Indications for High-Dose Cytotoxic Therapy with Stem Cell Transplantation
description
Transcript of Indications for High-Dose Cytotoxic Therapy with Stem Cell Transplantation
Evidence-Based Reviews
Indications for High-Dose Cytotoxic Therapy with Stem
Cell Transplantation
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
“The practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.”
Sackett, D.L. et al. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996;312:71-72.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Goals
Define accepted medical practice
Promote evidence-based decisions
Improve treatment outcomes
Determine areas of needed research
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Steps Assemble evidence for selected diseases
Evaluate strength and quality of the evidence
Identify discrepancies in study design or methodology
Make treatment recommendations
Recommend areas of needed research
Advocate best treatment for all patients
Improve access/reimbursement
Inform patients, providers, and payers
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Benefits of Evidence-Based Medicine
Aid treatment decisions of referral physicians and their patients
Assist in reimbursement policies and decisions
Enhance technology assessment
Identify areas of needed research
Foster quality of study design/methodology
Document best practices/standards of care
Improved Patient Care
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
The Review Process
Establishes criteria for grading evidence and inclusion/exclusion criteria for evidence
Maintains standards of evidence-based medicine
Identifies diseases for review
Nominates expert panelists for each review
ASBMT Steering Committee
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
The Review Process
Transplant specialists
Disease-specific experts for non-transplant therapies
Third-party payer
Patient advocate
Expert Panel for Each Disease
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
The Review Process
Identifies areas of inquiry/parameters of review
Guides and advises literature search, writing
Evaluates strength/quality of evidence
Reaches consensus on treatment recommendations
Recommends areas for further study
Expert Panel for Each Disease
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Completed Evidence-Based Reviews
• Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Children (2005, updated 2012)
• Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults (2006, updated 2012)
• Diffuse Large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (2001, updated 2011)
• Follicular Lymphoma (2010)• Myelodysplastic Syndromes (2009)• Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Adults (2008)• Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Children (2007)• Multiple Myeloma (2003)
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Future Directions
• Periodic updating of completed reviews based on evolving standards and new scientific evidence.
• Acute Myeloid Leukemia in adults - update in 2012
• Acute Myeloid Leukemia in children - update in 2012
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
EBR Update Process• Updates occur in the same order as the publication of
original EBRs, unless there is a substantial reason to change the order of a specific review
• The original expert panel is invited to participate in the update
• New evidence is presented in summary tables along with high level evidence from the original EBR
• Updated Treatment Recommendations indicate whether new evidence strengthens, weakens, or does not change the original recommendations
ASBMT Policy Statement on updating published EBRs:Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation(Vol. 15:761-762) June 2009
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
“The Role of Cytotoxic Therapy withHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantationin the Therapy of Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): Update of the 2005 Evidence-Based Review”Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation2012, in press.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Children
RECOMMENDATIONS • Allogeneic SCT is recommended for pediatric
ALL patients who experience primary induction failure, but subsequently achieve a first complete remission (CR1); new evidence has changed the original recommendation
• Allogeneic SCT is recommended for pediatric patients with precursor-B ALL in CR2 after an early marrow relapse; new evidence has changed the original recommendation
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Children
RECOMMENDATIONS • Allogeneic SCT is recommended for pediatric
T-lienage ALL patients in CR2 after a marrow relapse; this is a new recommendation based on evidence in the original review and expert opinion
• Allogeneic SCT is recommended for pediatric patients with ALL in CR3 or greater; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Children
RECOMMENDATIONS • Allogeneic SCT may be considered for some
patients with T-lineage ALL in CR1; this is a new recommendation based on new limited evidence and expert opinion.
• Allogeneic SCT may be considered for children with hypodiploid ALL (<44 chromosomes) in CR1; this is a new recommendation based on expert opinion
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in ChildrenRECOMMENDATIONS • Allogeneic SCT may be considered for patients
with ALL in CR1 or CR2 who have minimal residual disease detected by a validated assay; this is a new recommendation based on expert opinion
• Allogeneic SCT may be considered for patients with ALL who are not in morphologic CR; this is a new recommendation based on expert opinion
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Children
RECOMMENDATIONS • Allogeneic SCT and chemotherapy provide
equivalent outcomes for pediatric precursor-B ALL patients in CR2 after experiencing a later marrow relapse; new data have changed the original recommendation
• Allogeneic SCT and intensive chemotherapy with imatinib have equivalent early outcomes for Ph+ ALL in CR1; new evidence changed the original recommendation. Further study is needed in this area
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Children
RECOMMENDATIONS • Allogeneic SCT is not recommended for an
isolated CNS relapse in precursor-B pediatric ALL patients; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence
• Autologous SCT is not recommended in CR1; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in ChildrenRECOMMENDATIONS • Allogeneic SCT is not recommended when
MLL+ ALL is the sole adverse risk factor; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence. The presence of MLL+ along with other adverse risk factors (older age, high WBC, prednisone response, other cytogenetic abnormalities) has been used to define very high risk subgroups for which allogeneic SCT may be recommended
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in ChildrenALLOGENEIC SCT TECHNIQUES• Myeloablative Total Body Irradiation (TBI)
containing conditioning regimens are recommended; new data have strengthened the original recommendation
• HLA-matched related and unrelated donors provide equivalent outcomes. In the absence of an HLA-matched related donor, an HLA-matched unrelated donor (using marrow, peripheral blood or cord blood ) is acceptable for allogeneic SCT; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in ChildrenALLOGENEIC SCT TECHNIQUES• Allogeneic SCT using the best possible HLA-
matched unrelated donor is recommended. HLA-mismatched unrelated donor allogeneic SCT may result in higher morbidity and mortality than an HLA-matched unrelated donor, but this does not preclude use of HLA-mismatched unrelated donors; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in ChildrenINCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to support a
recommendation regarding: • Allogeneic SCT for treatment of an isolated CNS
relapse in pediatric patients with T-lineage ALL• Allogeneic SCT for treatment of an isolated
testicular relapse in pediatric ALL patients • Use of a maternal vs a paternal donor for
allogeneic SCT in pediatric ALL patients• Use of imatinib therapy along with allogeneic
SCT in pediatric Ph+ ALL patients
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Children
AREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH • Re-evaluate allogeneic SCT versus intensive
chemotherapy regimens in the current era, as both approaches have changed
• Investigate the role and potential benefit of maternal antigen microchimerism to reduce the risk of graft-versus-host disease and enhance the graft- versus-leukemia effect after allogeneic BMT
• Identify and address the treatment of high risk T-lineage ALL subsets
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in ChildrenAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH • Re-evaluate the promising early studies of
imatinib in combination with chemotherapy or SCT for Ph+ ALL in larger studies
• Investigate the optimal treatment for patients who are persistently positive for minimal residual disease
• Improve the detection and monitoring of MRD during initial treatment to guide individual patient eligibility and timing of allogeneic SCT
• Monitoring MRD after SCT to detect early post-SCT relapse in need of pre-emptive therapy
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Children
AREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH • Investigate the indications for using reduced
intensity versus myeloablative conditioning regimens for allogeneic SCT
• Determine conditioning regimens which reduce or eliminate the need for TBI while maintaining effectiveness for ALL
• Investigate the prognostic role of initial risk classification (NCI SR/HR assignment) on outcomes after relapse
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Children
AREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH • Investigate whether allogeneic SCT performed
in CR1 patients identified as very high risk for relapse by molecular methods (i.e., specific gene mutations, gene expression profiles, etc.) improves outcome compared to chemotherapy
• Investigate the impact of psychosocial support and shared decision-making models to assist families in weighing the risks versus benefits of SCT for their children with ALL
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in ChildrenTHE EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS • Denise Oliansky, Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI), Buffalo, NY• Bruce Camitta, Midwest Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders,
Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
• Paul Gaynon, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA• Michael L. Nieder, All Children’s Hospital, St Petersburg, FL• Susan K Parsons, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA• Michael A Pulsipher, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute,
Salt Lake City, UT• Hildy Dillon, The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, White Plains, NY• Thomas A Ratko, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Technology Evaluation
Center, Chicago, IL• Donna Wall, University of Manitoba, Cancer-Care Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada• Philip L. McCarthy, Jr., RPCI, Buffalo, NY• Theresa Hahn, RPCI, Buffalo, NY
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
“The Role of Cytotoxic Therapy with Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Treatment of Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Update of the 2006 Evidence-Based Review”
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation(Vol. 18:18-36) 2012
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Adults
RECOMMENDATIONS• Myeloablative allogeneic SCT is recommended
for adult ALL in CR1 for all disease risk subgroups; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence
• Allogeneic SCT is recommended for adult ALL in CR2; new evidence strengthens the original recommendation
• Imatinib therapy before and/or after allogeneic SCT is recommended for adult Ph+ ALL; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Adults
SCT TECHNIQUES• Allogeneic SCT is recommended over
autologous SCT for adult ALL; new evidence strengthens the original recommendation
• In the absence of a suitable allogeneic SCT donor, autologous SCT may be considered for adult ALL in CR1; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Adults
ALLOGENEIC SCT TECHNIQUES• HLA-matched related and unrelated donor
allogeneic SCT produces equivalent survival outcomes, but post-SCT complications may differ; new evidence strengthens the original recommendation
• In the absence of an HLA-matched donor, a cord blood transplant may be considered; this is a new recommendation based on new evidence
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in AdultsALLOGENEIC SCT TECHNIQUES• Myeloablative TBI-containing regimens in
preparation of allogeneic SCT are recommended; new evidence strengthens the original recommendation
• Reduced intensity conditioning regimens produce similar outcomes to myeloablative regimens, but are recommended only for patients with adult ALL in remission who are unsuited for myeloablative conditioning regimens
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in Adults
INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make a
recommendation regarding:• The superiority of one conditioning regimen
over another• The benefit of any one induction regimen
before allogeneic SCT
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in AdultsAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH• Re-evaluate allogeneic SCT versus more
intensive chemotherapy regimens, especially in younger (<35 yrs) adults, and in the context of biologic therapies and TKIs (for Ph+ ALL)
• Assess the ability of TKIs to reduce the leukemia burden pre- or post-SCT in Ph+ ALL patients and evaluate whether this can improve survival outcomes after autologous and allogeneic SCT. Studies of different TKIs, dose and schedule will be important
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in AdultsAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH• Improvement in the detection and monitoring
of minimal residual disease (MRD) during initial treatment to guide individual patient eligibility and timing of allogeneic SCT
• Monitoring of MRD after SCT to detect early post-SCT relapse in need of pre-emptive therapy. This may indicate patients at higher risk of early recurrence, but effective therapy will also need to be developed
• Indications for using reduced intensity versus myeloablative conditioning regimens for allogeneic SCT
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in AdultsAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH• Evaluation of cord blood transplantation
techniques, such as single unit, double unit, and ex vivo expansion, to improve survival outcomes and reduce TRM
• Assessment of patient quality of life and functional status after successful SCT
• Assess the impact of management plans and follow-up care to facilitate better quality of life for ALL patients, regardless of treatment
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
ALL in AdultsTHE EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS • Denise M. Oliansky, Roswell Park Cancer Institute
(RPCI), Buffalo, NY• Richard A. Larson, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL• Daniel Weisdorf, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN• Hildy Dillon, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, White
Plains, NY• Thomas A. Ratko, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association
Technology Evaluation Center, Chicago, IL• Donna Wall, University of Manitoba/CancerCare
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada • Philip L. McCarthy Jr., RPCI, Buffalo NY• Theresa Hahn, RPCI, Buffalo, NY
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
“The Role of Cytotoxic Therapy with Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Treatment of Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma: Update of the 2001 Evidence-Based Review”
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation2011, 17:20-47.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaRECOMMENDATIONS
AUTOLOGOUS SCT VS. NON-TRANSPLANT THERAPY
• Autologous SCT provides a significant survival benefit and is recommended as part of salvage therapy for patients with chemosensitive relapsed DLBCL. This original recommendation is unchanged with no new data published since the original EBR.
• Autologous SCT is not recommended for patients who achieve only a partial response to an abbreviated (3 cycles) induction regimen. This original recommendation is unchanged with no new data published since the original EBR.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaAUTOLOGOUS SCT VS. NON-TRANSPLANT
THERAPY
• Autologous SCT provides a significant survival benefit and is recommended as part of salvage therapy for patients with chemosensitive relapsed DLBCL. This original recommendation is unchanged with no new data published since the original EBR.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaAUTOLOGOUS SCT TIMING AND PROTOCOL
• Based on new data published since the original EBR, older age (> 60 years is not a contraindication for autologous SCT as long as other SCT eligibility criteria are met. However, SCT outcomes (transplant-related mortality, relapse, survival) in older adults are not as good as in younger adults.
• Based on new data published since the original EBR, autologous SCT using peripheral blood, compared to bone marrow, provides no survival benefit or improved tumor control. However, autologous SCT using peripheral blood is safer and easier to use with faster engraftment and lower rate of death due to infection, hence peripheral blood is the standard autologous stem cell source.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaAUTOLOGOUS SCT TIMING AND PROTOCOL
• Based on new data published since the original EBR, planned tandem or multiple sequential autologous SCTs are not recommended.
• The new data published since the original EBR are insufficient to recommend routine post-autologous SCT maintenance with rituximab outside of a clinical trial.
• The new data published since the original EBR are insufficient to make a treatment recommendation regarding fewer versus more cycles of induction therapy prior to first-line autologous SCT.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaAUTOLOGOUS VERSUS ALLOGENEIC SCT
• Based on new data published since the original EBR, there are equivalent survival outcomes after autologous and allogeneic SCT. Neither donor option is recommended over the other since they have competing risks with regard to relapse and transplant-related mortality. Comparison of these two techniques is biased by different patient selection criteria.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaALLOGENEIC SCT CONDITIONING
• The new data published since the original EBR are insufficient to recommend reduced intensity versus myeloablative conditioning for allogeneic SCT. Based on one study and expert opinion, reduced intensity conditioning appears to be an acceptable alternative approach for selected patients who cannot tolerate a myeloablative allogeneic SCT. Longer follow-up is needed to clarify the competing risks of relapse and chronic GVHD and their impact on overall survival and quality-of-life. Comparison of these regimen intensities is biased by patient selection criteria which have changed over time.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH
• Identify more effective induction regimens to optimize disease response and reduce the need for autologous SCT.
• Identify and examine the efficacy of predictive tests (i.e., Positron Emission Tomography scans) to classify patients who are at high risk for early treatment failure (those who are primary refractory to initial therapies and those who respond but quickly relapse) and candidates for autologous SCT.
• Update the International Prognostic Index to include molecular markers and/or gene expression profiling to better discriminate prognostic groups that would benefit from SCT.
• Determine the potential benefit of first-line autologous SCT for patients with central nervous system involvement.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH
• Identify effective salvage regimens to optimize disease response prior to autologous SCT.
• Identify effective high dose therapy regimens to optimize complete response, improve hematopoietic recovery, and reduce transplant-related mortality and incidence of secondary malignancies.
• Identify effective maintenance regimens to optimize disease control post-autologous SCT.
• Examine the efficacy of reduced intensity allogeneic SCT as rescue after a failed autologous SCT.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaTHE EXPERT PANEL
• Denise M. Oliansky, Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI), Buffalo, NY
• Myron Czuczman, RPCI, Buffalo, NY• Richard I. Fisher, University of Rochester, James P. Wilmot
Cancer Center, Rochester, NY• Frank D. Irwin, Optum Health Care Solutions, Minneapolis, MN• Hillard M. Lazarus, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center,
University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
• James Omel, Independent Patient Advocate, Grand Island, NE• Julie Vose, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE• Steven N. Wolff, Meharry Medical College and Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, TN• Roy B. Jones, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX• Philip L. McCarthy Jr., RPCI, Buffalo NY• Theresa Hahn, RPCI, Buffalo, NY
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
“The Role of Cytotoxic Therapy with Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Therapy of Follicular Lymphoma:An Evidence-Based Review”
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation(Vol. 16:443-468) April 2010
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaRECOMMENDATIONS
AUTOLOGOUS SCT VS. NON-TRANSPLANT THERAPY
Based on pre-rituximab data, there is a statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) as salvage therapy.
With only one retrospective study, there are insufficient data to make a recommendation on the use of autologous SCT versus non-transplantation therapy as salvage treatment for patients who have had rituximab as part of their salvage therapy.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaAUTOLOGOUS SCT VS. NON-TRANSPLANT
THERAPY
Autologous SCT is recommended for transformed follicular lymphoma patients, based on expert opinion and accepted clinical practice.
Although there is consistent improvement in PFS and event-free survival (EFS) with autologous SCT, it is not recommended as first-line treatment for most patients because of no significant improvement in OS, a higher incidence of secondary myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and a lack of comparative data with rituximab-containing regimens. Longer follow-up may be needed to identify differences in OS.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaAUTOLOGOUS SCT TIMING AND PROTOCOL
There are insufficient data to make a recommendation on the efficacy of autologous SCT as first-line versus salvage therapy.
Due to conflicting data, a recommendation cannot be made on the use of rituximab as part of first-line or salvage regimens prior to autologous SCT.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaAUTOLOGOUS SCT TIMING AND PROTOCOL
There are insufficient data to make a recommendation regarding purging in autologous SCT.
There are insufficient data to recommend one high dose regimen over another. Total body irradiation (TBI)-containing regimens are usually avoided because of a concern for the risk of secondary MDS or AML.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaAUTOLOGOUS VERSUS ALLOGENEIC SCT
There are insufficient data comparing autologous SCT and myeloablative allogeneic SCT to recommend one option over the other; both appear to have a survival benefit, but have competing risks. Comparison of these two techniques is biased by different patient selection criteria.
There are currently no data available to make a recommendation regarding the use of reduced intensity/nonmyeloalative allogeneic SCT versus autologous SCT. Comparison of these two techniques is biased by different patient selection criteria.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaALLOGENEIC SCT CONDITIONING AND DONOR
SOURCE
Reduced intensity conditioning appears to be an acceptable alternative approach in allogeneic SCT, based on one study and expert opinion.
There are insufficient data to recommend one conditioning regimen over another for allogeneic SCT.
In allogeneic SCT, an HLA-matched unrelated donor appears to be as effective as an HLA-matched related donor using reduced intensity conditioning, based on expert opinion.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH
Rituximab-based therapy followed by autologous SCT versus rituximab-based therapy without SCT.
Post-autologous SCT rituximab maintenance therapy versus no post-autologous SCT maintenance rituximab.
Ex vivo purged autologous SCT. T cell-depleted allogeneic SCT.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH Comparison of matched-related versus
matched-unrelated or other alternative donor for allogeneic SCT.
The efficacy and toxicity of reduced intensity regimens before autologous and allogeneic SCT.
Reduced intensity allogeneic SCT as salvage therapy after failed autologous SCT.
Radioimmunotherapy as part of the preparatory regimen for autologous SCT or reduced intensity allogeneic SCT.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH The impact of radioimmunotherapy and newer
agents (i.e., bendamustine, rituximab, alemtuzumab, fludarabine, etc.) on stem cell quality.
Identification of surrogate molecular markers pre-SCT that are predictive of long-term survival in follicular lymphoma patients.
The association of FLIPI score at diagnosis and at SCT with prognosis in follicular lymphoma patients.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Follicular LymphomaTHE EXPERT PANEL:• Denise M. Oliansky, Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI), Buffalo,
NY.• Leo I. Gordon, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL.• Jerry King, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Chicago, IL.• Ginna Laport, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA.• John P. Leonard, Cornell University, Weill Medical College, New York,
NY.• Peter McLaughlin, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.• Robert J. Soiffer, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.• Koen W. van Besien, University of Chicago, Department of Medicine,
Chicago, IL.• Michael Werner, Lymphoma Research Foundation, Chicago, IL.• Roy B. Jones, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.• Philip L. McCarthy, Jr., RPCI, Buffalo, NY.• Theresa Hahn, RPCI, Buffalo, NY.
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
“The Role of Cytotoxic Therapy with Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Therapy of Myelodysplastic Syndromes:An Evidence-Based Review”
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation(Vol. 15:137-172) January 2009
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Myelodysplastic SyndromesRECOMMENDATIONS TIMING OF TRANSPLANTATION
Early SCT is recommended for patients who: have an IPSS score of INT-2 or high risk are considered high risk based on other
factors besides IPSS (i.e., older age, refractory cytopenias)
have a suitable donor meet the transplant center’s eligibility
requirements
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Myelodysplastic Syndromes
PRE-SCT INDUCTION CHEMOTHERAPY
Insufficient data are available to make a treatment recommendation for or against induction chemotherapy
Decision to use pre-SCT induction therapy should be made on an individual basis
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Myelodysplastic SyndromesDONOR SELECTION Data demonstrate a long-term curative
outcome for related & unrelated allogeneic SCT
No evidence of a survival advantage based on donor relation in allogeneic SCT
An allogeneic HLA-matched donor is recommended
Autologous SCT can be considered in the context of a clinical trial, if an allogeneic donor is not available
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Myelodysplastic SyndromesTRANSPLANTATION TECHNIQUES For low-risk disease, allogeneic BMT and PBSCT
from related donors have equivalent outcomes For high-risk disease, there may be a survival
advantage with related donor allogeneic PBSCT There is insufficient evidence to recommend
BMT versus PBSCT for unrelated donor allogeneic SCT
No evidence of a survival advantage for BMT versus PBSCT for autologous SCT
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Myelodysplastic SyndromesTRANSPLANTATION TECHNIQUES There are insufficient data to:
Make a recommendation for an optimal conditioning regimen intensity
Make a recommendation for any one high-dose conditioning regimen over another
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Myelodysplastic SyndromesAREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCHImportant areas of needed research are: Benefit of alternative donor sources for
patients without HLA-matched related or unrelated allogeneic donors
Role and timing of allogeneic SCT in combination with hypomethylating and immunomodulatory regimens
Randomized trials comparing various novel agents
Influence of treatment modalities on quality of life
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Myelodysplastic SyndromesEXPERT PANEL MEMBERS:• Denise M. Oliansky, Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI), Buffalo,
NY• Joseph H. Antin, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA• John M. Bennett, University of Rochester, James P. Wilmot Cancer
Center, Rochester, NY• H. Joachim Deeg, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center,
Seattle, WA• Christin Engelhardt, Aplastic Anemia and MDS International
Foundation, Churchton, MD• Kathleen V. Heptinstall, The MDS Foundation, Crosswick, NJ• Marcos de Lima, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX• Steven D. Gore, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at
Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD• Ronald G. Potts, INTERLINK Health Services, Hillsboro, OR• Lewis R. Silverman, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY• Roy B. Jones, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX• Philip L. McCarthy, Jr., RPCI, Buffalo, NY• Theresa Hahn, RPCI, Buffalo, NY
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
“The Role of Cytotoxic Therapy withHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Therapy of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in Adults: An Evidence-Based Review”Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation(Vol. 14:137-180) January 2008
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in AdultsRECOMMENDATIONS Transplantation versus Chemotherapy • A survival advantage for allogeneic SCT for patients
under age 55 with high risk cytogenetics• No survival advantage in patients over age 55 with low
risk cytogenetics• In 2nd complete remission, allogeneic SCT is
recommended• In 2nd complete remission autologous SCT is
recommended if no available allogeneic donor• No significant advantage of autologous SCT over
chemotherapy (studies using modern technologies may affect this recommendation)
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Adults
INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
There is insufficient evidence to:• Routinely recommend allogeneic SCT for
patients with intermediate risk cytogenetics (although it is a reasonable strategy)
• Recommend reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic SCT vs. chemotherapy
• Recommend the use of myeloablative regimens for patients over age 55
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in AdultsRECOMMENDED TECHNIQUES• Allogeneic SCT with a matched related donor is
recommended if available• Matched unrelated donor allogeneic SCT using reduced
intensity conditioning may provide equivalent outcomes to related donor allogeneic SCT
• For high risk disease, allogeneic PBSCT is recommended over BMT; For low risk disease, allogeneic PBSCT and BMT have equivalent outcomes
• An HLA-matched related donor SCT is recommended over autologous SCT
• Autologous PBSCT is recommended over autologous BMT
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Adults
INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE There is insufficient evidence to:• Recommend matched unrelated donor allogeneic
SCT over autologous SCT (ongoing studies reflecting modern techniques may provide this evidence)
• Recommend purged BMT or PBSCT• Recommend tandem versus single autologous SCT• Recommend T cell-depleted grafts from allogeneic
donors• Recommend PBSCT versus BMT in matched
unrelated donor allogeneic SCT
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Adults
THERAPY REGIMEN• Fractionated rather than single dose total
body irradiation is recommended in allogeneic SCT
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Adults
TECHNIQUES WITH INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
• No difference or preference for any one high dose therapy conditioning regimen in autologous SCT
• No difference or preference for any one myeloablative conditioning regimen in allogeneic SCT; Studies of late effects may change this recommendation
• No data on the benefit of reduced intensity conditioning for allogeneic SCT; regimen intensity is dependent on patient characteristics
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Adults
AREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH• The role of SCT in treating patients with specific
molecular markers (e.g., FLT3, NPM1, CEBPA, BAALC, MLL, NRAS, etc.) especially in patients with normal cytogenetics
• The benefit of using SCT to treat different cytogenetic subgroups
• The impact on survival outcomes of reduced intensity or nonmyeloablative versus conventional conditioning in older (> 60 years) and intermediate (40-60 years) aged adults
• The impact on survival outcomes of unrelated donor SCT versus chemotherapy in younger (< 40 years) adults with high-risk disease
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Adults
THE EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS • Denise M. Oliansky, Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI), Buffalo, NY• Frederick Appelbaum, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA• Peter A. Cassileth, University of Miami Sylvester Cancer Center,
Miami, FL• Armand Keating, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada• Jamie Kerr, Excellus Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Rochester, NY• Yago Nieto, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX• Susan Stewart, BMT Infonet, Chicago, IL• Richard M. Stone, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA• Martin Tallman, Northwestern University Feinberg School of
Medicine, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL• Philip L. McCarthy, Jr., RPCI, Buffalo, NY• Theresa Hahn, RPCI, Buffalo, NY
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
“The Role of Cytotoxic Therapy withHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Therapy of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in Children: An Evidence-Based Review”
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation (Vol. 13:1-25) January 2007
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Children
RECOMMENDATIONS Transplantation versus Chemotherapy: • Allogeneic SCT is recommended in 1st complete
remission• Autologous SCT and chemotherapy in 1st
complete remission are equivalent in outcomes• In 2nd complete remission, allogeneic SCT is
recommended if a suitable HLA-matched related donor is available
• An HLA-matched unrelated donor is recommended in the context of a clinical trial
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Children
RECOMMENDED TECHNIQUES• HLA-matched related donor allogeneic SCT
superior to autologous SCT in 1st complete remission
• In 2nd complete remission, HLA-matched related or unrelated donor allogeneic SCT is recommended over autologous SCT
• Purging is not recommended using currently available purging agents
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in ChildrenINDICATIONS FOR SCT• HLA-matched related donor allogeneic SCT is preferred
in 1st or 2nd complete remission• In 2nd complete remission, alternative donors could be
considered if an HLA-matched related allogeneic donor is not available
• No evidence of a benefit of SCT for Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APL) in 1st complete remission
• Allogeneic SCT is preferred for APL in 2nd complete remission
• Autologous SCT is recommended for APL in 2nd complete remission if no suitable HLA-matched related, unrelated, or alternative allogeneic donor is available
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Children
TECHNIQUES WITH INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
• No data to recommend related versus unrelated allogeneic SCT
• No recommendation can be made for preferred techniques for unrelated SCT
• No difference or preference for one myeloablative conditioning regimen over another
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Children AREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH• The role of risk group stratification, including the role of
cytogenetics, in selection of patients for allogeneic SCT, especially those in 1st complete remission
• The appropriate timing and use of alternative donor SCT, given that matched unrelated donor SCT appears to yield outcomes equivalent to matched related donor SCT
• The role of reduced intensity SCT and/or other immunomodulatory approaches to maximize the graft-versus-leukemia effect
• The role of biologically targeted agents in the treatment of AML, including induction, consolidation, conditioning regimen, and post-SCT
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
AML in Children
THE EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS
Denise M. Oliansky, Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI), Buffalo, NYJ. Douglas Rizzo, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WIPeter D. Aplan, NIH, NCI, CCR, Genetics Branch, Bethesda, MDRobert J. Arceci, Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MDLouis Leone, Children’s Oncology Group, Arcadia, CAYaddanapudi Ravindranath, Children’s Hospital of Michigan and
Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MIJean E. Sanders, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University
of Washington, Seattle, WAFranklin O. Smith III, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center
and University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OHFiona Wilmot, Blue Shield of California, San Francisco, CAPhilip M. McCarthy Jr., RPCI, Buffalo, NYTheresa Hahn, RPCI, Buffalo, NY
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
“The Role of Cytotoxic Therapy with Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Therapy of Multiple Myeloma: an Evidence-Based Review.”
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation (Vol. 9:4-37) January 2003
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Multiple Myeloma
Recommended as de novo therapy
Equivalent as de novo or salvage, but de novo is preferred
RECOMMENDATIONS
Transplant is:
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Multiple Myeloma
Autologous SCT is preferred over allogeneic SCT
Autologous PBSCT is preferred over autologous BMT
Melphalan conditioning regimen is preferred to melphalan combined with total body irradiation
Studies are ongoing to evaluate allogeneic transplant
RECOMMENDED TECHNIQUES
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Multiple Myeloma
Autologous PBSCT using CD34+ selected or unselected stem cells are equivalent in efficacy
RECOMMENDED TECHNIQUES
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Multiple Myeloma
Autologous purged bone marrow transplantation is not recommended
TECHNIQUE NOT RECOMMENDED
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Multiple Myeloma
Transplant versus chemotherapy as salvage therapy
Preferred conditioning regimen for allogeneic myeloablative and non-myeloablative transplants
Maintenance therapy post-autologous transplant
TECHNIQUES WITH INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
Recommended for comparative study:
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Multiple Myeloma
Tandem autologous transplant – studies are ongoing
Transplant as a high-dose sequential regimen
Allogeneic BMT versus PBSCT
TECHNIQUES WITH INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
Not recommended for comparative study:
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Multiple Myeloma
AREAS OF NEEDED RESEARCH
• Maintenance therapy post-transplantation with nothing vs. interferon alpha vs. other agents such as corticosteroids, thalidomide or its derivatives
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
THE EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS Theresa Hahn, PhD, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, N.Y.
John Wingard, MD, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville
Kenneth C. Anderson, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston
William I. Bensinger, MD, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle
James R. Berenson, MD, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
Greg Brozeit, International Myeloma Foundation, Hollywood, Calif.
Joseph R. Carver, MD, Abramson Cancer Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Robert A. Kyle, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Philip L. McCarthy, MD, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, N.Y.
Multiple Myeloma
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
Steering Committee Members Chair, Roy Jones, MD, MD Anderson Cancer Center,
University of Texas, Houston
Vice Chair, Bipin Savani, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
Yago Nieto, MD, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston
Douglas Rizzo, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Donna Wall, MD, University of Manitoba/CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
John Wingard, MD, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
More Information
Reviews and ASBMT Position
Statements available at www.asbmt.org
ASBMT Evidence-Based Reviews
The American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
A national professional association of clinicians and
researchers promoting advancement of the field of
blood and bone marrow transplantation and the
highest standards of patient care.