The European landscape on allogeneic haematopoeietic cell transplantation in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia between 2009 and 2019: a perspective from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT.

Allogeneic transplantation (allo-HCT) is a curative treatment in CLL whose efficacy including the most severe forms had led to the 2006 EBMT recommendations. The advent after 2014 of targeted therapies has revolutionized CLL management, allowing prolonged control to patients who have failed immunochemotherapy and/or have TP53 alterations. We analysed the pre COVID pandemic 2009-2019 EBMT registry. The yearly number of allo-HCT raised to 458 in 2011 yet dropped from 2013 onwards to an apparent plateau above 100. Within the 10 countries who were under the EMA for drug approval and performed 83.5% of those procedures, large initial differences were found but the annual number converged to 2-3 per 10 million inhabitants during the 3 most recent years suggesting that allo-HCT remains applied in selected patients. Long-term follow-up on targeted therapies shows that most patients relapse, some early, with risk factors and resistance mechanisms being described. The treatment of patients exposed to both BCL2 and BTK inhibitors and especially those with double refractory disease will become a challenge in which allo-HCT remains a solid option in competition with emerging therapies that have yet to demonstrate their long-term effectiveness.

Blood and marrow transplantation during the emerging COVID-19 pandemic: the Seattle approach.

On January 20, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States of America was diagnosed in Washington state, which subsequently experienced rapidly increasing numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. This placed the Seattle Blood and Marrow Transplant Program at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Fred Hutch) in the national epicenter of this pandemic. Here, we summarize the experience gained during our rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our efforts were aimed at safely performing urgent and potentially life-saving stem cell transplants in the setting of pandemic-related stresses on healthcare resources and shelter-in-place public health measures. We describe the unique circumstances and challenges encountered, the current state of the program amidst evolving COVID-19 cases in our community, and the guiding principles for recovery. We also estimate the collateral impact of directing clinical resources toward COVID-19-related care on cancer patients in need of stem cell transplantation. Although our experience was influenced by specific regional and institutional factors, it may help inform how transplant programs respond to COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with Cryopreserved Grafts for Severe Aplastic Anemia.

With the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing barriers to the collection and transport of donor cells, it is often necessary to collect and cryopreserve grafts before initiation of transplantation conditioning. The effect on transplantation outcomes in nonmalignant disease is unknown. This analysis examined the effect of cryopreservation of related and unrelated donor grafts for transplantation for severe aplastic anemia in the United States during 2013 to 2019. Included are 52 recipients of cryopreserved grafts who were matched for age, donor type, and graft type to 194 recipients who received noncryopreserved grafts. Marginal Cox regression models were built to study the effect of cryopreservation and other risk factors associated with outcomes. We recorded higher 1-year rates of graft failure (hazard ratio [HR], 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17 to 4.35; P = .01) and of 1-year overall mortality (HR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.60 to 6.11; P = .0008) after transplantation of cryopreserved compared with noncryopreserved grafts, with adjustment for sex, performance score, comorbidity, cytomegalovirus serostatus, and ABO blood group match. The incidence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease did not differ between the 2 groups. Adjusted probabilities of 1-year survival were 73% (95% CI, 60% to 84%) in the cryopreserved graft group and 91% (95% CI, 86% to 94%) in the noncryopreserved graft group. These data support the use of noncryopreserved grafts whenever possible in patients with severe aplastic anemia.

Graft Cryopreservation Does Not Impact Overall Survival after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Using Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide for Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant barriers to timely donor evaluation, cell collection, and graft transport for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT). To ensure availability of donor cells on the scheduled date of infusion, many sites now collect cryopreserved grafts before the start of pretransplantation conditioning. Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (ptCY) is an increasingly used approach for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis, but the impact of graft cryopreservation on the outcomes of allo-HCT using ptCY is not known. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we compared the outcomes of HCT using cryopreserved versus fresh grafts in patients undergoing HCT for hematologic malignancy with ptCY. We analyzed 274 patients with hematologic malignancy undergoing allo-HCT between 2013 and 2018 with cryopreserved grafts and ptCY. Eighteen patients received bone marrow grafts and 256 received peripheral blood stem cell grafts. These patients were matched for age, graft type, disease risk index (DRI), and propensity score with 1080 patients who underwent allo-HCT with fresh grafts. The propensity score, which is an assessment of the likelihood of receiving a fresh graft versus a cryopreserved graft, was calculated using logistic regression to account for the following: disease histology, Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), HCT Comorbidity Index, conditioning regimen intensity, donor type, and recipient race. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression and disease-free survival (DFS). Because of multiple comparisons, only P values <.01 were considered statistically significant. The 2 cohorts (cryopreserved and fresh) were similar in terms of patient age, KPS, diagnosis, DRI, HCT-CI, donor/graft source, and conditioning intensity. One-year probabilities of OS were 71.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.3% to 73.8%) with fresh grafts and 70.3% (95% CI, 64.6% to 75.7%) with cryopreserved grafts (P = .81). Corresponding probabilities of OS at 2 years were 60.6% (95% CI, 57.3% to 63.8%) and 58.7% (95% CI, 51.9% to 65.4%) (P = .62). In matched-pair regression analysis, graft cryopreservation was not associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] for cryopreserved versus fresh, 1.05; 95% CI, .86 to 1.29; P = .60). Similarly, rates of neutrophil recovery (HR, .91; 95% CI, .80 to 1.02; P = .12), platelet recovery (HR, .88; 95% CI, .78 to 1.00; P = .05), grade III-IV acute GVHD (HR, .78; 95% CI, .50 to 1.22; P = .27), NRM (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, .86 to 1.55; P = .32) and relapse/progression (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, .97 to 1.50; P = .09) were similar with cryopreserved grafts versus fresh grafts. There were somewhat lower rates of chronic GVHD (HR, 78; 95% CI, .61 to .99; P = .04) and DFS (HR for treatment failure, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.29; P = .04) with graft cryopreservation that were of marginal statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Overall, our data indicate that graft cryopreservation does not significantly delay hematopoietic recovery, increase the risk of acute GVHD or NRM, or decrease OS after allo-HCT using ptCY.