The role of autologous bone marrow transplantation in primary effusion lymphoma: a case report and literature review.

Primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) is an aggressive and rare type of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBL) that commonly presents itself as pleural, pericardial or peritoneal effusion without lymph node or extranodal involvement in immunosuppressed patients, such as HIV-positive or transplanted receptors. On rare occasions, it may be found in solid sites without effusion, in an immunophenotypically and morphologically similar neoplasm well-known as extracavitary PEL (EC-PEL). Both PEL and EC-PEL are associated with extremely poor prognosis. Due to the rarity of these entities, ther e are no gold standard treatments . Here we discuss the role of autologous bone marrow transplant (auto-BMT) in the treatment of these patients as well as report the case of a young HIV-positive male diagnosed with both PEL and EC-PEL, who underwent a salvage therapy with auto-BMT and achieved complete and sustained remission eight years after the diagnosis.

An international multicenter study comparing COVID-19 omicron outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies treated with obinutuzumab versus rituximab.

OBJECTIVES: Hematological malignancy (HM) patients treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are at higher risk for severe COVID-19. A previous single-center study showed worse outcomes in patients treated with obinutuzumab compared to rituximab. We examined this hypothesis in a large international multicenter cohort. METHODS: We included HM patients from 15 centers, from five countries treated with anti-CD20, comparing those treated with obinutuzumab (O-G) to rituximab (R-G) between December 2021 and June 2022, when Omicron lineage was dominant. RESULTS: We collected data on 1048 patients. Within the R-G (n = 762, 73%), 191 (25%) contracted COVID-19 compared to 103 (36%) in the O-G. COVID-19 patients in the O-G were younger (61 ± 11.7 vs. 64 ± 14.5, p = 0.039), had more indolent HM diagnosis (aggressive lymphoma: 3.9% vs. 67.0%, p < 0.001), and most were on maintenance therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (63.0% vs. 16.8%, p < 0.001). Severe-critical COVID-19 occurred in 31.1% of patients in the O-G and 22.5% in the R-G. In multivariable analysis, O-G had a 2.08-fold increased risk for severe-critical COVID-19 compared to R-G (95% CI 1.13-3.84), adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index, sex, and tixagevimab/cilgavimab (T-C) prophylaxis. Further analysis comparing O-G to R-G demonstrated increased hospitalizations (51.5% vs. 35.6% p = 0.008), ICU admissions (12.6% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.042), but the nonsignificant difference in COVID-19-related mortality (n = 10, 9.7% vs. n = 12, 6.3%, p = 0.293). CONCLUSIONS: Despite younger age and a more indolent HM diagnosis, patients receiving obinutuzumab had more severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving rituximab. Our findings underscore the need to evaluate the risk-benefit balance when considering obinutuzumab therapy for HM patients during respiratory viral outbreaks.

Comparing the Real-World Use of Isavuconazole to Other Anti-Fungal Therapy for Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients with and without Underlying Disparities: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study.

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among immunocompromised patients with underlying malignancies and prior transplants. FDA approved Isavuconazole as a primary therapy for Invasive Aspergillosis (IA) and Mucormycosis. This study aims to compare the real-world clinical outcomes and safety of isavuconazole to voriconazole and an amphotericin B-based regimen in patients with underlying malignancies and a transplant. In addition, the response to anti-fungal therapy and the outcome were compared among patients with a disparity (elderly, obese patients, patients with renal insufficiency and diabetes mellitus) versus those with no disparity. We performed a multicenter retrospective study, including patients with cancer diagnosed with an invasive fungal infection, and treated primarily with isavuconazole, voriconazole or amphotericin B. Clinical, radiologic findings, response to therapy and therapy related adverse events were evaluated during 12 weeks of follow-up. We included 112 patients aged 14 to 77 years, and most of the IFIs were classified into definite (29) or probable (51). Most cases were invasive aspergillosis (79%), followed by fusariosis (8%). Amphotericin B were used more frequently as primary therapy (38%) than isavuconazole (30%) or voriconazole (31%). Twenty one percent of the patients presented adverse events related to primary therapy, with patients receiving isavuconazole presenting less adverse events when compared to voriconazole and amphotericin (p < 0.001; p = 0.019). Favorable response to primary therapy during 12 weeks of follow-up were similar when comparing amphotericin B, isavuconazole or voriconazole use. By univariate analysis, the overall cause of mortality at 12 weeks was higher in patients receiving amphotericin B as primary therapy. However, by multivariate analysis, Fusarium infection, invasive pulmonary infection or sinus infection were the only independent risk factors associated with mortality. In the treatment of IFI for patients with underlying malignancy or a transplant, Isavuconazole was associated with the best safety profile compared to voriconazole or amphotericin B-based regimen. Regardless of the type of anti-fungal therapy used, invasive Fusarium infections and invasive pulmonary or sinus infections were the only risk factors associated with poor outcomes. Disparity criteria did not affect the response to anti-fungal therapy and overall outcome, including mortality.