1 / 39

Allogeneic “Mini” Transplantation

Allogeneic “Mini” Transplantation. Mark B. Juckett M.D. June 4, 2004. Problems with BMT. Relapse CML chronic phase – 10% High risk AML/ALL – 50% Toxicity Non-relapse mortality of 10 – 40% Graft vs. Host disease (GVHD) of 40 – 60% Cost.

faunus
Download Presentation

Allogeneic “Mini” Transplantation

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. Allogeneic “Mini” Transplantation Mark B. Juckett M.D. June 4, 2004

  2. Problems with BMT • Relapse • CML chronic phase – 10% • High risk AML/ALL – 50% • Toxicity • Non-relapse mortality of 10 – 40% • Graft vs. Host disease (GVHD) of 40 – 60% • Cost

  3. 100-DAY MORTALITY AFTER HLA-IDENTICAL SIBLING TRANSPLANTS 1999-2000 100 CR1 CR2+ Other CP AP BP 80 60 MORTALITY, % 173 40 464 67 437 212 20 258 359 386 952 433 1,267 90 0 AML ALL CML MDS AplasticAnemia ImmuneDeficiency Numbers on bars = numbers of patients evaluable SUM02_39.ppt

  4. What is GVHD? • An cell mediated reaction of donor origin against recipient tissues • It requires: • a donor graft with immunologically competent cells • a recipient unable to mount immune response • recipient expresses tissue antigens that are not present in the donor.

  5. Recipient APC Recipient Donor T cells Donor Pathogenesis of GVHD Present self Ags to Donor React to Recipient Ags

  6. Why Does allogeneic BMT Work? • “Roundup” theory – eradicate all hematopoeitic tissue

  7. Why Does allogeneic BMT Work? • Rescue patient with healthy stem cells • Graft vs. Host reactions a nuisance

  8. Past Approaches used to Improve Outcome • Intensify regimen (More Roundup) • Better matching (twin donor best?) • Improve immune suppression • i.e. “GVHD prophylaxis” • Remove immune cells capable of GVHD • “T cell depletion” started at UW

  9. 12.0 Gy vs. 15.75 Gy Intensified Regimen Randomized trial of 12.0 Gy vs. 15.75 Gy Total Body Irradiation & cyclophosphamide Clift, Blood, 76, 1867,1990 • Lower risk of relapse…

  10. 12.0 Gy vs. 15.75 Gy • Higher non-relapse mortality • Higher rate of aGVHD 12.0 Gy vs. 15.75 Gy …BUT

  11. GVHD Prophylaxis - How much? • Aggressive Prophylaxis • LESS GVHD • MORE infection • MORE relapse • Minimal Prophylaxis • MORE GVHD • LESS infection • LESS relapse SURVIVAL

  12. Non-selective T cell depletion Champlin, Blood, 95, 3996, 2000

  13. Twin – Best Donor? Gale, Ann Intern Med 120:646, 1994

  14. Chronic GVHD marks long-term disease control Overall survival best with mild cGVHD Horowitz, Blood 75:555, 1990

  15. Donor Lymphocyte Infusion for relapse after allogeneic BMT Patient relapsing after allogeneic BMT for CML received donor lymphocyte infusions Porter, NEJM 330:100, 1994

  16. DLI for relapse after allogeneic BMT Porter, BBMT 5:253, 1999

  17. Learning Points • Preparative regimen provides short-term disease control – not cure. • Preparative regimen toxicity increases risk of acute GVHD (“cytokine storm”) • A “graft vs. disease” response exists • Varies with respect to disease • Long term disease control related to immunological effects from the donor • Correlates with chronic GVHD

  18. New Paradigm • Hematopoeitic stem cell transplantation succeeds when a chronic “allo”immune process is created that is specific to the disease/diseased tissue. • The “preparative regimen” is necessary to provide: • Sufficient immune suppression for donor engraftment And • Short-term disease control sufficient to allow the autoimmune process to develop.

  19. Strategies for Improvement • Reduce the intensity of the preparative regimen • Use agents specific to the disease & immunosuppressive • Speed neutrophil engraftment • Peripheral blood stem cell collection • Improve lymphoid immune reconstitution • Donor lymphocyte infusion

  20. Spectrum of Preparative Regimens Cy/12Gy TBI Bu/F/ATG 2Gy TBI/Flu Bu/Cy MF Immunosuppresion FC Human LD50 = 4Gy 2Gy TBI Flag Myeloablative dose = 8Gy Myelosuppression

  21. Non-myeloablative TransplantionSeattle Study “Mini-transplant” Chimerism Analyses = “DNA fingerprinting” McSweeney, Blood 97:3390, 2001

  22. MM 41 MDS 26 CLL 19 CML 17 AML 17 NHL 19 HD 12 Other 5 Eligibility Age greater than 50 Or Ineligible for Conventional BMT Aspergillis infection Liver/cardiac/pulm disease Previous BMT Patients – Seattle Study McSweeney, Blood 97:3390, 2001

  23. Neutrophil/Platelet changes after transplant McSweeney, Blood 97:3390, 2001

  24. Graft vs. Host Disease • Lower risk of severe aGVHD • Delayed onset • Similar risk of cGVHD McSweeney, Blood 97:3390, 2001

  25. Survival after Non-myeloablative Stem cell Transplant McSweeney, Blood 97:3390

  26. Grade 3-5 toxicity by day 100 Diaconescu, Blood, 102:261a, 2003

  27. Non-myeloablative transplant for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia N = 24 Disease Free Survival Chronic GVHD Or, Blood 101:441, 2003

  28. Non-myeloablative transplant for Myelodysplastic Syndrome N = 16 Overall and EFS Chronic GVHD Taussig, JCO 21:3060, 2003

  29. Non-myeloablative transplant for Renal Cell Cancer N = 19 Time to response Overall Survival Childs, NEJM 343:750, 2000

  30. Problem: Early Disease Control Patient GN - IgA myeloma 2Gy TBI PBSCT CSA IgA DLI

  31. Findings from NST trials • Early toxicity reduced • Heme toxicity much shortened • Outpatient management feasible • Engraftment successful • with fludarabine added to regimen • Risk of aGVHD reduced and delayed • Risk of cGVHD unchanged but delayed • Early disease progression common

  32. Sensitive CML Follicular lymphoma Mantle cell lymphoma CLL Insensitive ALL High-grade NHL Intermediate AML Diffuse large NHL Multiple myeloma Hodgkin disease Renal cell Breast cancer Disease Sensitivity to “Graft vs. Malignancy”

  33. Strategies to Improve NST • Treat to remission prior to transplant • Use disease specific chemotherapy in regimen • Incorporate monoclonal antibodies • Infuse engineered lymphocytes • Use Auto followed by Allo strategy • Allow recovery/healing prior to allo transplant

  34. Allogeneic PBSCT Auto PBSCT Recovery Immune suppression 2 Gy TBI High dose Melphalan “Auto/Allo” strategyfor Myeloma 60 – 90 days BMT CTN 0102

  35. “Auto/Allo” - Results • 54 patients (median age 52) • Overall 1-year survival 78% at 18 months • Event Free Survival 2-year 55% • Day-200 mortality 7% • GVHD • Acute 39% • Chronic 46% • Response Rate 81% (CR 52%, PR 29%) Maloney, Blood 98:1822a

  36. Problem: Need for phase III trials! • Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) • NCI sponsored cooperative trials group • Composed of 14 Core Transplant Centers • Goal to complete high-quality clinical trials in BMT

  37. BMT CTN Protocol 0102Myeloma

  38. BMT CTN Protocol 0202Follicular Lymphoma

  39. Conclusions • Allogeneic transplantation works due to a “Graft vs. Malignancy” immune response. • NST approaches have improved the safety of transplantation. • NST allows transplantation of patients not eligible for standard approaches. • Phase III studies are need to determine place in therapy.

More Related