4 patients. Additionally, one patient with JC virus experienced initial stabilization of viral symptoms, although the symptoms ultimately progressed, and the patient died.
“The key finding is that 95% of patients whose infections had been refractory to conventional therapies responded to posoleucel with corresponding reductions in viral load and with limited rates of GvHD [graft-versus-host disease],” Dr. Pfeiffer, a pediatric cancer specialist at Washington University in St. Louis, explained in a prepared statement. “Overall, posoleucel was found to be very effective and had a favorable safety profile in a highly vulnerable patient population.”
“Another exciting observation from this study was that posoleucel could be administered within 24 hours in some cases, with symptom resolution in a matter of days in some patients,” added senior author Bilal Omer, MD, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It was quite impressive how quickly patients could be treated.”
Dr. Omer explained that currently available treatments for patients who develop viral infections after allo-SCT have numerous limitations, including toxicities such as myelosuppression or kidney injury and limited efficacy.
In this study, 13 patients (22% percent) reported acute GvHD, but only 4 of the cases were considered de novo cases; 9 patients had been diagnosed with GvHD prior to posoleucel treatment. The most common GvHD symptoms were skin flares, which were successfully treated in the majority of cases, Dr. Omer explained.
No patients experienced cytokine release syndrome.
“The ability to target six viruses with a single therapy would be beneficial for patients with multiple viral infections,” he said, adding that posoleucel is the first T-cell therapy in development for BK virus, which can cause severe bladder infections.
Posoleucel utilizes healthy donor T cells rather than the patient’s or transplant donor’s T cells, which circumvents the lengthy development process of more customized therapies and allows for earlier treatment of viral infections, he noted.
The investigators are currently evaluating posoleucel in randomized phase 3 clinical trials to confirm these findings.
This study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies; Conquer Cancer Foundation/American Society for Clinical Oncology; the Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center; and the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Omer disclosed pending patent applications for engineered T-cell therapies unrelated to this study, and he has received research funding from AlloVir, which manufactures posoleucel. Dr. Pfeiffer declared no conflicts of interest.
FROM CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Can a nationwide liver paired donation program work?
For a patient who needs a liver, living donation offers an alternative to staying on a list of more than 10,000 people waiting for a transplant. But what happens when your donor is not a match?
“It’s an exciting time to be caring for patients who need liver transplants,” Benjamin Samstein, MD, chief of liver transplantation at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He is the principal investigator for the UNOS pilot program. “I do believe it is within our grasp to make sure that nobody dies while waiting for an organ,” he said.
The initiative involves 15 U.S. transplant centers. So far, one recipient-donor pair has enrolled in the program. The pilot program has three main goals: Increase access to living donor transplants; increase access to transplants earlier, when recipients are in better health; and work out how to create and sustain a national program.
What is paired donation?
In 2020, 1,095 people died while waiting for a liver transplant, according to a report from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) – a public-private partnership that includes more than 250 transplant centers and 50 organ procurement organizations across the country.
Most liver transplants involve deceased donors. One way to improve access to lifesaving transplants is through living donation, by which a healthy individual donates part of his or her liver. Someone can participate in nondirected or “altruistic” donation, in which someone donates a liver to someone they don’t know, or they can donate to a specific individual (usually a blood relative or a spouse).
With living liver donation, someone may receive a liver earlier, before getting sick enough to be given priority on the wait-list for deceased donation. Because the recipients are in better health, they may have an easier time recovering from the surgery, Ruthanne Leishman, who manages paired donation programs at UNOS, said in an interview.
In some cases, an individual will want to donate an organ to a specific person, but testing reveals that the two would not be a good match. Paired donation allows incompatible donors and recipients to find matches with other incompatible pairs. Each donor matches with the other pairs’ recipient, so the organs are essentially swapped or exchanged between the two pairs.
“People who want to donate get excited about the fact that they are not just helping their loved one but they’re also helping somebody else,” Ms. Leishman said.
Paired kidney donation programs have been running since 2002, but paired liver donation is relatively new. Since the first U.S. living-donor liver transplant in 1989, the procedure has become safer and is a viable alternative to deceased liver donation. A growing number of living donor programs are popping up at transplant centers across the country.
Still, living-donor liver donation makes up a small percentage of the liver transplants that are performed every year. In 2022, 603 living-donor liver transplants were performed in the United States, compared to 8,925 liver transplants from deceased donors, according to OPTN data. Dr. Samstein estimates a couple dozen paired liver exchanges may have been performed in the United States over the past few years within individual hospital systems. A goal of this pilot program, along with increasing access to liver transplants, is to see whether paired liver donation works on a national level, Ms. Leishman said.
Challenges to building a national program
There are several notable differences between living donor kidney transplants and living donor liver transplants. For example, living donor liver transplant is a more complicated surgery and poses greater risk to the donor. According to the OPTN 2020 Annual Report, from 2015 to 2019, the rehospitalization rate for living liver donors was twice that of living kidney donors up to 6 weeks after transplant (4.7% vs. 2.4%). One year post transplant, the cumulative rehospitalization rate was 11.0% for living liver donors and 4.8% for living kidney donors.
The risk of dying because of living donation is also higher for liver donors compared to kidney donors. The National Kidney Association states that the odds of dying during kidney donation are about 3 in 100,000, while estimates for risk of death for living liver donors range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000. But some of these estimates are from 10 or more years ago, and outcomes have likely improved, said Whitney Jackson, MD, medical director of living donor liver transplant at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora. Her program is participating in the UNOS pilot.
More recent data from OPTN provides some idea of risk: Of 3,967 liver donors who donated between March 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2022, three deaths were reported within 30 days of transplant. However, the causes of death were not specified and therefore may be unrelated to the surgery. By comparison, of 74,555 kidney donors during that date range, 10 deaths were reported at 30 days post surgery.
In addition to a more complex surgery, surgeons also have a smaller time window in which to transplant a liver than than they do to transplant a kidney. A kidney can remain viable in cold storage for 24-36 hours, and it can be transported via commercial airlines cross country. Livers have to be transplanted within 8-12 hours, according to the OPTN website. For living donation, the graft needs to be transplanted within about 4 hours, Dr. Samstein noted; this poses a logistical challenge for a national organ paired donation program.
“We worked around that with the idea that we would move the donor rather than the organ,” he said. The program will require a donor (and a support person) to travel to the recipient’s transplant center where the surgery will be performed. While 3 of the 15 pilot paired donation transplant centers are in New York City, the other programs are scattered across the country, meaning a donor may have to fly to a different city to undergo surgery.
Including the preoperative evaluation, meeting the surgical team, the surgery itself, and follow-up, the donor could stay for about a month. The program offers up to $10,000 of financial assistance for travel expenses (for both the donor and support person), as well as lost wages and dependent care (for the donor only). Health insurance coverage will also be provided by the pilot program, in partnership with the American Foundation for Donation and Transplant.
The program requires that transplant candidates (the recipients) be at least 12 years old, be on the waiting list for deceased liver donation at one of the pilot’s transplant centers, and have a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 25 or less. All potential donors must be 18 years or older and must undergo a medical and psychosocial evaluation. Nondirected donors can register with the program, and they will be paired with a candidate on the liver transplant waiting list at the same transplant center.
The 1-year pilot program is set to begin when the program conducts its first match run – an algorithm will help match pairs who are enrolled in the program. About five to seven enrolled pairs would be ideal for the first match run, a UNOS spokesperson said. It is possible that the 1-year pilot program could run without performing any paired transplants, but that’s unlikely if multiple pairs are enrolled in the system, the spokesperson said. At the time of this story’s publication, the one enrolled pair are a mother and daughter who are registered at the UCHealth Transplant Center in Colorado.
Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?
While the UNOS pilot program offers financial assistance for expenses related to liver donation, some transplant surgeons are skeptical about the potential travel component of the pilot program.
The pilot program requires that the donor bring one support person if there is a need to travel for the surgery, but undergoing major abdominal surgery from a transplant team they are not familiar with may be stressful, said Peter Abt, MD, a transplant surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “That’s a big ask,” he said, “and I’m not sure many potential donors would be up to that.”
John Roberts, MD, a transplant surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the travel component may put additional stress on the donor, but “if it’s the only way for the recipient to get a transplant, then the donor might be motivated,” he added.
Dr. Jackson remains optimistic. “Our experience so far has been that, yes, some people have been hesitant for things like traveling, but a lot of people who seem to be genuinely dedicated to the idea of living donation have been very enthusiastic,” she noted.
Dr. Leishman agreed that the travel aspect appears to one of the greatest barriers to participants entering the program but noted that a goal of the pilot program is to understand better what works - and what doesn’t – when considering a liver paired donation program on a national scale. “[Our] steering committee has put together a really nice framework that they think will work, but they know it’s not perfect. We’re going to have to tweak it along the way,” she said.
More information on the paired liver donation pilot program can be found on the UNOS website.
The sources interviewed for this article reported no financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 2/15/23.
For a patient who needs a liver, living donation offers an alternative to staying on a list of more than 10,000 people waiting for a transplant. But what happens when your donor is not a match?
“It’s an exciting time to be caring for patients who need liver transplants,” Benjamin Samstein, MD, chief of liver transplantation at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He is the principal investigator for the UNOS pilot program. “I do believe it is within our grasp to make sure that nobody dies while waiting for an organ,” he said.
The initiative involves 15 U.S. transplant centers. So far, one recipient-donor pair has enrolled in the program. The pilot program has three main goals: Increase access to living donor transplants; increase access to transplants earlier, when recipients are in better health; and work out how to create and sustain a national program.
What is paired donation?
In 2020, 1,095 people died while waiting for a liver transplant, according to a report from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) – a public-private partnership that includes more than 250 transplant centers and 50 organ procurement organizations across the country.
Most liver transplants involve deceased donors. One way to improve access to lifesaving transplants is through living donation, by which a healthy individual donates part of his or her liver. Someone can participate in nondirected or “altruistic” donation, in which someone donates a liver to someone they don’t know, or they can donate to a specific individual (usually a blood relative or a spouse).
With living liver donation, someone may receive a liver earlier, before getting sick enough to be given priority on the wait-list for deceased donation. Because the recipients are in better health, they may have an easier time recovering from the surgery, Ruthanne Leishman, who manages paired donation programs at UNOS, said in an interview.
In some cases, an individual will want to donate an organ to a specific person, but testing reveals that the two would not be a good match. Paired donation allows incompatible donors and recipients to find matches with other incompatible pairs. Each donor matches with the other pairs’ recipient, so the organs are essentially swapped or exchanged between the two pairs.
“People who want to donate get excited about the fact that they are not just helping their loved one but they’re also helping somebody else,” Ms. Leishman said.
Paired kidney donation programs have been running since 2002, but paired liver donation is relatively new. Since the first U.S. living-donor liver transplant in 1989, the procedure has become safer and is a viable alternative to deceased liver donation. A growing number of living donor programs are popping up at transplant centers across the country.
Still, living-donor liver donation makes up a small percentage of the liver transplants that are performed every year. In 2022, 603 living-donor liver transplants were performed in the United States, compared to 8,925 liver transplants from deceased donors, according to OPTN data. Dr. Samstein estimates a couple dozen paired liver exchanges may have been performed in the United States over the past few years within individual hospital systems. A goal of this pilot program, along with increasing access to liver transplants, is to see whether paired liver donation works on a national level, Ms. Leishman said.
Challenges to building a national program
There are several notable differences between living donor kidney transplants and living donor liver transplants. For example, living donor liver transplant is a more complicated surgery and poses greater risk to the donor. According to the OPTN 2020 Annual Report, from 2015 to 2019, the rehospitalization rate for living liver donors was twice that of living kidney donors up to 6 weeks after transplant (4.7% vs. 2.4%). One year post transplant, the cumulative rehospitalization rate was 11.0% for living liver donors and 4.8% for living kidney donors.
The risk of dying because of living donation is also higher for liver donors compared to kidney donors. The National Kidney Association states that the odds of dying during kidney donation are about 3 in 100,000, while estimates for risk of death for living liver donors range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000. But some of these estimates are from 10 or more years ago, and outcomes have likely improved, said Whitney Jackson, MD, medical director of living donor liver transplant at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora. Her program is participating in the UNOS pilot.
More recent data from OPTN provides some idea of risk: Of 3,967 liver donors who donated between March 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2022, three deaths were reported within 30 days of transplant. However, the causes of death were not specified and therefore may be unrelated to the surgery. By comparison, of 74,555 kidney donors during that date range, 10 deaths were reported at 30 days post surgery.
In addition to a more complex surgery, surgeons also have a smaller time window in which to transplant a liver than than they do to transplant a kidney. A kidney can remain viable in cold storage for 24-36 hours, and it can be transported via commercial airlines cross country. Livers have to be transplanted within 8-12 hours, according to the OPTN website. For living donation, the graft needs to be transplanted within about 4 hours, Dr. Samstein noted; this poses a logistical challenge for a national organ paired donation program.
“We worked around that with the idea that we would move the donor rather than the organ,” he said. The program will require a donor (and a support person) to travel to the recipient’s transplant center where the surgery will be performed. While 3 of the 15 pilot paired donation transplant centers are in New York City, the other programs are scattered across the country, meaning a donor may have to fly to a different city to undergo surgery.
Including the preoperative evaluation, meeting the surgical team, the surgery itself, and follow-up, the donor could stay for about a month. The program offers up to $10,000 of financial assistance for travel expenses (for both the donor and support person), as well as lost wages and dependent care (for the donor only). Health insurance coverage will also be provided by the pilot program, in partnership with the American Foundation for Donation and Transplant.
The program requires that transplant candidates (the recipients) be at least 12 years old, be on the waiting list for deceased liver donation at one of the pilot’s transplant centers, and have a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 25 or less. All potential donors must be 18 years or older and must undergo a medical and psychosocial evaluation. Nondirected donors can register with the program, and they will be paired with a candidate on the liver transplant waiting list at the same transplant center.
The 1-year pilot program is set to begin when the program conducts its first match run – an algorithm will help match pairs who are enrolled in the program. About five to seven enrolled pairs would be ideal for the first match run, a UNOS spokesperson said. It is possible that the 1-year pilot program could run without performing any paired transplants, but that’s unlikely if multiple pairs are enrolled in the system, the spokesperson said. At the time of this story’s publication, the one enrolled pair are a mother and daughter who are registered at the UCHealth Transplant Center in Colorado.
Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?
While the UNOS pilot program offers financial assistance for expenses related to liver donation, some transplant surgeons are skeptical about the potential travel component of the pilot program.
The pilot program requires that the donor bring one support person if there is a need to travel for the surgery, but undergoing major abdominal surgery from a transplant team they are not familiar with may be stressful, said Peter Abt, MD, a transplant surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “That’s a big ask,” he said, “and I’m not sure many potential donors would be up to that.”
John Roberts, MD, a transplant surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the travel component may put additional stress on the donor, but “if it’s the only way for the recipient to get a transplant, then the donor might be motivated,” he added.
Dr. Jackson remains optimistic. “Our experience so far has been that, yes, some people have been hesitant for things like traveling, but a lot of people who seem to be genuinely dedicated to the idea of living donation have been very enthusiastic,” she noted.
Dr. Leishman agreed that the travel aspect appears to one of the greatest barriers to participants entering the program but noted that a goal of the pilot program is to understand better what works - and what doesn’t – when considering a liver paired donation program on a national scale. “[Our] steering committee has put together a really nice framework that they think will work, but they know it’s not perfect. We’re going to have to tweak it along the way,” she said.
More information on the paired liver donation pilot program can be found on the UNOS website.
The sources interviewed for this article reported no financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 2/15/23.
For a patient who needs a liver, living donation offers an alternative to staying on a list of more than 10,000 people waiting for a transplant. But what happens when your donor is not a match?
“It’s an exciting time to be caring for patients who need liver transplants,” Benjamin Samstein, MD, chief of liver transplantation at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He is the principal investigator for the UNOS pilot program. “I do believe it is within our grasp to make sure that nobody dies while waiting for an organ,” he said.
The initiative involves 15 U.S. transplant centers. So far, one recipient-donor pair has enrolled in the program. The pilot program has three main goals: Increase access to living donor transplants; increase access to transplants earlier, when recipients are in better health; and work out how to create and sustain a national program.
What is paired donation?
In 2020, 1,095 people died while waiting for a liver transplant, according to a report from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) – a public-private partnership that includes more than 250 transplant centers and 50 organ procurement organizations across the country.
Most liver transplants involve deceased donors. One way to improve access to lifesaving transplants is through living donation, by which a healthy individual donates part of his or her liver. Someone can participate in nondirected or “altruistic” donation, in which someone donates a liver to someone they don’t know, or they can donate to a specific individual (usually a blood relative or a spouse).
With living liver donation, someone may receive a liver earlier, before getting sick enough to be given priority on the wait-list for deceased donation. Because the recipients are in better health, they may have an easier time recovering from the surgery, Ruthanne Leishman, who manages paired donation programs at UNOS, said in an interview.
In some cases, an individual will want to donate an organ to a specific person, but testing reveals that the two would not be a good match. Paired donation allows incompatible donors and recipients to find matches with other incompatible pairs. Each donor matches with the other pairs’ recipient, so the organs are essentially swapped or exchanged between the two pairs.
“People who want to donate get excited about the fact that they are not just helping their loved one but they’re also helping somebody else,” Ms. Leishman said.
Paired kidney donation programs have been running since 2002, but paired liver donation is relatively new. Since the first U.S. living-donor liver transplant in 1989, the procedure has become safer and is a viable alternative to deceased liver donation. A growing number of living donor programs are popping up at transplant centers across the country.
Still, living-donor liver donation makes up a small percentage of the liver transplants that are performed every year. In 2022, 603 living-donor liver transplants were performed in the United States, compared to 8,925 liver transplants from deceased donors, according to OPTN data. Dr. Samstein estimates a couple dozen paired liver exchanges may have been performed in the United States over the past few years within individual hospital systems. A goal of this pilot program, along with increasing access to liver transplants, is to see whether paired liver donation works on a national level, Ms. Leishman said.
Challenges to building a national program
There are several notable differences between living donor kidney transplants and living donor liver transplants. For example, living donor liver transplant is a more complicated surgery and poses greater risk to the donor. According to the OPTN 2020 Annual Report, from 2015 to 2019, the rehospitalization rate for living liver donors was twice that of living kidney donors up to 6 weeks after transplant (4.7% vs. 2.4%). One year post transplant, the cumulative rehospitalization rate was 11.0% for living liver donors and 4.8% for living kidney donors.
The risk of dying because of living donation is also higher for liver donors compared to kidney donors. The National Kidney Association states that the odds of dying during kidney donation are about 3 in 100,000, while estimates for risk of death for living liver donors range from 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000. But some of these estimates are from 10 or more years ago, and outcomes have likely improved, said Whitney Jackson, MD, medical director of living donor liver transplant at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora. Her program is participating in the UNOS pilot.
More recent data from OPTN provides some idea of risk: Of 3,967 liver donors who donated between March 1, 2008, to Sept. 30, 2022, three deaths were reported within 30 days of transplant. However, the causes of death were not specified and therefore may be unrelated to the surgery. By comparison, of 74,555 kidney donors during that date range, 10 deaths were reported at 30 days post surgery.
In addition to a more complex surgery, surgeons also have a smaller time window in which to transplant a liver than than they do to transplant a kidney. A kidney can remain viable in cold storage for 24-36 hours, and it can be transported via commercial airlines cross country. Livers have to be transplanted within 8-12 hours, according to the OPTN website. For living donation, the graft needs to be transplanted within about 4 hours, Dr. Samstein noted; this poses a logistical challenge for a national organ paired donation program.
“We worked around that with the idea that we would move the donor rather than the organ,” he said. The program will require a donor (and a support person) to travel to the recipient’s transplant center where the surgery will be performed. While 3 of the 15 pilot paired donation transplant centers are in New York City, the other programs are scattered across the country, meaning a donor may have to fly to a different city to undergo surgery.
Including the preoperative evaluation, meeting the surgical team, the surgery itself, and follow-up, the donor could stay for about a month. The program offers up to $10,000 of financial assistance for travel expenses (for both the donor and support person), as well as lost wages and dependent care (for the donor only). Health insurance coverage will also be provided by the pilot program, in partnership with the American Foundation for Donation and Transplant.
The program requires that transplant candidates (the recipients) be at least 12 years old, be on the waiting list for deceased liver donation at one of the pilot’s transplant centers, and have a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 25 or less. All potential donors must be 18 years or older and must undergo a medical and psychosocial evaluation. Nondirected donors can register with the program, and they will be paired with a candidate on the liver transplant waiting list at the same transplant center.
The 1-year pilot program is set to begin when the program conducts its first match run – an algorithm will help match pairs who are enrolled in the program. About five to seven enrolled pairs would be ideal for the first match run, a UNOS spokesperson said. It is possible that the 1-year pilot program could run without performing any paired transplants, but that’s unlikely if multiple pairs are enrolled in the system, the spokesperson said. At the time of this story’s publication, the one enrolled pair are a mother and daughter who are registered at the UCHealth Transplant Center in Colorado.
Is a national liver paired donor program feasible?
While the UNOS pilot program offers financial assistance for expenses related to liver donation, some transplant surgeons are skeptical about the potential travel component of the pilot program.
The pilot program requires that the donor bring one support person if there is a need to travel for the surgery, but undergoing major abdominal surgery from a transplant team they are not familiar with may be stressful, said Peter Abt, MD, a transplant surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “That’s a big ask,” he said, “and I’m not sure many potential donors would be up to that.”
John Roberts, MD, a transplant surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that the travel component may put additional stress on the donor, but “if it’s the only way for the recipient to get a transplant, then the donor might be motivated,” he added.
Dr. Jackson remains optimistic. “Our experience so far has been that, yes, some people have been hesitant for things like traveling, but a lot of people who seem to be genuinely dedicated to the idea of living donation have been very enthusiastic,” she noted.
Dr. Leishman agreed that the travel aspect appears to one of the greatest barriers to participants entering the program but noted that a goal of the pilot program is to understand better what works - and what doesn’t – when considering a liver paired donation program on a national scale. “[Our] steering committee has put together a really nice framework that they think will work, but they know it’s not perfect. We’re going to have to tweak it along the way,” she said.
More information on the paired liver donation pilot program can be found on the UNOS website.
The sources interviewed for this article reported no financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 2/15/23.
MCL: Ibrutinib could become the ‘new standard’
First-line patients fared well on ibrutinib, a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, according to the findings.
“Based on the results so far ... at least for the majority of patients, ibrutinib early will become the new standard,” said study lead author Martin Dreyling, MD, associate professor of medicine at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich. Dr. Dreyling spoke in a news briefing and at a separate presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “It might well be that specific subsets of patients may benefit from autologous transplant.”
MCL is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that strikes cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes. It is usually diagnosed in older men and often presents at an advanced stage. Multiple available treatments include rituximab/bendamustine, CAR-T cell therapy, stem cell transplants, and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Ibrutinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for refractory/relapsed cases, however.
Dr. Dreyling was a pioneer in confirming benefit from stem-cell transplants for MCL. “However,” he said, “no one likes autologous transplant because it also has side effects.”
For the new open-label study, Dr. Dreyling and colleagues in the European MCL Network in 2016 began recruiting patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage II-IV MCL. The patients were younger than 65.
The subjects were randomly assigned to three trial arms: Standard treatment (high-dose cytarabine followed by autologous stem cell transplant and rituximab maintenance, n = 288), the standard treatment plus ibrutinib (n = 292), and ibrutinib without stem cell transplant (n = 290). The median age was 57, and 76% of patients were male.
The primary endpoint was failure-free survival at 31 months. Standard therapy was not superior to the ibrutinib without transplant group (72% vs. 86%, respectively, P = .9979). However, standard therapy with ibrutinib was superior to the standard therapy group (88% vs. 72%, respectively, P = .0008). The researchers haven’t finished their analysis of standard therapy with ibrutinib vs. ibrutinib without transplant.
Subjects in the standard therapy plus ibrutinib arm had more grade 3-5 adverse events than did the standard therapy and ibrutinib without transplant groups: Neutropenia, 44%, 17%, and 23%, respectively; leukopenia, 4%, 2%, and 2%; febrile neutropenia, 6%, 3%, and 3%; infections and infestations, 25%, 13%, and 19%; and cardiac disorders, 3%, 1%, 4%. P values were not provided.
In an interview, Ohio State University hematologist Narendranath Epperla, MD, MS, who was not involved in the study, said that this research reflects efforts to understand how novel agents such as ibrutinib and cellular therapies fit into MCL treatment. “We are trying to incorporate them in the frontline setting with either chemo backbone or with other targeted agents to improve outcomes and minimize toxicity. We are also trying to understand in whom auto-HCT can be precluded.”
The results of the new study appear promising, Dr. Epperla said, but he questioned the primary endpoint (failure-free survival instead of progress-free survival) and the short duration of the trial.
“I would like to see how the patients with high-risk features such as TP53 mutation, complex cytogenetics, and blastoid/pleomorphic variants did on the three arms,” Dr. Epperla said. “And I would like to see longer follow-up data before adapting this – [addition] of ibrutinib to the chemotherapy backbone without auto-HCT – into clinical practice.”
What’s next? Dr. Dreyling said that upcoming data will provide further insight into ibrutinib vs. stem-cell transplantation. And “within the next half year or so,” he said, “there will be a next generation of studies challenging chemotherapy overall in mantle cell lymphoma and substituting targeted treatment, hopefully achieving much better tolerability.”
Funding information was not provided. Dr. Dreyling disclosed ties with Lilly/Loxo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Janssen, Gilead/Kite, BMS/Celgene, Bayer, Abbvie, and Beigene. The other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Epperla disclosed a relationship with Pharmacyclics.
First-line patients fared well on ibrutinib, a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, according to the findings.
“Based on the results so far ... at least for the majority of patients, ibrutinib early will become the new standard,” said study lead author Martin Dreyling, MD, associate professor of medicine at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich. Dr. Dreyling spoke in a news briefing and at a separate presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “It might well be that specific subsets of patients may benefit from autologous transplant.”
MCL is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that strikes cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes. It is usually diagnosed in older men and often presents at an advanced stage. Multiple available treatments include rituximab/bendamustine, CAR-T cell therapy, stem cell transplants, and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Ibrutinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for refractory/relapsed cases, however.
Dr. Dreyling was a pioneer in confirming benefit from stem-cell transplants for MCL. “However,” he said, “no one likes autologous transplant because it also has side effects.”
For the new open-label study, Dr. Dreyling and colleagues in the European MCL Network in 2016 began recruiting patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage II-IV MCL. The patients were younger than 65.
The subjects were randomly assigned to three trial arms: Standard treatment (high-dose cytarabine followed by autologous stem cell transplant and rituximab maintenance, n = 288), the standard treatment plus ibrutinib (n = 292), and ibrutinib without stem cell transplant (n = 290). The median age was 57, and 76% of patients were male.
The primary endpoint was failure-free survival at 31 months. Standard therapy was not superior to the ibrutinib without transplant group (72% vs. 86%, respectively, P = .9979). However, standard therapy with ibrutinib was superior to the standard therapy group (88% vs. 72%, respectively, P = .0008). The researchers haven’t finished their analysis of standard therapy with ibrutinib vs. ibrutinib without transplant.
Subjects in the standard therapy plus ibrutinib arm had more grade 3-5 adverse events than did the standard therapy and ibrutinib without transplant groups: Neutropenia, 44%, 17%, and 23%, respectively; leukopenia, 4%, 2%, and 2%; febrile neutropenia, 6%, 3%, and 3%; infections and infestations, 25%, 13%, and 19%; and cardiac disorders, 3%, 1%, 4%. P values were not provided.
In an interview, Ohio State University hematologist Narendranath Epperla, MD, MS, who was not involved in the study, said that this research reflects efforts to understand how novel agents such as ibrutinib and cellular therapies fit into MCL treatment. “We are trying to incorporate them in the frontline setting with either chemo backbone or with other targeted agents to improve outcomes and minimize toxicity. We are also trying to understand in whom auto-HCT can be precluded.”
The results of the new study appear promising, Dr. Epperla said, but he questioned the primary endpoint (failure-free survival instead of progress-free survival) and the short duration of the trial.
“I would like to see how the patients with high-risk features such as TP53 mutation, complex cytogenetics, and blastoid/pleomorphic variants did on the three arms,” Dr. Epperla said. “And I would like to see longer follow-up data before adapting this – [addition] of ibrutinib to the chemotherapy backbone without auto-HCT – into clinical practice.”
What’s next? Dr. Dreyling said that upcoming data will provide further insight into ibrutinib vs. stem-cell transplantation. And “within the next half year or so,” he said, “there will be a next generation of studies challenging chemotherapy overall in mantle cell lymphoma and substituting targeted treatment, hopefully achieving much better tolerability.”
Funding information was not provided. Dr. Dreyling disclosed ties with Lilly/Loxo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Janssen, Gilead/Kite, BMS/Celgene, Bayer, Abbvie, and Beigene. The other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Epperla disclosed a relationship with Pharmacyclics.
First-line patients fared well on ibrutinib, a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, according to the findings.
“Based on the results so far ... at least for the majority of patients, ibrutinib early will become the new standard,” said study lead author Martin Dreyling, MD, associate professor of medicine at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich. Dr. Dreyling spoke in a news briefing and at a separate presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “It might well be that specific subsets of patients may benefit from autologous transplant.”
MCL is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that strikes cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes. It is usually diagnosed in older men and often presents at an advanced stage. Multiple available treatments include rituximab/bendamustine, CAR-T cell therapy, stem cell transplants, and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Ibrutinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for refractory/relapsed cases, however.
Dr. Dreyling was a pioneer in confirming benefit from stem-cell transplants for MCL. “However,” he said, “no one likes autologous transplant because it also has side effects.”
For the new open-label study, Dr. Dreyling and colleagues in the European MCL Network in 2016 began recruiting patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage II-IV MCL. The patients were younger than 65.
The subjects were randomly assigned to three trial arms: Standard treatment (high-dose cytarabine followed by autologous stem cell transplant and rituximab maintenance, n = 288), the standard treatment plus ibrutinib (n = 292), and ibrutinib without stem cell transplant (n = 290). The median age was 57, and 76% of patients were male.
The primary endpoint was failure-free survival at 31 months. Standard therapy was not superior to the ibrutinib without transplant group (72% vs. 86%, respectively, P = .9979). However, standard therapy with ibrutinib was superior to the standard therapy group (88% vs. 72%, respectively, P = .0008). The researchers haven’t finished their analysis of standard therapy with ibrutinib vs. ibrutinib without transplant.
Subjects in the standard therapy plus ibrutinib arm had more grade 3-5 adverse events than did the standard therapy and ibrutinib without transplant groups: Neutropenia, 44%, 17%, and 23%, respectively; leukopenia, 4%, 2%, and 2%; febrile neutropenia, 6%, 3%, and 3%; infections and infestations, 25%, 13%, and 19%; and cardiac disorders, 3%, 1%, 4%. P values were not provided.
In an interview, Ohio State University hematologist Narendranath Epperla, MD, MS, who was not involved in the study, said that this research reflects efforts to understand how novel agents such as ibrutinib and cellular therapies fit into MCL treatment. “We are trying to incorporate them in the frontline setting with either chemo backbone or with other targeted agents to improve outcomes and minimize toxicity. We are also trying to understand in whom auto-HCT can be precluded.”
The results of the new study appear promising, Dr. Epperla said, but he questioned the primary endpoint (failure-free survival instead of progress-free survival) and the short duration of the trial.
“I would like to see how the patients with high-risk features such as TP53 mutation, complex cytogenetics, and blastoid/pleomorphic variants did on the three arms,” Dr. Epperla said. “And I would like to see longer follow-up data before adapting this – [addition] of ibrutinib to the chemotherapy backbone without auto-HCT – into clinical practice.”
What’s next? Dr. Dreyling said that upcoming data will provide further insight into ibrutinib vs. stem-cell transplantation. And “within the next half year or so,” he said, “there will be a next generation of studies challenging chemotherapy overall in mantle cell lymphoma and substituting targeted treatment, hopefully achieving much better tolerability.”
Funding information was not provided. Dr. Dreyling disclosed ties with Lilly/Loxo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Janssen, Gilead/Kite, BMS/Celgene, Bayer, Abbvie, and Beigene. The other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Epperla disclosed a relationship with Pharmacyclics.
AT ASH 2022
‘Astonishing’ results: Skip salvage chemo, proceed to HSCT
NEW ORLEANS –
The results come from the phase 3 ASAP Trial and were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“We selected this to be in the plenary because it completely changes how we’ve traditionally thought about acute myeloid leukemia,” commented press briefing moderator Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami, who also serves as chair of the ASH Committee on Communications.
“When we have a patient who has relapsed or refractory AML, that person is in a very, very difficult situation, and the mortality among those sort of patients is incredibly high,” Dr. Sekeres commented. “So traditionally we’ve given them very high doses of chemotherapy to try to reduce the tumor burden – at least that’s been the theory – to then get them successfully to a transplant.”
This new finding “completely upends that, if these results hold,” he said. The clinical implication is that “we no longer have to hospitalize these patients and give them very aggressive chemotherapy ... [and] we don’t introduce all the morbidity from giving them very high dose chemotherapy, which can actually prevent a transplant from happening if they get sick enough, and we can get them to a transplant quicker.”
The ASAP trial was conducted in patients with an unfavorable risk AML who either had a poor response to first induction therapy or a relapse after first induction therapy.
They were randomly assigned to either a remission-induction strategy aiming for a better response prior to an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHCT), or a disease-control strategy consisting primarily of watchful waiting with low-dose cytarabine and single doses of mitoxantrone as needed, followed by sequential conditioning and alloHCT.
The results after 4 years of follow-up showed no differences in either leukemia-free survival or overall survival between patients who underwent additional chemotherapy with the remission-induction strategy and those who went straight to transplant, reported Johannes Schetelig, MD, MSc, from the Clinical Trials Unit at DKMS, Dresden, Germany.
“We expected non-inferiority – this was what we tested, and of course this was based on an assumption that we could get close or even somewhat better with respect to the primary endpoint, disease-free survival, after transplantation,” he said.
“What we did not expect is that the early success, [complete response] on day 56 after transplantation, also translates into equal long-term benefit, so this is what I was really astonished about,” Dr. Schetelig said at a press briefing prior to his presentation.
Less intensive approach
Dr. Schetelig explained that the rationale for the study was previous work by his group and others showing that alloHCT in patients with residual aplasia after first induction is feasible, with favorable outcomes, compared with standard of care. Additionally, the impetus for the research was evidence that sequential conditioning based on high-dose cytarabine or melphalan plus reduced-intensity conditioning and alloHCT resulted in long-term control for relapsed or refractory AML.
Dr. Schetelig also gave details of the two treatment arms of the ASAP trial. The remission-inducing arm consisted of cytarabine (3 g/m2 for younger patients or 1 g/m2 for patients over age 60) twice daily on days 1-3 plus 10 mitoxantrone mg/m2 on days 3-5 and subsequent alloHCT. In the other group – disease control prior to sequential conditioning and alloHCT – watchful waiting was recommended, but low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) and single doses of mitoxantrone were permitted for disease control.
Although, as Dr. Schetelig noted, the statistical goal of the study was to show non-inferiority of the disease control arm, this less intensive strategy exceeded expectations for meeting the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS; a maintained complete response) by day 56 after alloHCT.
In an intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, the respective rates of DFS at 56 days in the disease control group were 83.5% and 84.1%. In comparison, the respective rates in the remission-induction group were 81% and 81.3%.
Further, after a median follow-up from randomization of 37 months, there were no differences in either leukemia-free survival or overall survival out to 4 years after DFS at day 56.
The disease-control strategy was also associated with significantly fewer adverse events grade 3 or greater (23% vs. 64%, P < .001), and fewer days in hospital prior to transplant (mean 19 vs. 42, P < .001). There were no significant differences between the trial arms in either deaths within 28 days of randomization or time to discharge from hospital (28 days in each arm).
“These data support sequential conditioning and alloHCT without prior remission-induction chemotherapy whenever a stem cell donor is readily available,” the researchers concluded.
“These results underline the importance of facilitating alloHCT as [the] most effective anti-leukemic therapy in patients with [relapsed or refractory] AML and stress the need for starting donor search at diagnosis,” they added.
The study was sponsored by DKMS gemeinnützige GmbH. Dr. Schetelig disclosed honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and DKMS. Dr. Sekkeres reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
The results come from the phase 3 ASAP Trial and were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“We selected this to be in the plenary because it completely changes how we’ve traditionally thought about acute myeloid leukemia,” commented press briefing moderator Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami, who also serves as chair of the ASH Committee on Communications.
“When we have a patient who has relapsed or refractory AML, that person is in a very, very difficult situation, and the mortality among those sort of patients is incredibly high,” Dr. Sekeres commented. “So traditionally we’ve given them very high doses of chemotherapy to try to reduce the tumor burden – at least that’s been the theory – to then get them successfully to a transplant.”
This new finding “completely upends that, if these results hold,” he said. The clinical implication is that “we no longer have to hospitalize these patients and give them very aggressive chemotherapy ... [and] we don’t introduce all the morbidity from giving them very high dose chemotherapy, which can actually prevent a transplant from happening if they get sick enough, and we can get them to a transplant quicker.”
The ASAP trial was conducted in patients with an unfavorable risk AML who either had a poor response to first induction therapy or a relapse after first induction therapy.
They were randomly assigned to either a remission-induction strategy aiming for a better response prior to an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHCT), or a disease-control strategy consisting primarily of watchful waiting with low-dose cytarabine and single doses of mitoxantrone as needed, followed by sequential conditioning and alloHCT.
The results after 4 years of follow-up showed no differences in either leukemia-free survival or overall survival between patients who underwent additional chemotherapy with the remission-induction strategy and those who went straight to transplant, reported Johannes Schetelig, MD, MSc, from the Clinical Trials Unit at DKMS, Dresden, Germany.
“We expected non-inferiority – this was what we tested, and of course this was based on an assumption that we could get close or even somewhat better with respect to the primary endpoint, disease-free survival, after transplantation,” he said.
“What we did not expect is that the early success, [complete response] on day 56 after transplantation, also translates into equal long-term benefit, so this is what I was really astonished about,” Dr. Schetelig said at a press briefing prior to his presentation.
Less intensive approach
Dr. Schetelig explained that the rationale for the study was previous work by his group and others showing that alloHCT in patients with residual aplasia after first induction is feasible, with favorable outcomes, compared with standard of care. Additionally, the impetus for the research was evidence that sequential conditioning based on high-dose cytarabine or melphalan plus reduced-intensity conditioning and alloHCT resulted in long-term control for relapsed or refractory AML.
Dr. Schetelig also gave details of the two treatment arms of the ASAP trial. The remission-inducing arm consisted of cytarabine (3 g/m2 for younger patients or 1 g/m2 for patients over age 60) twice daily on days 1-3 plus 10 mitoxantrone mg/m2 on days 3-5 and subsequent alloHCT. In the other group – disease control prior to sequential conditioning and alloHCT – watchful waiting was recommended, but low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) and single doses of mitoxantrone were permitted for disease control.
Although, as Dr. Schetelig noted, the statistical goal of the study was to show non-inferiority of the disease control arm, this less intensive strategy exceeded expectations for meeting the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS; a maintained complete response) by day 56 after alloHCT.
In an intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, the respective rates of DFS at 56 days in the disease control group were 83.5% and 84.1%. In comparison, the respective rates in the remission-induction group were 81% and 81.3%.
Further, after a median follow-up from randomization of 37 months, there were no differences in either leukemia-free survival or overall survival out to 4 years after DFS at day 56.
The disease-control strategy was also associated with significantly fewer adverse events grade 3 or greater (23% vs. 64%, P < .001), and fewer days in hospital prior to transplant (mean 19 vs. 42, P < .001). There were no significant differences between the trial arms in either deaths within 28 days of randomization or time to discharge from hospital (28 days in each arm).
“These data support sequential conditioning and alloHCT without prior remission-induction chemotherapy whenever a stem cell donor is readily available,” the researchers concluded.
“These results underline the importance of facilitating alloHCT as [the] most effective anti-leukemic therapy in patients with [relapsed or refractory] AML and stress the need for starting donor search at diagnosis,” they added.
The study was sponsored by DKMS gemeinnützige GmbH. Dr. Schetelig disclosed honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and DKMS. Dr. Sekkeres reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
The results come from the phase 3 ASAP Trial and were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“We selected this to be in the plenary because it completely changes how we’ve traditionally thought about acute myeloid leukemia,” commented press briefing moderator Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami, who also serves as chair of the ASH Committee on Communications.
“When we have a patient who has relapsed or refractory AML, that person is in a very, very difficult situation, and the mortality among those sort of patients is incredibly high,” Dr. Sekeres commented. “So traditionally we’ve given them very high doses of chemotherapy to try to reduce the tumor burden – at least that’s been the theory – to then get them successfully to a transplant.”
This new finding “completely upends that, if these results hold,” he said. The clinical implication is that “we no longer have to hospitalize these patients and give them very aggressive chemotherapy ... [and] we don’t introduce all the morbidity from giving them very high dose chemotherapy, which can actually prevent a transplant from happening if they get sick enough, and we can get them to a transplant quicker.”
The ASAP trial was conducted in patients with an unfavorable risk AML who either had a poor response to first induction therapy or a relapse after first induction therapy.
They were randomly assigned to either a remission-induction strategy aiming for a better response prior to an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHCT), or a disease-control strategy consisting primarily of watchful waiting with low-dose cytarabine and single doses of mitoxantrone as needed, followed by sequential conditioning and alloHCT.
The results after 4 years of follow-up showed no differences in either leukemia-free survival or overall survival between patients who underwent additional chemotherapy with the remission-induction strategy and those who went straight to transplant, reported Johannes Schetelig, MD, MSc, from the Clinical Trials Unit at DKMS, Dresden, Germany.
“We expected non-inferiority – this was what we tested, and of course this was based on an assumption that we could get close or even somewhat better with respect to the primary endpoint, disease-free survival, after transplantation,” he said.
“What we did not expect is that the early success, [complete response] on day 56 after transplantation, also translates into equal long-term benefit, so this is what I was really astonished about,” Dr. Schetelig said at a press briefing prior to his presentation.
Less intensive approach
Dr. Schetelig explained that the rationale for the study was previous work by his group and others showing that alloHCT in patients with residual aplasia after first induction is feasible, with favorable outcomes, compared with standard of care. Additionally, the impetus for the research was evidence that sequential conditioning based on high-dose cytarabine or melphalan plus reduced-intensity conditioning and alloHCT resulted in long-term control for relapsed or refractory AML.
Dr. Schetelig also gave details of the two treatment arms of the ASAP trial. The remission-inducing arm consisted of cytarabine (3 g/m2 for younger patients or 1 g/m2 for patients over age 60) twice daily on days 1-3 plus 10 mitoxantrone mg/m2 on days 3-5 and subsequent alloHCT. In the other group – disease control prior to sequential conditioning and alloHCT – watchful waiting was recommended, but low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) and single doses of mitoxantrone were permitted for disease control.
Although, as Dr. Schetelig noted, the statistical goal of the study was to show non-inferiority of the disease control arm, this less intensive strategy exceeded expectations for meeting the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS; a maintained complete response) by day 56 after alloHCT.
In an intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, the respective rates of DFS at 56 days in the disease control group were 83.5% and 84.1%. In comparison, the respective rates in the remission-induction group were 81% and 81.3%.
Further, after a median follow-up from randomization of 37 months, there were no differences in either leukemia-free survival or overall survival out to 4 years after DFS at day 56.
The disease-control strategy was also associated with significantly fewer adverse events grade 3 or greater (23% vs. 64%, P < .001), and fewer days in hospital prior to transplant (mean 19 vs. 42, P < .001). There were no significant differences between the trial arms in either deaths within 28 days of randomization or time to discharge from hospital (28 days in each arm).
“These data support sequential conditioning and alloHCT without prior remission-induction chemotherapy whenever a stem cell donor is readily available,” the researchers concluded.
“These results underline the importance of facilitating alloHCT as [the] most effective anti-leukemic therapy in patients with [relapsed or refractory] AML and stress the need for starting donor search at diagnosis,” they added.
The study was sponsored by DKMS gemeinnützige GmbH. Dr. Schetelig disclosed honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and DKMS. Dr. Sekkeres reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASH 2022
Post-transplant diet: Gruel no longer rules
NEW ORLEANS – A new Italian study yields more evidence that stem-cell transplant patients need not lose their appetites along with their immune systems. Low-bacterial, gruel-like diets, once the mainstay of immunity-lowering surgeries, don’t actually provide any protection against infections, researchers reported.
University of Miami hematologist Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, expressed delight to hear these findings.
“Around the world, we should eliminate these silly neutropenic diets, let people eat what they want, and give them a much better quality of life while they’re in the hospital,” said Dr. Sekeres, moderator of the news briefing where these research results were discussed at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In recent decades, physicians and nutritionists have questioned the value of low-bacterial/neutropenic menus, designed to protect people with compromised immune systems from germs in food. These diets can be quite strict, outlawing food such as deli, processed, and cured meats; yogurt; hummus; strawberries and raspberries; lettuce; raw nuts; certain kinds of seafood; and herbs and spices such as pepper, unless they were cooked. Patients may be urged to avoid salad bars, buffets, and potlucks.
MD Anderson Cancer Center pediatrician Karen Moody, MD, MS, who has studied the diet, said in an interview that the diet has been around since the 1970s, despite a lack of evidence supporting it. “Cancer patients often suffer from treatment-related side effects that affect taste, appetite, and tolerance of food,” she said. “Further restricting food options in this population can be burdensome and reduce diet-related satisfaction.”
For the new multi-center, phase 3 study, researchers led by hematology resident Federico Stella, MD, of the University of Milan, randomly assigned consecutive adult patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cells transplantation or high-dose induction chemotherapy to either a low-bacterial diet (n = 224) or a non-restrictive diet (n = 224).
The low-bacterial diet emphasized food cooked to at least 176 degrees Fahrenheit and thick-skinned fruit. Raw fruits/vegetables, yogurt, honey, cold cuts and sausages, and raw fish and meat were forbidden.
The two groups were similar in age (median = 56 years), gender (about 57% male), and reason for admission (97% stem-cell transplants and 3% high-dose chemotherapy). The plan was to follow the patients for 100 days (stem-cell transplant recipients) or 30 days (high-dose chemotherapy patients).
No statistically significant differences between the group were found in the rates of infections of higher than Grade 2 (per CTCAE 4.0): These infections occurred in 38 (34%) of those on the low-bacterial diet and 44 (39%) of those on the non-restrictive diet (P = 0.5).
There were also no statistically significant differences in rates of fever of unknown origin (P = 0.2), sepsis (P = 0.5), and gastrointestinal infection (P = 0.7).
The findings show that the “use of a restrictive diet is an unnecessary burden for our patients’ quality of life,” said study lead author Dr. Stella at the news briefing.
Dr. Sekeres, the news briefing moderator, noted that the findings reflect his own suspicions about the worthlessness of the low-bacterial diet. “I’ve never seen a patient die of an infection that was foodborne. So years ago, when I was still in Cleveland, I eliminated the neutropenic diet on the leukemia floor. That did face a lot of resistance, as you can imagine. There were decades of people saying we should do this.”
Now, Dr. Sekeres said, he feels validated. “I love this study because it formalizes what I thought was true,” he said.
Dr. Moody said it’s difficult to evaluate the study since it’s in abstract form, and details are limited. “However,” she said, “the sample size, study design, and outcomes appear very appropriate, and I think most likely the full-length study will provide additional evidence to support abandonment of the low-microbial diet in transplant patients.”
Also, Dr. Moody said, the study “replicates the same findings of other prospective randomized trials of this diet that say it confers no protection from infection and has no identified health benefit whatsoever. Bottom line? This diet has burden without benefit.”
Moving forward, she said, “we need a lot more research on diet in general for cancer patients. Recently, there is a lot more interest in this topic. I think we are going to learn a lot in the next few decades about the relationship between diet, epigenetics, the microbiome, and various cancer-related health issues.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Stella reports no disclosures, and other authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Moody reports no disclosures, and disclosures for Dr. Sekeres were not available.
NEW ORLEANS – A new Italian study yields more evidence that stem-cell transplant patients need not lose their appetites along with their immune systems. Low-bacterial, gruel-like diets, once the mainstay of immunity-lowering surgeries, don’t actually provide any protection against infections, researchers reported.
University of Miami hematologist Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, expressed delight to hear these findings.
“Around the world, we should eliminate these silly neutropenic diets, let people eat what they want, and give them a much better quality of life while they’re in the hospital,” said Dr. Sekeres, moderator of the news briefing where these research results were discussed at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In recent decades, physicians and nutritionists have questioned the value of low-bacterial/neutropenic menus, designed to protect people with compromised immune systems from germs in food. These diets can be quite strict, outlawing food such as deli, processed, and cured meats; yogurt; hummus; strawberries and raspberries; lettuce; raw nuts; certain kinds of seafood; and herbs and spices such as pepper, unless they were cooked. Patients may be urged to avoid salad bars, buffets, and potlucks.
MD Anderson Cancer Center pediatrician Karen Moody, MD, MS, who has studied the diet, said in an interview that the diet has been around since the 1970s, despite a lack of evidence supporting it. “Cancer patients often suffer from treatment-related side effects that affect taste, appetite, and tolerance of food,” she said. “Further restricting food options in this population can be burdensome and reduce diet-related satisfaction.”
For the new multi-center, phase 3 study, researchers led by hematology resident Federico Stella, MD, of the University of Milan, randomly assigned consecutive adult patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cells transplantation or high-dose induction chemotherapy to either a low-bacterial diet (n = 224) or a non-restrictive diet (n = 224).
The low-bacterial diet emphasized food cooked to at least 176 degrees Fahrenheit and thick-skinned fruit. Raw fruits/vegetables, yogurt, honey, cold cuts and sausages, and raw fish and meat were forbidden.
The two groups were similar in age (median = 56 years), gender (about 57% male), and reason for admission (97% stem-cell transplants and 3% high-dose chemotherapy). The plan was to follow the patients for 100 days (stem-cell transplant recipients) or 30 days (high-dose chemotherapy patients).
No statistically significant differences between the group were found in the rates of infections of higher than Grade 2 (per CTCAE 4.0): These infections occurred in 38 (34%) of those on the low-bacterial diet and 44 (39%) of those on the non-restrictive diet (P = 0.5).
There were also no statistically significant differences in rates of fever of unknown origin (P = 0.2), sepsis (P = 0.5), and gastrointestinal infection (P = 0.7).
The findings show that the “use of a restrictive diet is an unnecessary burden for our patients’ quality of life,” said study lead author Dr. Stella at the news briefing.
Dr. Sekeres, the news briefing moderator, noted that the findings reflect his own suspicions about the worthlessness of the low-bacterial diet. “I’ve never seen a patient die of an infection that was foodborne. So years ago, when I was still in Cleveland, I eliminated the neutropenic diet on the leukemia floor. That did face a lot of resistance, as you can imagine. There were decades of people saying we should do this.”
Now, Dr. Sekeres said, he feels validated. “I love this study because it formalizes what I thought was true,” he said.
Dr. Moody said it’s difficult to evaluate the study since it’s in abstract form, and details are limited. “However,” she said, “the sample size, study design, and outcomes appear very appropriate, and I think most likely the full-length study will provide additional evidence to support abandonment of the low-microbial diet in transplant patients.”
Also, Dr. Moody said, the study “replicates the same findings of other prospective randomized trials of this diet that say it confers no protection from infection and has no identified health benefit whatsoever. Bottom line? This diet has burden without benefit.”
Moving forward, she said, “we need a lot more research on diet in general for cancer patients. Recently, there is a lot more interest in this topic. I think we are going to learn a lot in the next few decades about the relationship between diet, epigenetics, the microbiome, and various cancer-related health issues.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Stella reports no disclosures, and other authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Moody reports no disclosures, and disclosures for Dr. Sekeres were not available.
NEW ORLEANS – A new Italian study yields more evidence that stem-cell transplant patients need not lose their appetites along with their immune systems. Low-bacterial, gruel-like diets, once the mainstay of immunity-lowering surgeries, don’t actually provide any protection against infections, researchers reported.
University of Miami hematologist Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, expressed delight to hear these findings.
“Around the world, we should eliminate these silly neutropenic diets, let people eat what they want, and give them a much better quality of life while they’re in the hospital,” said Dr. Sekeres, moderator of the news briefing where these research results were discussed at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
In recent decades, physicians and nutritionists have questioned the value of low-bacterial/neutropenic menus, designed to protect people with compromised immune systems from germs in food. These diets can be quite strict, outlawing food such as deli, processed, and cured meats; yogurt; hummus; strawberries and raspberries; lettuce; raw nuts; certain kinds of seafood; and herbs and spices such as pepper, unless they were cooked. Patients may be urged to avoid salad bars, buffets, and potlucks.
MD Anderson Cancer Center pediatrician Karen Moody, MD, MS, who has studied the diet, said in an interview that the diet has been around since the 1970s, despite a lack of evidence supporting it. “Cancer patients often suffer from treatment-related side effects that affect taste, appetite, and tolerance of food,” she said. “Further restricting food options in this population can be burdensome and reduce diet-related satisfaction.”
For the new multi-center, phase 3 study, researchers led by hematology resident Federico Stella, MD, of the University of Milan, randomly assigned consecutive adult patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cells transplantation or high-dose induction chemotherapy to either a low-bacterial diet (n = 224) or a non-restrictive diet (n = 224).
The low-bacterial diet emphasized food cooked to at least 176 degrees Fahrenheit and thick-skinned fruit. Raw fruits/vegetables, yogurt, honey, cold cuts and sausages, and raw fish and meat were forbidden.
The two groups were similar in age (median = 56 years), gender (about 57% male), and reason for admission (97% stem-cell transplants and 3% high-dose chemotherapy). The plan was to follow the patients for 100 days (stem-cell transplant recipients) or 30 days (high-dose chemotherapy patients).
No statistically significant differences between the group were found in the rates of infections of higher than Grade 2 (per CTCAE 4.0): These infections occurred in 38 (34%) of those on the low-bacterial diet and 44 (39%) of those on the non-restrictive diet (P = 0.5).
There were also no statistically significant differences in rates of fever of unknown origin (P = 0.2), sepsis (P = 0.5), and gastrointestinal infection (P = 0.7).
The findings show that the “use of a restrictive diet is an unnecessary burden for our patients’ quality of life,” said study lead author Dr. Stella at the news briefing.
Dr. Sekeres, the news briefing moderator, noted that the findings reflect his own suspicions about the worthlessness of the low-bacterial diet. “I’ve never seen a patient die of an infection that was foodborne. So years ago, when I was still in Cleveland, I eliminated the neutropenic diet on the leukemia floor. That did face a lot of resistance, as you can imagine. There were decades of people saying we should do this.”
Now, Dr. Sekeres said, he feels validated. “I love this study because it formalizes what I thought was true,” he said.
Dr. Moody said it’s difficult to evaluate the study since it’s in abstract form, and details are limited. “However,” she said, “the sample size, study design, and outcomes appear very appropriate, and I think most likely the full-length study will provide additional evidence to support abandonment of the low-microbial diet in transplant patients.”
Also, Dr. Moody said, the study “replicates the same findings of other prospective randomized trials of this diet that say it confers no protection from infection and has no identified health benefit whatsoever. Bottom line? This diet has burden without benefit.”
Moving forward, she said, “we need a lot more research on diet in general for cancer patients. Recently, there is a lot more interest in this topic. I think we are going to learn a lot in the next few decades about the relationship between diet, epigenetics, the microbiome, and various cancer-related health issues.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Stella reports no disclosures, and other authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Moody reports no disclosures, and disclosures for Dr. Sekeres were not available.
AT ASH 2022
Global effort needed to widen access to HSCT
The use of HSCT, the main curative option for AML, “remains unacceptably low,” commented Molly Tokaz, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.
She was presenting the findings from a study of worldwide HSCT utilization at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Globally, the incidence of AML has increased 16.2% – from 101,867 cases in 2009 to 118,404 in 2016, she noted. This in turn has led to a 54.9% increase in the worldwide use of HSCT for AML, from 9,659 to 14,965 transplants per year over the same period.
North America and Europe have the highest utilization rates of allogeneic HSCT for AML, but even so, fewer than 40% of patients have the procedure, raising a “question of how [well] we are prioritizing the use of HSCT, even in these resource-abundant health systems,” Dr. Tokaz said.
Meanwhile, in Africa, South America, and the Eastern Mediterranean, fewer than 5% of AML patients undergo transplant. Although “resource-constrained regions have the largest growth in HSCT use” in recent years, utilization rates remain abysmally low, “which has profound effects on the expected outcomes for patients in these regions,” she said.
Overall, “patients from lower- and middle-income countries face substantial barriers to accessing stem cell transplantation for AML,” commented Chancellor Donald, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, who moderated the session.
The “stark regional differences” illustrate “inequities in the delivery of stem cell transplants” but also opportunities “to improve access to this potentially curative treatment,” he said.
The goal of the study was to establish a global baseline of HSCT utilization to help focus future expansion efforts aimed at closing regional access gaps. It shows there is much work to be done, Dr. Tokaz said.
An international effort is needed to address the issue, including better data collection, implementation of regional HSCT programs, increased representation of ethnic and racial minorities in international donor registries, and other measures. In many cases, telemedicine can help with sharing cross-border expertise.
In short, what’s needed is a “comprehensive global effort to improve outcomes for patients with AML” worldwide, Dr. Tokaz said.
Timing of transplant is similar across regions, generally coming during the first complete remission, and there’s also been a global shift toward collecting stem cells from peripheral blood.
There has also been a marked shift away from autologous procedures and toward allogeneic transplants, she said.
A key difference between regions, however, is that while more than half of transplants are from unrelated donors in Europe and North America, almost all are from related donors in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean, with an increasing proportion of haploidentical donors. In addition, the majority of transplants in Asia, the western Pacific, and South America are from related donors.
The use of related donors has implications for HSCT treatment algorithms and outcomes, Dr. Tokaz said.
The estimates of AML incidence were obtained from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study. Data on HSCT utilization came from the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. No funding source was reported. Dr. Tokaz reports no relevant financial relationships, but some co-authors had numerous industry ties. Dr. Donald reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The use of HSCT, the main curative option for AML, “remains unacceptably low,” commented Molly Tokaz, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.
She was presenting the findings from a study of worldwide HSCT utilization at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Globally, the incidence of AML has increased 16.2% – from 101,867 cases in 2009 to 118,404 in 2016, she noted. This in turn has led to a 54.9% increase in the worldwide use of HSCT for AML, from 9,659 to 14,965 transplants per year over the same period.
North America and Europe have the highest utilization rates of allogeneic HSCT for AML, but even so, fewer than 40% of patients have the procedure, raising a “question of how [well] we are prioritizing the use of HSCT, even in these resource-abundant health systems,” Dr. Tokaz said.
Meanwhile, in Africa, South America, and the Eastern Mediterranean, fewer than 5% of AML patients undergo transplant. Although “resource-constrained regions have the largest growth in HSCT use” in recent years, utilization rates remain abysmally low, “which has profound effects on the expected outcomes for patients in these regions,” she said.
Overall, “patients from lower- and middle-income countries face substantial barriers to accessing stem cell transplantation for AML,” commented Chancellor Donald, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, who moderated the session.
The “stark regional differences” illustrate “inequities in the delivery of stem cell transplants” but also opportunities “to improve access to this potentially curative treatment,” he said.
The goal of the study was to establish a global baseline of HSCT utilization to help focus future expansion efforts aimed at closing regional access gaps. It shows there is much work to be done, Dr. Tokaz said.
An international effort is needed to address the issue, including better data collection, implementation of regional HSCT programs, increased representation of ethnic and racial minorities in international donor registries, and other measures. In many cases, telemedicine can help with sharing cross-border expertise.
In short, what’s needed is a “comprehensive global effort to improve outcomes for patients with AML” worldwide, Dr. Tokaz said.
Timing of transplant is similar across regions, generally coming during the first complete remission, and there’s also been a global shift toward collecting stem cells from peripheral blood.
There has also been a marked shift away from autologous procedures and toward allogeneic transplants, she said.
A key difference between regions, however, is that while more than half of transplants are from unrelated donors in Europe and North America, almost all are from related donors in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean, with an increasing proportion of haploidentical donors. In addition, the majority of transplants in Asia, the western Pacific, and South America are from related donors.
The use of related donors has implications for HSCT treatment algorithms and outcomes, Dr. Tokaz said.
The estimates of AML incidence were obtained from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study. Data on HSCT utilization came from the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. No funding source was reported. Dr. Tokaz reports no relevant financial relationships, but some co-authors had numerous industry ties. Dr. Donald reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The use of HSCT, the main curative option for AML, “remains unacceptably low,” commented Molly Tokaz, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.
She was presenting the findings from a study of worldwide HSCT utilization at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Globally, the incidence of AML has increased 16.2% – from 101,867 cases in 2009 to 118,404 in 2016, she noted. This in turn has led to a 54.9% increase in the worldwide use of HSCT for AML, from 9,659 to 14,965 transplants per year over the same period.
North America and Europe have the highest utilization rates of allogeneic HSCT for AML, but even so, fewer than 40% of patients have the procedure, raising a “question of how [well] we are prioritizing the use of HSCT, even in these resource-abundant health systems,” Dr. Tokaz said.
Meanwhile, in Africa, South America, and the Eastern Mediterranean, fewer than 5% of AML patients undergo transplant. Although “resource-constrained regions have the largest growth in HSCT use” in recent years, utilization rates remain abysmally low, “which has profound effects on the expected outcomes for patients in these regions,” she said.
Overall, “patients from lower- and middle-income countries face substantial barriers to accessing stem cell transplantation for AML,” commented Chancellor Donald, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, who moderated the session.
The “stark regional differences” illustrate “inequities in the delivery of stem cell transplants” but also opportunities “to improve access to this potentially curative treatment,” he said.
The goal of the study was to establish a global baseline of HSCT utilization to help focus future expansion efforts aimed at closing regional access gaps. It shows there is much work to be done, Dr. Tokaz said.
An international effort is needed to address the issue, including better data collection, implementation of regional HSCT programs, increased representation of ethnic and racial minorities in international donor registries, and other measures. In many cases, telemedicine can help with sharing cross-border expertise.
In short, what’s needed is a “comprehensive global effort to improve outcomes for patients with AML” worldwide, Dr. Tokaz said.
Timing of transplant is similar across regions, generally coming during the first complete remission, and there’s also been a global shift toward collecting stem cells from peripheral blood.
There has also been a marked shift away from autologous procedures and toward allogeneic transplants, she said.
A key difference between regions, however, is that while more than half of transplants are from unrelated donors in Europe and North America, almost all are from related donors in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean, with an increasing proportion of haploidentical donors. In addition, the majority of transplants in Asia, the western Pacific, and South America are from related donors.
The use of related donors has implications for HSCT treatment algorithms and outcomes, Dr. Tokaz said.
The estimates of AML incidence were obtained from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study. Data on HSCT utilization came from the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. No funding source was reported. Dr. Tokaz reports no relevant financial relationships, but some co-authors had numerous industry ties. Dr. Donald reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2022