Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody impairs CD34+ mobilization and affects clonogenic potential in multiple myeloma patients.

BACKGROUND: Induction with daratumumab-based regimens followed by autologous stem cell transplantation is the current standard for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients eligible for intensive chemotherapy. However, concerns emerged regarding potential negative effects following daratumumab-based treatment on CD34+ mobilization. We here compared CD34+ mobilization and clonogenic potential between daratumumab and non-daratumumab based therapy without upfront plerixafor administration among patients affected by NDMM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical, mobilization and clonogenic data from 41 consecutively enrolled NDMM patients were analyzed. Patients underwent collection of autologous CD34+ by apheresis at the ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy, from January 2021 to March 2023. Clonogenicity analysis was performed on BFU-E and CFU-GM. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of daratumumab-treated patients underwent >1 apheresis, compared to 24% of non-daratumumab patients (p=0.0017). Daratumumab-treated patients had significantly lower CD34+ count (mean 38 vs 79/µL, respectively; p=0.0011), with a median CD34+ harvest of 3.98×106/kg (range 1.68-9.18) vs 6.87×106/kg (range 1.63-16.85) in non-daratumumab-treated (p=0.0006). In multivariate analysis the likelihood of undergoing >1 apheresis was significantly higher in older patients (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1-1.4, Z=2.10, p=0.03) and daratumumab-treated patients (OR 15, 95% CI 2.8-129, p=0.004). Moreover, daratumumab-based induction therapy demonstrated an independent negative association with BFU-E colony formation (p=0.0148), even when accounting for patient age and CD34+ levels. DISCUSSION: Our findings underscore the impact of daratumumab-based treatment on CD34+ mobilization in a real-life, upfront plerixafor-free population of NDMM patients. Higher probability of requiring multiple apheresis occurred among daratumumab-treated patients. Interestingly, the observation that daratumumab might negatively impact BFU-E colony formation, independent of CD34+ cell count, offers novel biological perspectives. Appropriate strategies should be adopted by the Apheresis teams to mitigate these potential negative effects.

SARS-COV-2 screening in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell donors: Implications for the evaluation process and eligibility

Abstract Introduction Soon after the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, viral screening by nasopharyngeal swab became mandatory for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) donor eligibility. Methods We described our monocenter experience with allogeneic HSC donors from February 1 to the October 31, 2020 to verify whether the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 screening altered the donor eligibility and/or entailed a prolongation of the evaluation process. Results A total of 21 allogeneic HSC donors were screened during the above-mentioned period upon request by the local transplant physicians or by the Italian Bone Marrow Donor Registry; among the HSC donors (n = 17) who completed the eligibility process and further received the nasopharyngeal swab, all but one were negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. The positive donor remained asymptomatic for the whole duration of the infection, which lasted six weeks. However, he was temporarily excluded from donation. The median duration of the evaluation process was not significantly different, compared to the same period of 2019 (p-value = 0.11). Conclusion The mandatory SARS-CoV-2 screening in allogeneic HSC donors allowed for the detection of 6% positivity in this monocenter series over a 9-month period. Despite the inconvenience of this unexpected non-eligibility, the exclusion of a SARS-CoV-2 positive donor represented an important safety measure for the donor, with respect to a new and still partially unknown virus. The screening did not alter the length of the donor evaluation and thus, did not cause a delay in the eligibility process.

SARS-COV-2 screening in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell donors: Implications for the evaluation process and eligibility.

INTRODUCTION: Soon after the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, viral screening by nasopharyngeal swab became mandatory for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) donor eligibility. METHODS: We described our monocenter experience with allogeneic HSC donors from February 1 to the October 31, 2020 to verify whether the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 screening altered the donor eligibility and/or entailed a prolongation of the evaluation process. RESULTS: A total of 21 allogeneic HSC donors were screened during the above-mentioned period upon request by the local transplant physicians or by the Italian Bone Marrow Donor Registry; among the HSC donors (n = 17) who completed the eligibility process and further received the nasopharyngeal swab, all but one were negative for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. The positive donor remained asymptomatic for the whole duration of the infection, which lasted six weeks. However, he was temporarily excluded from donation. The median duration of the evaluation process was not significantly different, compared to the same period of 2019 (p-value = 0.11). CONCLUSION: The mandatory SARS-CoV-2 screening in allogeneic HSC donors allowed for the detection of 6% positivity in this monocenter series over a 9-month period. Despite the inconvenience of this unexpected non-eligibility, the exclusion of a SARS-CoV-2 positive donor represented an important safety measure for the donor, with respect to a new and still partially unknown virus. The screening did not alter the length of the donor evaluation and thus, did not cause a delay in the eligibility process.

Correlation analysis between virtual and Complement-Dependent-Cytotoxicity crossmatch in a monocenter retrospective series of 118 allografted patients.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The detection of patients' anti-HLA antibodies before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) may affect post-transplant outcome, due to a potential detrimental impact on engraftment or toxicity-related issues. Crossmatch (XM) techniques provide support to physicians during the pre-transplant phase but the role of Complement-Dependent Cytotoxicity XM (CDC-XM) is not well-defined when performed routinely and in parallel with the virtual XM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report here our experience with both virtual and CDC-XM tests on n = 118 patients undergoing search for a donor other than HLA-identical sibling from July 2013 to June 2018 at our Institution. When anti-HLA antibodies (Abs) were present, they were classified as donor-specific Abs (DSA) or non-DSA. RESULTS: On the n = 118 patients, n = 35 (29.7 %) had a positive virtual XM test (of which one of more DSA were found in n = 8; 6.8 %) and n = 5 had a positive CDC-XM test. These latter, positive for HLA class II only, were interpreted as false-positive results due to prior administration of anti-CD20 to the patients, all affected by lymphoma; none of them had a positive virtual XM for anti-HLA Abs of class II. Importantly, all these patients successfully engrafted, further supporting the lack of significant impact of CDC-XM positive results in this series. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data on more than a hundred patients, routinely performed CDC-XM does not seem to add significant information with respect to virtual XM. We cannot exclude the usefulness of CDC-XM in specific situations, although a positive CDC-XM result was an unfrequent event.

The number of HLA confirmatory tests during unrelated donor search as a driver for the evaluation of back-up haploidentical donor(s).

INTRODUCTION: the identification of a suitable donor in an appropriate timing represents a crucial step in the preparation of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). At our Institution, for patients lacking an HLA-identical sibling, a haploidentical donor is considered in the absence of a 10/10-matched or a one-locus HLA-mismatched unrelated donor (UD), but the optimal timing of work-up of potential familiar haploidentical donor(s) by the Apheresis Team is actually unknown. PATIENTS & METHODS: we analyzed here n = 167 UD searches launched at our Hospital between July 2013 and July 2018 and looked for any correlation between the number of HLA confirmatory tests received and the final type of donor selected for HSCT, in an attempt to identify those situations where prompt evaluation of haploidentical donor(s) is warranted. RESULTS: a total of n = 117 transplants were performed and haploidentical HSCTs were n = 16 (14 %). In n = 93 cases (56 %) the number of HLA confirmatory tests received were two; they were one, zero and three for n = 52, n = 14 and n = 8 patients, respectively. Only 5 % of haploidentical donors were used when two confirmation test samples were received whereas this percentage rises to 17 % when only one sample reached the HLA lab. When no confirmation tests were available, haploidentical transplant occurred in 100 % of cases. CONCLUSIONS: besides the situations with no HLA confirmation tests, the evaluation of any haploidentical donor(s) should be promptly started also when only one HLA confirmatory test is received, in order to optimise the potential work-up process and avoid delay in transplantation.

Flow cytometry and cytomorphology evaluation of hematologic malignancy in cerebrospinal fluids: comparison with retrospective clinical outcome.

An independent clinical assessment was compared with flow cytometry (FCM) and cytomorphology results obtained on 227 cerebrospinal fluids investigated for hematologic malignancy, in a retrospective longitudinal study with a median observation time of 11 months. A combined method assessment (CMA), defining "positive" a sample if at least one method gave "positive" results, was also tested. Eleven out of 55 screening samples and 53 out of 166 follow-up samples resulted positive at clinical evaluation. FCM and CM were concordant with positive clinical assessment in 68.5% and 51.5% of cases, respectively. According to CMA, 10.5% of samples (resulting false negative by either FCM or cytomorphology) were rescued as true positive. FCM retained significantly higher accuracy than cytomorphology (p=0.0065) and 100% sensitivity when at least 220 leukocytes were acquired. CMA accuracy was higher than FCM accuracy and significantly higher than cytomorphology accuracy in the analysis of all samples (p<0.0001), samples from mature B/T cell neoplasms (p=0.0021), and samples drawn after intrathecal treatment (p=0.0001). When acquiring ≤220 leukocytes, FCM accuracy was poor, and combining cytomorphology added statistically significant diagnostic advantage (p=0.0043). Although FCM is the best diagnostic tool for evaluating CSF, morphology seems helpful especially when clinically positive follow-up samples are nearly acellular.

Flow cytometry vs cytomorphology for the detection of hematologic malignancy in body cavity fluids.

Flow cytometry and cytomorphology results on 92 body cavity fluids [61 effusions and 31 bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALF)] from hematologic malignancy were compared with retrospective clinical outcome. We observed double true positive/negative results in 67 cases (73%), and double false negative results in 2 cases (2%). Immunophenotyping accounted for true positive/negative results in 22 out of 23 mismatched cases (25%), and retained significantly higher accuracy than that of cytomorphology especially in effusions and differentiated lymphoma. In BALF analysis, immunophenotyping and cytomorphology sensitivity was 75% and 0%, respectively. Flow cytometry retains the highest accuracy in detecting neoplastic cells in body cavity fluids.