GVHD Prophylaxis 2020.

Graft-vs. host disease (GVHD), both acute and chronic are among the chief non-relapse complications of allogeneic transplantation which still cause substantial morbidity and mortality despite significant advances in supportive care over the last few decades. The prevention of GVHD therefore remains critical to the success of allogeneic transplantation. In this review we briefly discuss the pathophysiology and immunobiology of GVHD and the current standards in the field which remain centered around calcineurin inhibitors. We then discuss important translational advances in GVHD prophylaxis, approaching these various platforms from a mechanistic standpoint based on the pathophysiology of GVHD including in-vivo and ex-vivo T-cell depletion alongwith methods of selective T-cell depletion, modulation of T-cell co-stimulatory pathways (checkpoints), enhancing regulatory T-cells (Tregs), targeting T-cell trafficking as well as cytokine pathways. Finally we highlight exciting novel pre-clinical research that has the potential to translate to the clinic successfully. We approach these methods from a pathophysiology based perspective as well and touch upon strategies targeting the interaction between tissue damage induced antigens and T-cells, regimen related endothelial toxicity, T-cell co-stimulatory pathways and other T-cell modulatory approaches, T-cell trafficking, and cytokine pathways. We end this review with a critical discussion of existing data and novel therapies that may be transformative in the field in the near future as a comprehensive picture of GVHD prophylaxis in 2020. While calcineurin inhibitors remain the standard, post-transplant eparinsphamide originally developed to facilitate haploidentical transplantation is becoming an attractive alternative to traditional calcinuerin inhibitor based prophylaxis due to its ability to reduce severe forms of acute and chronic GVHD without compromising other outcomes, even in the HLA-matched setting. In addition T-cell modulation, particularly targeting some important T-cell co-stimulatory pathways have resulted in promising outcomes and may be a part of GVHD prophylaxis in the future. Novel approaches including targeting early events in GVHD pathogenesis such as interactions bvetween tissue damage associated antigens and T-cells, endothelial toxicity, and T-cell trafficking are also promising and discussed in this review. GVHD prophylaxis in 2020 continues to evolve with novel exicitng therapies on the horizon based on a more sophisticated understanding of the immunobiology of GVHD.

Does FLT3 mutation impact survival after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia? A Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with FMS like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3)-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have a poor prognosis and are referred for early allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). METHODS: Data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) were used to evaluate 511 adult patients with de novo AML who underwent HCT during 2008 through 2011 to determine whether FLT3 mutations had an impact on HCT outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 158 patients (31%) had FLT3 mutations. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed an increased risk of relapse at 3 years in the FLT3 mutated group compared with the wild-type (WT) group (38% [95% confidence interval (CI), 30%-45%] vs 28% [95% CI, 24%-33%]; P = .04; relative risk, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.15-2.22]; P = .0048). However, FLT3 mutation status was not significantly associated with nonrelapse mortality, leukemia-free survival, or overall survival. Although more patients in the FLT3 mutated group died from relapsed primary disease compared with those in the WT group (60% vs 46%), the 3-year overall survival rate was comparable for the 2 groups (mutated group: 49%; 95% CI, 40%-57%; WT group: 55%, 95% CI, 50%-60%; P = .20). CONCLUSIONS: The current data indicate that FLT3 mutation status did not adversely impact overall survival after HCT, and about 50% of patients with this mutation who underwent HCT were long-term survivors. Cancer 2016;122:3005-3014. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Time to treat: a system redesign focusing on decreasing the time from suspicion of lung cancer to diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple investigations often result in a lengthy process from the onset of lung cancer-related symptoms until diagnosis. An unpublished chart audit indicated suboptimal delays in patients' courses from onset of symptoms until diagnosis of cancer. METHODS: The Time to Treat Program was designed for patients with clinical or radiographic suspicion of lung cancer. Pre- and postimplementation data on median wait times were compared. RESULTS: From April 2005 to January 2007, 430 patients were referred. After Time to Treat Program implementation, the median time from suspicion of lung cancer to referral for specialist consultation decreased from 20 days to 6 days, and the median time from such referral to the actual consultation date decreased from 17 days to 4 days. The median time from specialist consultation to computed tomography scan decreased from 52 days to 3 days, and the median time from computed tomography scan to diagnosis decreased from 39 days to 6 days. Overall, the median time from suspicion of lung cancer to diagnosis decreased from 128 days to 20 days. Of all patients in the Time to Treat Program, 33% were eventually diagnosed with lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Time to Treat Program was effective in shortening the time from suspicion of lung cancer to diagnosis and reduced time intervals at each step in the process. Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer may allow increased treatment options for patients and may improve outcomes.