die rolle der stammzell- transplantation bei b-zell ...€¦ · observation median 11.6 months...
Post on 13-Aug-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Peter Dreger
Abteilung Innere Medizin V
Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg
Die Rolle der Stammzell-
transplantation bei B-Zell-Lymphomen
und CLL in der Rituximab-Ära
12.03.2010
The EBMT Database 2008: Transplants
by disease category
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
Acute leukemias Chronic leukemias Lymphomas
Multiple Myeloma Solid tumors Aplastic anemia
Inborn errors Autoinmune diseases
The EBMT Database 2008: Transplants
by disease category
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
Acute leukemias Chronic leukemias Lymphomas
Multiple Myeloma Solid tumors Aplastic anemia
Inborn errors Autoinmune diseases
Die 4 „Klassiker“
- Chronische lymphatische Leukämie
- Follikuläres Lymphom
- Mantelzell-Lymphom
- Diffus-großzelliges Lymphom
Die 4 „Klassiker“
- Chronische lymphatische Leukämie
- Follikuläres Lymphom
- Mantelzell-Lymphom
- Diffus-großzelliges Lymphom
Autologe SCT
= supportive Maßnahme zur
Kompensation der
hämatopoetischen Toxizität der
„single-hit“ Hochdosistherapie
Allogene SCT
= Initialzündung eines permanenten
immuntherapeutischen Prozesses!
graft-vs-tumor effect (GVT/GVL)
Autologe SCT
= supportive Maßnahme zur
Kompensation der
hämatopoetischen Toxizität der
„single-hit“ Hochdosistherapie
CLL
CLL
- autoSCT 1st-line
- autoSCT salvage
- alloSCT
Drei Gretchen-Fragen zur autoSCT
- Effektiv im Vergleich zu
Immunochemotherapie?
- Kurativ?
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die
Toxizität?
Drei Gretchen-Fragen zur autoSCT
- Effektiv im Vergleich zu
Immunochemotherapie?
- Kurativ?
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die
Toxizität?
Time (months)
120 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108
Pro
babili
ty
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.0Outcome n 6-year OS p value
F 190 54%
F±M/C 140 59%
R-FC 300 77%
p=0.37
p<0.001
Tam CS, et al. Blood 2008;112:975–980
FC-R MDACC: FC-R und Überleben
CLL8: Update 2009(Median follow-up 37.6 months)
HR 0.664
p=0.012
“FCR improves
response rates,
progression-free,
and overall survival
in untreated patients
with CLL”
Hallek, …, Stilgenbauer.
submitted
CLL3-Studie der DCLLSG
• Phase-II-Studie zur Prüfung von
Verträglichkeit und Wirksamkeit der
primären autoSCT bei Patienten
<60J. mit Hochrisiko-CLL
• 169 auswertbare Patienten
12/1996-09/2002
• Auswertung 09/2009
CLL3: OS (n=169)
0 60 1200
25
50
75
100
Months from start of treatment
Perc
en
t alive
Median OS 127mo
Median f/u 99 mo (4-137)
McClanahan et al, EBMT 2010
CLL3: Non-relapse mortality (n=169)
0 60 1200
25
50
75
1001-y: 1.8% (0-3,9)
2-y: 3.8% (0.8-6.8)
5-y: 6.3% (2.3-10.3)
Months from start of treatment
Perc
en
t N
RM
McClanahan et al, EBMT 2010
Causes of NRM
169 eligible patients
Infection Dexa-BEAM 3 (4, 4,15mo)
Infection after autoSCT 3 (9,15, 20mo)
t-MDS/AML 2 (38, 51mo)
Solid tumor 2 (34, 106mo)
Unknown 2 (90, 93mo)
Total 12
McClanahan et al, EBMT 2010
CLL3: Incidence oft-MDS/t-AML
(6 of 169)
0 60 1200
25
50
10-y incidence 8% (0-16%)
Months from start of treatment
Perc
en
t w
ith
t-M
N
McClanahan et al, EBMT 2010
EBMT CLL autoSCT trial
• Ziel: Wirksamkeit von
Standardtherapie + autoSCT
vs Standardtherapie allein in
CR/PR 1
• 223 Patienten von 10/2001-
07/2007
• Analyse 11/2009
EBMT CLL autoSCT trial:
Ergebnisse
OSEFS
Michallet et al, ASH 2009
EBMT CLL autoSCT trial: Art der
Induktionstherapie
Michallet et al, ASH 2009
F
CHOP -> F
FC
FCR, F + other
CHOP
Other
EBMT CLL autoSCT trial: PFS vs
FCR (CLL8)
0 1 2 3 4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.0
1
FC-R arm German
CLL 8 trial
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
Eher nicht.
- Kurativ?
Nein.
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die Toxizität?
Eher nicht.
AutoSCT bei CLL: Stand 2010
CLL
- autoSCT 1st-line
- autoSCT salvage
- alloSCT
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
- Kurativ?
- Indikation?
AlloSCT bei CLL: Stand 2010
Allo-SCT in CLL: Effect of del 17p-
CLL8 (EFS)
Stilgenbauer et al, submittedDreger et al, GLLSG 2010
Allo-SCT in CLL: Effect of del 17p-
0 12 24 36 48 60 720
50
100
4-y EFS 45% (17, 73)
* ** * *
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t E
FS
CLL8 (EFS)CLL3X (EFS; n=13)
* MRD-negative by MRD flow
Stilgenbauer et al, submittedDreger et al, GCLLSG 2010
Time to treatment failure
Median: 5.6 mo. Overall survival
Median: 19.1 mo
Time (months)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
0
25
50
75
100
Time (months)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
0
25
50
75
100
CLL: Outcome of patients refractory to
purine analoguesAlemtuzumab therapy (GCLLSG CLL2H trial); n=103
Stilgenbauer et al, JCO 27:3394 (2009)
CLL: Survival of patients refractory to
purine analoguesAlemtuzumab therapy (GCLLSG CLL2H trial); n=103
Stilgenbauer et al, JCO 27:3394 (2009)
Allo salvage
No allo salvage
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
ja
- Kurativ?
- Indikation?
AlloSCT bei CLL: Stand 2010
CLL alloSCT (EBMT) : OS by donor(n = 370)
2010 Tandem meeting
CLL3X: Clinical impact of MRD
negativity at +12mo (of 38 patients with MRD monitoring and event-free at mo +12)
Relapse EFS
Dreger, Böttcher et al, GCLLSG 2009
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 960
50
100+12 MRD- (27)
+12 MRD+ (11)
HR 0.09 (0.02-0.49); p 0.0052
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t re
lap
sed
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 960
50
100
HR 0.13 (0.03-0.65); p 0.013
+12 MRD pos
+12 MRD neg
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t even
t-fr
ee
03.02.2010
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
ja
- Kurativ?
ja
- Indikation?
AlloSCT bei CLL: Stand 2010
EBMT CLL transplant consensus
allo-SCT is a reasonable treatment
option in poor-risk CLL:– .Relapse <24 mo after intensive treatment
(purine analogue combinations or auto-SCT)
– .p53 mutation with treatment indication
– .Non-response or early relapse (<12 mo) after
purine analogue-based therapy
(= fludarabine resistance)
V
E
R
Y
H
I
G
H
H
I
G
H
R
I
S
K
Dreger, Montserrat et al: Leukemia 21:12-17 (2007)
Still valid in 2010!
EBMT risk score
• 56,505 patients allografted
1980-2005
• Used for validation of the
“Gratwohl” score (age, stage, time
dx_SCT, donor type, donor-recipient sex)
Gratwohl et al, Cancer 115:4715 (2009)
CLL (n=370): OS by EBMT score
2010 Tandem meeting
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
ja
- Kurativ?
ja
- Indikation?
Consensus-Kriterien; Gratwohl-Score
berücksichtigen!
AlloSCT bei CLL: Stand 2010
FL
FL
- autoSCT 1st-line
- autoSCT salvage
- alloSCT
Drei Gretchen-Fragen zur autoSCT
- Effektiv im Vergleich zu
Immunochemotherapie?
- Kurativ?
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die
Toxizität?
Stil: B-R vs CHOP-R bei FL: PFS
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Pro
babili
ty
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 months
B-R
CHOP-R
HR = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.42 - 0.95)
p = 0.028
Rummel et al, ASH 2009
Long-term follow-up of autoSCT in FL
GLSG
PBSCT vs IFN(Remission duration;
per-protocol,n=635)
Update 05/2009; courtesy of M Dreyling GLSG
GLSG 5-yearGOELA
MS9-year GELA 7-year GITMO 4-year
auto control auto control auto control R-auto R
n 153 154 86 80 192 209 68 66
PFS 65% 33% 56% 39% 38% 28% 61% 28%
OS n.a. n.a. 76% 80% 76% 71% 81% 80%
1st-line autoSCT in FL: Randomized trials
Lenz Blood 2004; Gyan JCO 2009; Sebban Blood 2006; Ladetto Blood 2008
Long-term follow-up of autoSCT in FLGLSG PBSCT vs IFN (effect of R-CHOP, n=575)
Hiddemann et al.; DGHO 2009; V798
Remission
duration
GLSG
R-CHOP/
autoSCT
Is autoSCT + rituximab better
than rituximab?
Ghielmini et al, Blood 2004; update ASCO, 2009
202 FL (diag/rel)
Rituximab 375 mg/m2 x4
CR/PR/SD
Rituximab Observation
375 mg/m2/2mo x4
Years since start of treatment
Pro
ba
bility
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
/ / / // / // //// / /// /
/ //
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Event-free survival in randomized follicular lymphoma patients
ProlongedStandard
p= 0.0007, median FU: 9.4 yrs
Rituximab monotherapy:
Long-term follow-up (SAKK)
Courtesy of S Montoto
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
Unklar.
- Kurativ?
Es spricht vieles dafür.
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die Toxizität?
Sicher nicht immer.
1st-line autoSCT bei FL
Anwendung nur in Studien!
FL
- autoSCT 1st-line
- autoSCT salvage
- alloSCT
Drei Gretchen-Fragen zur autoSCT
- Effektiv im Vergleich zu
Immunochemotherapie?
- Kurativ?
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die
Toxizität?
Rituximab maintenance therapy after R-CHOP as
well as CHOP significantly prolongs progression-
free survival (PFS)
Subgroups according to induction treatment
PFS after CHOP (n=145)
Overall log-rank test: p<0.0001
HR=0.30
Years
0 1 2 3 4 5
Overall log-rank test: p=0.004
HR=0.54
PFS after R-CHOP (n=189)
Years
0 1 2 3 4 5
Rituximab maintenance
Median 42.2 months
Observation
Median 11.6 months
Observation
Median 23.0 months
Rituximab maintenance
Median 51.8 months
PF
S (
%)
PF
S (
%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
van Oers MHJ, et al. Blood 2006;108:3295–301
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Schouten et al, JCO 2003
AutoSCT vs chemo for relapsed FL(Prospective randomized multicenter study CUP; n=140)
PFS OS
but: - only 89 were randomized (70+19)
- 33%/21-44% other mobilization/high dose regimens
- imbalance of study arms (e.g. follicular small cell: 43% vs. 21-25%)
- overall survival in only 1 of 4 comparisons significantly different
ASCT +/- Rituximab in patients with
relapsed follicular lymphoma
Retrospective analysis of 2 randomized GLSG trials
DGHO * Mannheim, 3. Oktober 2009
O. Weigert, A. Uysal, B. Metzner, M. Pfreundschuh,
N. Schmitz, H. Wandt, C. Peschl, E. Hoster,
M. Unterhalt, W. Hiddemann, and M. Dreyling
Design
• Zwei prospektiv randomisierte Phase III Studien:
• GLSG 03/96: MCP vs. CHOP nachfolgend ASCT vs. IFN
• GLSG 04/00: CHOP vs. R-CHOP nachfolgend ASCT vs. IFN
Salvage therapy for FL relapse
Rituximab 2nd line
No Rituxi Rituxi total
SCT 2nd
line
no SCT 45(28%)
53(33%)
98(60%)
autoSCT 28(17%)
34(21%)
62(38%)
Allo 2(1%)
1(1%)
3(2%)
total 75(46%)
88(54%)
163(100%)
Progression-free and overall survival
adjusted p<0.001
median 86 mo
median NR
median 19 mo
median 67 mo
adjusted p<0.001
autoSCT 2nd line (n=62) vs.
no autoSCT 2nd line (n=98)
median 17 mo
median 39 mo
adjusted p=0.267
median NR
median NR
adjusted p=0.494
Rituximab 2nd line (n=87) vs.
no Rituximab 2nd line (n=73)
Progression-free and overall survival (total)
median 35 mo
median NR
p=0.075
median NR
median NR
p=0.828
Progression-free and overall survival
(AutoSCT in CR/PR)
AutoSCT ohne Rituximab (n=24)
AutoSCT mit Rituximab (n=22)
GLSG GOE LAMS GELA
salvage auto rituximab auto rituximab auto rituximab
n 62 87 42 101 98 69
PFS benefit + - ++ ++ + +
OS benefit + - ++ ++ + +
OS with auto
+ rituximab80% (5-year) 92% (3-year) 93% (5-year)
Salvage autoSCT in FL in the rituximab era
Weigert DGHO 2009; Le Gouill ASH 2008; Sebban JCO 2008
Salvage autoSCT in FL (GOELAMS): OS
3-year OS:
auto 63% vs
no auto 92%
Le Gouill ASH 2008
Salvage autoSCT in FL (GELA): OS
Coiffier ASH 2007
Drei Gretchen-Fragen zur autoSCT
- Effektiv im Vergleich zu
Immunochemotherapie?
- Kurativ?
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die
Toxizität?
Long-term follow-up of autoSCT in FL
GLSG
PBSCT vs IFN(Remission duration;
per-protocol,n=635)
Update 05/2009; courtesy of M Dreyling GLSG
Long-term follow-up of autoSCT in FLTBI/CY + purged
2nd-line autoBMT(Remission duration,
n=121)
Rohatiner et al, JCO 2007
Long-term follow-up of autoSCT in FLTBI/CY + purged
2nd-line autoBMT(Remission duration,
n=121)
Rohatiner et al, JCO 2007 Kornacker et al, Ann Oncol 2009
1st or 2nd-line unpurged
autoPBSCT (PFS, n=241)
0 60 120 1800
50
100
10-y PFS 0.37 (95%CI .27, .48)
1st-line (155)
2nd-line (86)
* bcl2-IgH RQ-PCR
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t P
FS
Long-term follow-up of autoSCT in FLTBI/CY + purged
2nd-line autoBMT(Remission duration,
n=121)
Rohatiner et al, JCO 2007 Kornacker et al, Ann Oncol 2009
1st or 2nd-line unpurged
autoPBSCT (PFS, n=241)
0 60 120 1800
50
100
10-y PFS 0.37 (95%CI .27, .48)
1st-line (155)
2nd-line (86)
** ***
***** ** **** ** *
*
*
**
*
MRD-negative*
MRD-positive*
* bcl2-IgH RQ-PCR
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t P
FS
VariableBoston/
LondonEBMT HD/KI/HH GOELAMS GLSG
n 121 693 241 86 284
Follow-up
(years)13.5 10.3 8 9 n.r.
Line Salvage 1/salvage 1/salvage 1 1
Plateau ++ - ++ ++ ++
Long-term follow-up of autoSCT in FL
Rohatiner JCO 2007; Montoto Leukemia 2007; Kornacker Ann Oncol 2009;
Gyan Blood 2009; Hiddemann DGHO 2009
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
Wahrscheinlich.
- Kurativ?
Es spricht vieles dafür.
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die Toxizität?
ja, wenn <70, gogo, (Frührezidiv?).
Salvage autoSCT bei FL
FL
- autoSCT 1st-line
- autoSCT salvage
- alloSCT
FL-Rezidiv nach autoSCT:
Die Indikation zur alloSCT?
Allo-SCT bei FL
- existieren GVL-Effekte?
- Indikation?
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 840
25
50
75
100
auto
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t P
FS
FL (Heidelberg, n=10)
RIC salvage for autoSCT failure
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 840
25
50
75
100
allo
auto
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t P
FS
FL (Heidelberg, n=10)
RIC salvage for autoSCT failure
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 840
25
50
75
100
allo
auto
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t P
FS
FL (Heidelberg, n=10)
RIC salvage for autoSCT failure
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 840
25
50
75
100
allo
auto
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t P
FS
CLL (GCLLSG, n=23)
Allo-SCT bei FL
- existieren GVL-Effekte?
- Indikation?
Heidelberg-Hamburg study on FL relapse
after autoSCT: OS from relapse
0 24 48 72 96 120 1440
50
100
Months from relapse
Perc
en
t S
urv
ival
median OS 8.3 years
Kornacker et al, Ann Oncol 2009
FL relapse after autoSCT: OS from relapse
by time to relapse (salvage autoSCT only)
0 24 48 72 96 120 1440
50
100
Tx_REL <= 12mo (14/16)
Tx_REL > 12mo (9/31)
HR 4.72 (2.89, 20.1); p < 0.0001
Months from relapse
Perc
en
t S
urv
ival
Kornacker et al, Ann Oncol 2009
Adverse factors for PFS in alloSCT for FL
Variable CIBMTR EBMT
n 208 sib 131 MUD
Age n.i. ++
Poor PS ++ ++
Refr. at SCT ++ ++
MAC (vs RIC) - ++
Hary BBMT 2008; Avivi BJH 2009
MDACC (n=47; 0% refr.)Seattle (n=62; 37% refr.)
RIC allo for advanced FL:
PFS (Seattle and MDACC)
Rezvani et al, JCO 2008 Khouri et al, Blood 2008
1. REL:
-> autoSCT +/- R Erhaltung
2. REL – früh nach autoSCT oder R-haltiger
Kominationstherapie und „gogo“ Patient:
-> alloSCT
2. REL – spät:
-> Erneut R-basierte Salvage-Chemo,
Zevalin, experimentell (GA 101 etc)
SCT beim rezidivierten FL -Heidelberger Therapie-Algorithmus
MCL
MCL
- autoSCT 1st-line
- autoSCT salvage
- alloSCT
Drei Gretchen-Fragen zur autoSCT
- Effektiv im Vergleich zu
Immunochemotherapie?
- Kurativ?
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die
Toxizität?
Stil: B-R vs CHOP-R bei MCL: PFS
0 12 24 36 48 60 720.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 12 24 36 48 60 720.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 12 24 36 48 60 720.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 12 24 36 48 60 720.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Follicular
p = 0,0281Mantle cell
p = 0.015
Marginal zone
p = 0.6210
Waldenström
B-R
B-R
B-RB-R
CHOP-R
CHOP-R
CHOP-R
CHOP-R
p = 0.0024
Rummel et al, ASH 2009
GLSG: CHOP vs CHOP-R bei MCL: PFS
Hoster et al, ASH 2008
Dreyling et al, ASH 2008
GLSG: auto vs IFN bei MCL: PFS
Peritransplant rituximab vs standard TBI/CY
in 1st MCL: PFS (n = 34)
0 60 120 1800
50
100R-TBI/CY (n=34)
TBI/CY (n=34)
Months from SCT
Perc
en
t P
FS
HR 0.36 (0.18; 0.9); p 0.027
Dreger et al, Haematologica 2007; Dreger and Laport, BBMT 2008
Nordic MCL Project: MCL1 + 2
Protocol MCL1
Week 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Rituximab 375mg/m2
BEAM
Eligible: MCL, stage II-IV, <66 years
PBSC
harvest
PBSC
infusion
Protocol MCL2
Week 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
PBSC
harvest
PBSC
infusion
Maxi-CHOP
HD ara-C
Geisler et al, Blood 2008
Nordic MCL Project: Outcome of
MCL1 vs MLC2
Geisler et al, Blood 2008
MDACC MCL 1st-line transplants: PFS
Tam et al. Blood 2009
Rituxi yes (21)
Rituxi no (29)
Autologous stem cell transplantation
and addition of Rituximab
independently prolong response duration
in advanced stage mantle cell lymphoma
E. Hoster, B. Metzner, R. Forstpointner, M. Pfreundschuh, L. Trümper,
M. Hallek, B. Wörmann, U. Dührsen, C. Gisselbrecht, J.C. Kluin-Nelemans,
A. Van Hoof, M. Unterhalt, W. Hiddemann, M. Dreyling
on behalf of the
German Low Grade Lymphoma
Study Group (GLSG)
and the European MCL Network
ASCT and Rituximab in MCL
• explorative analysis of 3 studies:- GLSG 1996
- GLSG 2000
- European MCL high dose study
• univariate analysis:- +/- ASCT (all randomized)
- +/- Rituximab (partially randomized)
• multivariate analysis including:- +/- ASCT
- +/- Rituximab
- CR vs. PR
- MIPI score
Multivariate analysis (n= 180)
Response duration
Variable
Hazard
Ratio RD 95% CI p
R 0.61 0.42 0.89 0.0096
autoSCT 0.53 0.36 0.76 0.0006
CR 0.78 0.52 1.17 0.22
MIPI
score 1.16 0.85 1.59 0.34
Hoster et al, ASH 2009
Multivariate analysis (n = 180)
Overall survival
Variable
Hazard
Ratio OS 95% CI P
R 0.74 0.46 1.21 0.23
autoSCT 0.67 0.43 1.05 0.084
CR 0.80 0.48 1.32 0.37
MIPI
score 1.60 1.12 2.29 0.0107
Hoster et al, ASH 2009
Univariate analysis: Pooled ASCT vs. IFN
Overall survival
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
Ja.
- Kurativ?
Es spricht manches dafür.
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die Toxizität?
Ja.
1st-line autoSCT bei MCL
Standard bei „gogo“ Patienten!
MCL
- autoSCT 1st-line
- autoSCT salvage
- alloSCT
Mature results of MDACC MCL transplants: PFS
Tam et al. Blood 2009
auto1 auto2
Rituxi yes (21)
Rituxi no (29)
Rituxi yes (19)
Rituxi no (17)
The European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
MCL salvage auto: +/- rituximab
Canals et al, 2009, unpublished
n = 59
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
Kein Effektivitätszuwachs in der R-Ära.
- Kurativ?
Nein.
- Rechtfertigt der Effekt die Toxizität?
Nein.
Salvage autoSCT bei MCL
alloSCT bei „gogo“ Patienten?
Allogeneic SCT in relapsed MCL:
Relapse-free survival (Seattle)
Maris et al, Blood 2004
MCL: AlloSCT for autoSCT failureHD/KI/HH 1994-2008 (46 REL after 116 autotransplants)
Overall survival
Dietrich et al, EBMT 2010
Months from relapse
p = 0.049
Tam et al. Blood 2009
auto2 (36)
allo (35)
Mature results of MDACC MCL transplants: PFS
- Effektiver als Immunochemotherapie?
ja.
- Kurativ?
Wahrscheinlich ja.
- Indikation?
Salvage bei „gogo“ Patienten.
Salvage alloSCT bei MCL
in Studien!
- CLL:
Auto: Keine! Allo: Salvage HR-CLL.
- FL:
Auto: Salvage. Allo: Rez. nach auto.
- MCL:
Auto: Primär! Allo: Salvage.
Rolle der SCT in der “R”-Ära
Danke
Heidelberg/
Hamburg/ Kiel
consortium
M Rieger
M Nickelsen
N Schmitz
M Kneba
M Witzens
S Dietrich
B Tielesch
AD Ho
Nordic LG
C Geisler
E Kimby
GLSG
M Dreyling
W Hiddemann
LWP
A Sureda
O Hermine
S Dietrich
C Canals
MCL Network
M Dreyling
C Pott
FHCRC
M Sorror
R Storb
GLSG
CLL sc
P Corradini
M Hallek
E Kimby
M Sohb
D Milligan
W Wiktor
E Montserrat
R Brand
M Michallet
DCLLSG
M Ritgen
S Stilgenbauer
S Cohen
J Schubert
M Hensel
N Schmitz
M Hallek
S Böttcher
M Kneba
H Döhner
What about 1st-line allo in MCL?
Mature results of MDACC MCL transplants: PFS
Tam et al. Blood 2009
auto1 (50)
allo (35)
The European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
• MCL
• > 18 years at SCT
• SCT 1990-2007
• 1st SCT (Auto or Allo)
• 1st-line SCT
• MedB with rituximab info available
Retrospective analysis on
1st-line transplants: Selection criteria
The European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Variable auto allo
Rituximab prior /
peri / post SCT190 16
No rituximab 158 26
Total 348 42
Retrospective analysis on
1st-line transplants: Eligible patients
Canals et al, 2009, unpublished
The European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
1st-line transplants: PFS allo vs auto (all)
p<0.001
Canals et al, 2009, unpublished
The European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
1st-line transplants: PFS allo vs auto (no rituximab)
Canals et al, 2009, unpublished
The European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow TransplantationThe European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
1st-line transplants: PFS allo vs auto (rituximab)
Canals et al, 2009, unpublished
Is there a place for 1st-line alloSCT in
MCL?
No! - unless we identify a
high-risk subset which does
poorly under modern
autoSCT strategies.
The MCL International Prognostic
Index (MIPI)
Hoster et al, Blood 2008
Factors relevant for
MIPI score
- age
- PS
- LDH
- WBC
established with
455 patients
including 80 auto!
GLSG
Nordic MCL Project: Outcome of
MCL1 vs MLC2
Geisler et al, Blood 2008
Geisler et al, EHA 2009
MCL2 Trial: OS according to MIPI
p=0.382
p=0.012 (log rank) p=0.004 (log rank)
< 12 mo. (n=55), 12–35 mo. (n=73), > 36 mo. (n=35)
Time to salvage treatment survival
Prognostic factors for PFS in autoSCT for FL
VariableBoston/
LondonEBMT Omaha HD/KI/HH
n 121 693 248 241
Age n.i. ++ - -
Pretreatment lines - - ++ ++
FLIPI high n.i. n.i. ++ -
Time from dx - n.i. - n.i.
CR vs PR at SCT - n.i. n.i. -
Refr. at SCT n.i. ++ - n.i.
Rohatiner JCO 2007; Montoto Leukemia 2007; Vose BBMT 2008;
Kornacker Ann Oncol 2009
Ljungman et al, BMT 2009
Current EBMT indications for allo-SCT:
Lymphoma
Entity 1st-line Relapse Refractory
Aggressive B - (+) D
FL - (+) (+)
MCL (+) (+) D
CLL p53 (+) +
TCL (+) (+) D
Hodgkin - (+) D
Study GCLLSG Seattle Boston Houston GCTSG
n 90 82 46 39 30
PFS 40% (3y) 39% (5y) 34% (2y) 44% (4y) 58% (4y)
OS 70% (3y) 50% (5y) 54% (2y) 48% (4y) 69% (4y)
NRM 21% (3y) 23% (5y) 17% (2y) n.a. 15% (4y)
Ext. chronic
GVHD
55% 49-53% 38% 58% 21%
F/U y 37 (7-92) 60 20 27 (4-80) 44
Mortalität nach RIC-alloSCT bei CLL
Adaptiert nach Delgado, Milligan & Dreger,
Blood 114:2581-88 (2009)
top related