1 / 40

Juliet N. Barker, MBBS (Hons), FRACP Associate Attending Director Cord Blood Transplant Program

Optimising Cord Blood Unit Selection. -7. -6. -5. -4. -3. -2. -1. 0. 30. 100. CSA/ MMF. Juliet N. Barker, MBBS (Hons), FRACP Associate Attending Director Cord Blood Transplant Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Acknowledgements. MSKCC Staff of Adult and Pediatric

dinesh
Download Presentation

Juliet N. Barker, MBBS (Hons), FRACP Associate Attending Director Cord Blood Transplant Program

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. Optimising Cord Blood Unit Selection -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 30 100 CSA/ MMF Juliet N. Barker, MBBS (Hons), FRACP Associate Attending Director Cord Blood Transplant Program Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

  2. Acknowledgements MSKCC Staff of Adult and Pediatric Transplant Search: Courtney Byam, Rosanna Ferrante Debbie Wells, Kathleen Doshi, Sinda Lee Cytotherapy Lab: esp Allison Schaible CB Research Staff: Marissa Lubin Anne Marie Gonzales , Katie Evans Cellular Immunology Lab: Kathy Smith Malcolm Moore Machi Scaradavou Nancy Kernan & Richard O’Reilly Doris Ponce Marcel van den Brink & Sergio Giralt • U of Minnesota • John E. Wagner • NYBC • Pablo Rubinstein • Cladd Stevens • Machi Scaradavou

  3. What have we achieved?

  4. One Strategy to Improve Outcome By Augmenting Cell Dose: Use 2. Retrospective studies suggest improved engraftment & GVL. Barker et al, NEJM 2001, Blood 2003, Blood 2005

  5. MSKCC Donor Algorithm Sibling typing → simultaneous URD & CB search Suitable Sibling (match/ donor health) Suitable URD (match/ availability): Suitable CB Graft (match/ dose): 4-6/6 A,B antigen, DRB1 allele 2 units: each > 2 x 107 NC/kg Hi Dose + TCD 9-10/10 donor Midi/ Mini + 10/10 donor Hi Dose PrepMidi or Mini (Unmodified) Children (Young adults) Donors identified for > 95% patients.

  6. CBT Preps & Immune Suppression High: Cy 120/ Flu 75/ TBI 1375 (or Clo/ Mel/ Thio if no TBI) Midi: Cy 50/ Flu 150/ Thio 10/ TBI 400 (or Mel 140/ Flu 150) Mini: Cy 50/ Flu 150/ TBI 200 CB #2 CB #1 -7 0 +100 High (< 50): Acute leuk/ MDS/ hi grade NHL Midi (< 70): AML/ ALL/ MDS/ CML/ NHL/ CLL (or Mel/ Flu for Hodgkins not in CR) Mini (< 70): Hodgkins in CR/ Indolent NHLs/ CLL GVHD prophy: CSA/ MMF 3 intensities, mainly Cy-Flu-TBI based, no ATG, no steroids.

  7. Neutrophil Engraftment after DCBT (n = 108) Median 41 yrs (range 6-69), high risk heme malignancies 1.0 NMA*: 96% @ 10 days 0.8 Ablative: 94% @ 25 days 0.6 Cumulative Incidence 0.4 0.2 0.0 30 0 10 20 40 Days Post-Transplant * Early auto recovery – switched to sustained donor engraftment High rates of sustained donor engraftment. Dahi, P., ASBMT 2012

  8. MSK Allo Tx for Heme Malignancies 2005-2009: 2 Year PFS After Double-Unit CB vs RD vs URD Transplant 1.0 0.8 0.6 Progression-Free Survival 0.4 0.2 P = 0.573 0.0 0 12 24 36 48 60 Months Post-Transplant CB (n = 75) RD (n = 108) URD (n = 184) Up-front TRM compensated by reduced late mortality 2 Yr PFS after CBT: comparable to RD or URD transplant. Ponce, BBMT 2011

  9. Comparison of Donor-Recipient HLA-Match: CB (n = 75, 150 units) vs URD (n = 184) P < 0.001 Ponce, BBMT 2011 CB grafts: marked HLA-disparity. CD34+ cell dose also much lower: RD 7.9, URD 6.0, CB 0.09 ( p < 0.001).

  10. DCBT if Acute Leukemia & MDS/MPD: 2-yr DFS Children* (n = 23, median 9 yrs, range 0.9-15): 78% Low incidence of relapse (9% children, 6% adults) translates to relatively high survival rates. Adults** (n = 52, median 41 yrs, range 16-69): 64% Disease-Free Survival Inf. TNC: * 3.3 + 2.6 ** 2.7 + 1.9 Time Post-Transplant (Months) Barker et al, ASH 2011

  11. DCBT if Acute Leukemia & MDS/MPD: 2-yr DFS Children 0-15 yrs (n = 23): 78% (Europeans 86%, Non-Europeans 75%) No difference between European & non-European patients. In multivariate analysis only CMV serostatus was significant. Adults 16-69 yrs (n = 52): 64% (Europeans 62%, Non-Europeans 66% ) Disease-Free Survival Time Post-Transplant (Months) Barker et al, ASH 2011

  12. Why are these results important?

  13. Best Matched URD & Best CB if Combined Search by Patient Ancestry (n = 525) Volunteer unrelated donors: poor HSC source for non-Europeans. Barker et al 2010, BBMT

  14. CB Extends Transplant Access to “Minorities”: URD vs CB vs No Graft by Ancestry (n = 385) Barker et al 2010, BBMT

  15. Updated Data, MSKCC 2012 (n = 597) URD (n=426) CB (n=137) No Graft (n=34) 25% 53% 76% Greater than 50% of CBTs had non-European ancestry

  16. Variables that Determine Outcome Transplant Related Factors CB:Dose, match, quality • Conditioning: • High, Midi , Mini -7 0 +28 +100 +180 +1 year • Immunosuppression: rejection/ GVHD • Supportive care: infection, bleeding, • nutrition • Patient Related Factors • Biology ofMalignancy: determines need for hi dose prep vs reliance on GVL • Patient Characteristics: age, extent of prior Rx, co-morbidities.

  17. How to Select Units?

  18. TRM by Combined TNC Dose & A,B Antigen, DRB1 Allele-Match 1061 NYBC Single Unit Myeloablative CBT 1993-2006 100 80 Very high TRM if mismatch & low TNC 4/6 & TNC <2.5 5/6 & TNC <2.5 60 4/6 & TNC 2.5-4.9 CI of Transplant-Related Mortality 5/6 & TNC 2.5-4.9 40 4/6 & TNC ≥5.0 5/6 & TNC ≥5.0 20 6/6 & all doses (mean TNC 4.4) Lowest TRM: 6/6 match 0 1 2 3 Lowest TRM: best HLA-match, not highest dose. Years Post-Transplant Barker et al, Blood 2010

  19. Implications for Unit Selection (applies to single unit CBT, may also apply to double) • Biggest cell dose not necessarily the best. • 6/6 units highly attractive (?cell dose threshold). • Sliding scale: more mismatch, greater required • cell dose. Converse also true: match can compensate • for low dose. • Implies: • Above a cell dose threshold best matched unit the best. • New measures needed if best unit is mismatched. Barker, Blood 2010

  20. Additional factors to consider in unit selection - revealed in investigation of double unit biology

  21. Engraftment in 44 Double Unit CBTs Engrafting with a Single Unit. Using CD34+ viability threshold of 75% (mean-2SD), all but one (43/44) engrafting units had CD34+ viability >75% (p=0.0006) OR Only 1/16 poor viability units engrafted. Poor CD34+ viability correlated with lower CFUs (p=0.02). Scaradavou, BBMT 2010

  22. Unit Quality: Schema of CD34+s of 2 CB Units Total CD34+ Cells in 2 Units BAD UNIT GOOD GOOD UNIT 50% viable 90% viable Unit #1 Unit #2 Units similar infused viable CD34+ doses-but very different. In part, double unit CBT effective as increases chance of transplanting at least one good quality unit. Scaradavou, BBMT 2010

  23. Implications • Unit quality varies from unit to unit, & bank to bank. • Not all banks are the same. • Factors that dictate unit quality need to be determined • eg collection standards, processing methodology, red • cell content, cryo volume, age. • Methods to test unit quality prior to thaw should • be priority eg testing the segment.

  24. Do the principles of single unit CBT also apply to double unit CBT?

  25. Sustained Neutrophil Engraftment After Myeloablative DCBT by CD34+ Cell Dose of Engrafting Unit (n = 61) 1.0-2.0 (n=13): 100% @ 20 days >2.0 (n=10): 100% @ 16.5 days <1.0 (n=38): 89% @ 27.5 days P < 0.001 High rate sustained engraftment directly dependent on infused CD34+ of winner; if low can be very slow. Avery, Blood 2011

  26. Total Graft Cell Dose & DCB Engraftment (n = 61) 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 p = 0.02 p = 0.001 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 >4.3 x107/kg: 100% >1.8 x105/kg: 97% 0.8 0.8 <4.3 x107/kg: 87% <1.8 x105/kg: 90% 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 TNC CD34+ 0.2 0.2 p = 0.10 p = 0.0007 Sustained Neutrophil Engraftment 0.0 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 >6.2 x104/kg: 97% >7.8 x106/kg: 97% <6.2 x104/kg: 90% <7.8 x106/kg: 90% CD3+ CFU 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time Post Transplant (Days) Total TNC & CD3+ dose of graft also have an effect. Avery, Blood 2011

  27. Grade III-IV aGVHD by Engrafting Unit-Recipient 10 Allele HLA-Match (n = 115) 100 Recipient-Unit Match HR P 2-7/10 (n = 88) Reference 8-9/10 (n = 27) 0.37 0.105 80 60 C.I. Grade III-IV aGVHD 40 2-7/10 HLA Match 20 8-9/10 HLA Match 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Months Post-Transplant P = 0.07 on multivariate: HLA-match likely critically important Ponce, D., ASBMT 2012

  28. Evaluate search for units 4-6/6 & > 2.0 x 107/kg. Review info & bank for each unit. Obtain missing info, CT units of interest. Prepare CB Search Summary Report. Review CTs, update Search Summary Rank units by A,-B antigen, -DRB1 allele match* Hi to low TNC within each match grade (correct for RBC). 1st 2nd 3rd 6/6 units: Choose largest. 5/6 units: Choose largest. 4/6 units: Choose largest. Make final selection of unit(s) (1a & 1b if double). Prepare domestic back-up unit(s). Plan shipment(s) * Ignore unit-unit match in double unit CBT

  29. Require att. segment for identity testing & complete IDMs. Select on bank, dose, match, other (RBC content).

  30. What about higher resolution match?

  31. COBLT Single CBT: OS in Pediatric Malignancies A, B, DRB1 allele match: < 5/6 allele match associated with higher severe aGVHD. Trend toward improved OS with better match. Kurtzberg, J. et al, Blood 2008

  32. Effect of C: A,B,C Antigen, DRB1 Allele N = 803, median 10 yrs (<1 – 62), leukemia/ MDS • Inferior neut engraftment with hi degree MM (< 5/8). • Worse GVHD if < 5/8 including HLA-A MM. • Relapse lower if any MM vs match (but no advantage to • multiple mismatches. • TRM significantly worse if < 6/8 (trend for 7/8). • 3 year TRM: 8/8 9%; 7/8 (non-C) 19%; 7/8 (C) 26%; • 6/8 (C + other) 31%. • Significance lost in overall mortality except for 6/8 (C + • other). Contributed to by rel. high TNC of group? C is important-but how to trade off against cell dose? What is new lower limit of acceptable match? Eapen, M. et al, Lancet, 2011

  33. New…… & Easy to Implement

  34. Incorporating Vector of HLA-Match: 1202 Single Unit CBT, NYBC CI of Neutrophil Engraftment Significant advantage to both 0 & GVHD vector only mismatches Stevens C E et al. Blood 2011

  35. HLA-Match Vector: 1202 Single Unit CBT CI of 3 Year TRM In heme maligs: GVH only mismatch equal to 0 mismatch. Stevens C E et al. Blood 2011;118:3969

  36. New……… But More Difficult to Implement

  37. NIMA-Match: 1121 Single Unit CBT, NYBC 3 Year TRM in Patients > 10 Years Old If 1 MM, advantage if this is a NIMA match (predom. due to better neutrophil engraftment). van Rood J et al. PNAS 2009

  38. Relapse by Shared IPA: 845 Singles (AML/ALL) 1.0 1-3 HLA MM, No Shared IPA Reference 1-3 HLA MM, Shared IPA 0.4 <0.001 0 HLA MM 0.3 0.012 0.8 0.6 Cox Regression: Multivariate No Shared IPA (n=49) C.I. of Relapse 0.4 0 HLA Mismatch (n=45) 0.2 Shared IPA (n=751) 0.0 0 1 2 3 Years Post-Transplant Patient shares IPA = reduced relapse. ??Indirect evidence that maternal T-cells mediate GVL?

  39. Implications for Unit Selection • CB banks should report maternal HLA type. • Should: • Select for NIMA match – expands no. of “well matched” units. • Avoid “No Shared IPA” grafts in leukemics.

  40. MSKCC Strategy for Unit Selection 1) TNC/ HLA-match: Above 2.0 x 107/kg prioritize match Within match grade choose largest. Consider vector & C. 2) Also consider bank of origin (speed, reliability, quality). 3) For malignancy use 2:Increase chance of transplanting at least one unit of good quality PLUS unit vs unit effects may augment engraftment & reduce relapse. 4) For doubles same rules apply to selecting units 1 & 2. Ignore unit-unit HLA-match. 5) Consider hi res match if possible-esp in children. 6) Unresolved issues: selecting based on CD34+ dose, red cell content, testing of segment, high res match vs dose, incorporation of NIMA & IPA. Barker, Blood 2011 -How I Treat

More Related