Impact of triple intrathecal prophylaxis in acute lymphoblastic leukemia adults receiving HyperCVAD: A COVID-19 practice change.

Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) requires both systemically and locally directed therapies to prevent central nervous system (CNS) recurrence. In response to restrictions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, our institution adopted triple intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy for CNS prophylaxis during HyperCVAD (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with high-dose methotrexate and cytarabine). We retrospectively reviewed records of newly diagnosed adult all patients who were consecutively treated with HyperCVAD between January 2011 and July 2022. Outcomes of patients who received triple IT chemotherapy and standard of care (SOC) CNS prophylaxis were compared. The primary endpoint was CNS relapse-free survival (RFS) while secondary endpoints included cumulative incidence of relapse, overall survival, number of outpatient, and total ITs per patient, and CNS treatment-related toxicities. A total of 37 patients including 21 in the triple IT and 16 in the SOC cohorts were evaluated. There were no differences between the triple IT and SOC cohorts with respect to CNS-RFS (89.6% vs. 80.4%; HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.45-5.39; p = .49), cumulative incidence of relapse (8.9% vs. 19.6%; HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.3-5.3; p = .87), and overall survival (89.6% vs. 85.7%; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.20-4.21; p = .90) at 2-years. Significantly fewer IT doses were administered in the triple IT cohort (p = .011) and the number of additional outpatient appointments to administer IT chemotherapy were markedly reduced as 98.6% of IT doses were administered during scheduled admissions compared to 76.8% (p < .001). The adoption of triple IT chemotherapy did not increase CNS treatment-related toxicities but rather, the inverse was observed. Triple IT chemotherapy during HyperCVAD represents a feasible alternative to SOC CNS prophylaxis, especially during times of resource restriction and when minimization of patient exposures is desired.

Stability of Captisol-enabled versus propylene glycol-based melphalan at room temperature and after refrigeration.

PURPOSE: To compare the chemical stability of Captisol-enabled (CE) melphalan ("CE-melphalan"; Evomela, Acrotech Biopharma LLC) and propylene glycol (PG)-based melphalan ("PG-melphalan"; Alkeran, GlaxoSmithKline) admixtures prepared with 0.9% sodium chloride injection in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) bags or reconstituted vials stored at room temperature (RT) and under refrigeration. METHODS: Lyophilized CE-melphalan and generic PG-melphalan were reconstituted to 5 mg/mL with 0.9% sodium chloride injection or manufacturer-supplied diluent, respectively. The reconstituted vials were then diluted to the desired concentrations with 0.9% sodium chloride injection in PVC bags and were stored at RT (23oC) or under refrigeration (4oC). Aliquots were withdrawn from the bags and reconstituted vials of CE-melphalan and PG-melphalan immediately after preparation and at predetermined time intervals. Melphalan concentrations were measured using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography method. RESULTS: CE-melphalan reconstituted in PVC bags at concentrations of 1 and 2 mg/mL was stable for 6 and 24 hours, respectively, at RT and for 8 and 24 hours, respectively, at 4oC. PG-melphalan reconstituted in bags at 1, 1.5, and 2 mg/mL was stable for 1, 2, and 2 hours, respectively, at RT and for 2, 4, and 4 hours, respectively, at 4oC. Reconstituted CE-melphalan vials were stable for 48 hours at both RT and 4oC, whereas PG-melphalan vials were stable for 6 hours at RT but formed precipitate within 2 hours at 4oC. CONCLUSION: CE-melphalan remained stable longer than generic PG-melphalan under the test conditions. CE-melphalan at 2 mg/mL has 24-hour stability at RT and can be used for extended infusion times or may be compounded ahead of time. Reconstituted CE-melphalan vials are stable for 48 hours at both RT and 4oC.

Bone Marrow versus Peripheral Blood Grafts for Haploidentical Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide.

In the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic era, the number of haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantations (HCTs) with peripheral blood (PB) grafts increased significantly compared with HCTs with bone marrow (BM) grafts, which may be associated with adverse outcomes. We compared outcomes of HCT in BM graft and PB graft recipients age ≥18 years with hematologic malignancies who underwent T cell- replete haploidentical HCT and received graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil. Among the 264 patients, 180 (68%) received a BM graft and 84 (32%) received a PB graft. The median patient age was 50 years in both groups. The majority (n = 199; 75%) received reduced-intensity conditioning. The rate of acute leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome was higher in the BM graft recipients compared with the PB graft recipients (85% [n = 152] versus 55% [n = 46]; P < .01). The median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment and the incidence of grade II-IV and grade III-IV acute GVHD (aGVHD) were comparable in the 2 groups. Among the patients with grade II-IV aGVHD, the rate of steroid-refractory aGVHD was 9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5% to 18%) in the BM group versus 32% (95% CI, 19% to 54%) in the PB group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.7, 95% CI, 1.5 to 9.3; P = .006). At 1 year post-HCT, the rate of chronic GVHD (cGVHD) was 8% (95% CI, 4% to 13%) in the BM group versus 22% (95% CI, 14% to 36%) in the PB group (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.6; P = .005), and the rate of systemic therapy-requiring cGVHD was 2.5% (95% CI, 1% to 7%) versus 14% (95% CI, 7% to 27%), respectively (HR, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.7 to 18; P = .004). The PB group had a significantly higher risk of bacterial and viral infections, with no appreciable advantage in the duration of hospitalization, immune reconstitution, relapse, nonrelapse mortality, or survival. Our data suggest a benefit of the use of BM grafts over PB grafts for haplo-HCT.