Results of a Prospective Randomized, Open-Label, Noninferiority Study of Tbo-Filgrastim (Granix) versus Filgrastim (Neupogen) in Combination with Plerixafor for Autologous Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients with Multiple Myeloma and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) improves survival in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Traditionally, filgrastim (Neupogen; recombinant G-CSF) has been used in as a single agent or in combination with plerixafor for stem cell mobilization for auto-HSCT. In Europe, a biosimilar recombinant G-CSF (Tevagrastim) has been approved for various indications similar to those of reference filgrastim, including stem cell mobilization for auto-HSCT; however, in the United States, tbo-filgrastim (Granix) is registered under the original biological application and is not approved for stem cell mobilization. In retrospective studies, stem cell mobilization with tbo-filgrastim has shown similar efficacy and toxicity as filgrastim, but no prospective studies have been published to date. We have conducted the first prospective randomized trial comparing the safety and efficacy of tbo-filgrastim in combination with plerixafor with that of filgrastim in combination with plerixafor for stem cell mobilization in patients with MM and NHL. This is a phase 2 prospective randomized (1:1) open-label single-institution noninferiority study of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim with plerixafor in patients with MM or NHL undergoing auto-HSCT. Here 10 µg/kg/day of tbo-filgrastim/filgrastim was administered s.c. for 5 days (days 1 to 5). On day 4 at approximately 1800 hours, 0.24 mg/kg of plerixafor was administered s.c. Apheresis was performed on day 5 with a target cumulative collection goal of at least 5.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg. The primary objective was to compare day 5 CD34+ cells/kg collected. Secondary objectives included other mobilization endpoints, safety, engraftment outcomes, and hospital readmission rate. A total of 97 evaluable patients were enrolled (tbo-filgrastim, n = 46; filgrastim, n = 51). Tbo-filgrastim was not inferior to filgrastim in terms of day 5 CD34+ cell collection (mean, 11.6 ± 6.7 CD34+ cells/kg versus 10.0 ± 6.8 CD34+ cells/kg. Multivariate analysis revealed a trend toward increased mobilization in the tbo-filgrastim arm, but this was not statistically significant. The tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim arms were similar in all secondary endpoints. Tbo-filgrastim is not inferior in efficacy and has similar safety compared to reference filgrastim when used for stem cell mobilization in patients with MM and NHL. Granix can be safely used instead of Neupogen for stem cell collection in patients undergoing auto-HSCT for MM or NHL. The study is registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02098109.

Protective effect of cytomegalovirus reactivation on relapse after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia patients is influenced by conditioning regimen.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) has been associated with a reduced risk of relapse in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, the influence of the conditioning regimen on this protective effect of CMV reactivation after allo-HCT is relatively unexplored. To address this, we evaluated the risk of relapse in 264 AML patients who received T cell-replete, 6/6 HLA matched sibling or 10/10 HLA matched unrelated donor transplantation at a single institution between 2006 and 2011. Of these 264 patients, 206 received myeloablative (MA) and 58 received reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens. CMV reactivation was observed in 88 patients with MA conditioning and 37 patients with RIC. At a median follow-up of 299 days, CMV reactivation was associated with significantly lower risk of relapse in patients who received MA conditioning both in univariate (P = .01) and multivariate analyses (hazard ratio, .5246; P = .006); however, CMV reactivation did not significantly affect the risk of relapse in our RIC cohort. These results confirm the protective effect of CMV reactivation on relapse in AML patients after allo-HCT reported by previous studies but suggest this protective effect of CMV reactivation on relapse is influenced by the conditioning regimen used with the transplant.

Management of imatinib-resistant patients with chronic myeloid leukemia.

Since its approval in 2001 for frontline management of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), imatinib has proven to be very effective in achieving high remission rates and improving prognosis. However, up to 33% of patients will not achieve optimal response. This has led researchers to develop new second- and third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In this article, we review the mechanisms of resistance, recommendations for monitoring, assessment of milestones, and management options for patients with CML who are resistant to imatinib therapy. We further explain the potential pitfalls that can lead to unnecessary discontinuation, the prognosis of patients whose condition fails to respond to treatment, and the upcoming therapies.

An Atypical Presentation with Diagnostic Challenge of a Large Cell Neuroendocrine Cancer of Lung: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Large-cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (LCNECs) are relatively rare and aggressive neoplasms of the lung with very poor prognosis. Even though they are included in the classification of nonsmall cell carcinomas, they have a biological behaviour and physiological response to treatment more like small cell carcinomas of lung. We report an atypical case presentation of LCNEC in a 51-year-old gentleman who presented with diffuse metastases to the thoracic and lumbar spine, brain, and liver, posing a diagnostic challenge. The primary small central lung tumor was in close proximity to major vessels, rendering a biopsy of the primary cancer challenging and nearly impossible. The final diagnosis was established through immunohistochemistry staining and examination of liver biopsy from a metastatic lesion. We also included a review of the current literature pertinent to LCNEC, as well as the important role of tumor markers plus immunohistochemistry profiles in determining the origin of unknown primary tumors in such difficult patient presentations.