1 / 33

Controversies in Transplant for Lymphoma

Controversies in Transplant for Lymphoma. Andy Chen, MD PhD Center for Hematologic Malignancies Oregon Health & Science University chenan@ohsu.edu September 2013. Disclosures. Clinical trials - Genentech, Otsuka, Seattle Genetics Advisory boards - Genentech, Seattle Genetics.

john-fletcher
Download Presentation

Controversies in Transplant for Lymphoma

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Controversies in Transplant for Lymphoma Andy Chen, MD PhD Center for Hematologic Malignancies Oregon Health & Science University chenan@ohsu.edu September 2013

  2. Disclosures • Clinical trials - Genentech, Otsuka, Seattle Genetics • Advisory boards - Genentech, Seattle Genetics

  3. NMDP Guidelines for Hodgkins AutoSCT indicated for: • No initial CR • First or subsequent relapse NCCN guidelines: AutoSCT for relapsed/refractory Hodgkins not amenable to radiation therapy

  4. Hodgkins: AutoSCT vs conventional chemo • GHSG randomized trial • 3 yr FFTF 55 vs 34% • No difference in OS • Similar results in BNLI study Schmitz, Lancet, 2002

  5. Hodgkins: pre-SCT disease status PFS French series N=111 MSKCC series N=153 Moskowitz, Blood, 2010 Devillier, Haematologica, 2012

  6. Hodgkins: PET negativity & AutoSCT MSKCC study - GVD salvage if PET+ after ICE Should PET negativity be the goal before AutoSCT? Moskowitz, Blood, 2012

  7. Hodgkins: Brentuximab & autoSCT Brentuximab (SGN-35): antibody drug conjugate against CD30 • Approved for relapse after auto or failure of 2 chemo regimens • Response rate >70% including >30% CR - Use as 2ndsalvage to achieve PETneg before SCT? - Use as 1st salvage – with or without chemo? - Maintenance after autoSCT?

  8. ASBMT Key Guidelines for DLBCL • AutoSCT recommended for chemosensitive relapse • AutoSCT not recommended as first line therapy • Age is not contraindication for autoSCT • Auto vs Allo SCT: competing risks & selection bias NCCN guidelines similar Oliansky, BBMT, 2011

  9. DLBCL: Conventional Tx vs BMT EFS OS ‘PARMA’ study: N 215, median f/u 5 yrs - randomized chemosensitive patients Prior to Rituximab era Philip, NEJM, 1995

  10. CORAL • DHAP vs ICE • maintenance Rituximab • modern efficacy of salvage+Auto Gisselbrecht, JCO, 2010

  11. DLBCL: R-DHAP vs R-ICE (CORAL) No difference overall between R-ICE and R-DHAP Gisselbrecht, JCO, 2010

  12. DLBCL subtype: DHAP vs ICE cell of origin by Hans IHC R-DHAP R-ICE PFS PFS R-DHAP may be superior for germinal center type DLBCL Thieblemont, JCO, 2011

  13. DLBCL: Relapse ≤ 1 yr 60% of early relapse do not respond to 1st salvage - If respond & proceed to autoSCT, then 3 yr EFS = 39% Gisselbrecht, JCO, 2010

  14. Myc+ and AutoSCT From start of salvage • CORAL sub-analysis: • - N = 28 (16% original study) • - Myc single vs double hit same • - R-DHAP & R-ICE same • - GCB vs ABC same if Myc+ Cuccuini, Blood, 2012

  15. AutoSCT and Radioimmunotherapy • RIT: antibody conjugated to radiation • Beta emitter: Yttrium-90 Ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin) • Gamma emitter: Iodine-131 Tositumomab (Bexxar) • Does RIT improve efficacy of high dose conditioning regimen? • BMT CTN 0401: R-BEAM vs BEXXAR-BEAM

  16. DLBCL: BEXXAR-BEAM (CTN 0401) No difference in PFS or OS Significant increase in mucositis with BEXXAR Vose, JCO, 2013

  17. AutoSCT in 1st Response for DLBCL • Multiple (>10) randomized studies in pre-Rituximab era • Two meta-analyses: No benefit in EFS or OS • Controversial whether benefit in high risk IPI • Not recommended in ASBMT policy guidelines • What is role of AutoSCT in PR/CR1 after R-CHOP for DLBCL?

  18. DLBCL: Consolidative AutoSCT Stiff, ASCO, 2011 Vitolo, ICML, 2011

  19. ASBMT Guidelines for Follicular lymphoma • AutoSCT improves PFS and OS as salvage therapy based on pre-Rituximab data • AutoSCT recommended for transformed Follicular based on expert opinion and accepted practice • Not recommend as first line therapy/consolidation • Auto vs Allo: competing risks & selection bias • Reduced intensity conditioning acceptable for Allo Oliansky, BBMT, 2010

  20. Follicular: AutoSCT vs conventional chemo OS PFS ‘CUP’ trial – improves PFS & OS - no benefit from purging - prior to Rituximab era Schmitz, Lancet, 2002

  21. Follicular: AutoSCT vs conventional chemo EFS OS p=0.05 p=0.05 Impact of AutoSCT at 1st relapse on Pts in FL2000 study Frontline R-CHVP, N=70 Caveat: AutoSCT not randomized Le Gouill, Haematologica, 2011

  22. Follicular: Timing of AutoSCT Nebraska series DFCI/St Bart series Vose, BBMT, 2008 Rohatiner, JCO, 2007

  23. Follicular: Maintenance Rituximab post-SCT EBMT randomized study: relapsed chemosensitive FL Caveat: No prior rituximab Pettengell, JCO, 2013

  24. Follicular Auto vs Allo Adjusted OS CIBMTR series Similar results in EBMT series van Besien, Blood, 2003

  25. Follicular Allo: Ablative vs Reduced intensity PFS OS CIBMTR series: HLA matched siblings Hari, BBMT, 2008

  26. Transformed Follicular: R-chemo vs Auto vs Allo PFS OS Canadian retrospective series: N 172, median f/u 7 yrs Villa, JCO, 2013

  27. NMDP Guideline for Mantle Cell • Following initial therapy Not specify Auto vs Allo Not discuss relapse/refractory NCCN guidelines: • Auto in CR1 • Allo in CR2

  28. Mantle: Upfront AutoSCT PFS OS MCLnetwork randomized study - CHOP induction (No Rtx) Dreyling, Blood, 2005

  29. Mantle: Induction chemo pre-SCT PFS • MCLnet ‘Younger’ trial • improved MRD • trend for OS • updated 4 yr f/u • median PFS 88 vs 46 mos Hermine, ASH, 2010 & 2012

  30. Mantle: MRD status AutoSCT effect on MRD rate in DHAP arm: 73% -> 83% Similar impact of MRDneg in R-CHOP + Rtxmaint (no SCT) Pott, ASH, 2010 & Blood, 2010

  31. Mantle: Allogeneic SCT • European multicenter • - N 70, median f/u 24 mos • relapsed/refractory • 67% prior auto • reduced intensity Le Gouill, Ann Onc, 2012

  32. AlloSCTafter Auto failure in NHL • Prognostic factors: • early failure of auto • disease status • performance status • CIBMTR series • N 263 • median f/u 68 mos Freytes, BBMT, 2012

  33. Future directions: NHL & SCT • Identification of high risk patients • Alternative chemo and/or Allo • Novel therapies • Better disease control before SCT • Maintenance after SCT • Critical need in DLBCL, especially Myc+/double hit Next gen Antibodies & Antibody drug conjugates Signaling inhibitors (BTK, Syk, PI3K)

More Related