Implications for allotransplantation in the Lymphoma Setting

GVHD & GVL in the
lymphoma setting:
The case of CLL
Peter Dreger
Dept. Internal Medicine V
University of Heidelberg
Oct 16, 2014
1
Number of Allo-HSCT
for CLL per year (Cells source)
500
475
450
431
400
387
350
299
300
308
324
348
373
251
250
197
200
202
212
160
150
122
100
81
52
50
2
5
3
3
6
13 11 13
7
16
26 31 30
0
1984 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Bone Marrow
Peripheral Blood
Transplant activity for lymphoma
EBMT 2001-2012
Absolute numbers 2012
450
200
400
180
350
160
140
300
allo
% increase 2001 -> 2011
120
250
100
200
80
150
100
50
0
60
CLL HL
TCL FL DLC MCL
L
2000
40
20
0
150
1800
1600
100
1400
auto
1200
50
1000
800
0
600
400
DLCL HL MCL FL
TCL CLL
-50
200
0
-100
Total lymphoma transplants 2011 (w/o CLL): allo 1431; auto 6125
The European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
GVL vs GVHD in CLL: Key questions
- do GVL effects exist
?
Evidence for GVL: Bullet points
- Plateau after RIC
?
Conditioning Regimens:
Immunosuppressive vs anti-tumor activities
(adopted from Champlin et al)
Myelosuppression / Toxicity
Bu/Cy
BEAM
MEL150/F
TBI8/F
Bu8/F
Flu/Cy
TBI2/F
TBI4/F
„RIC“
„NMA“
Immunosuppression
TBI12/Cy
„MAC“
Toxicity of RIC alloSCT for CLL
Study
GCLLS
G
Seattle
Boston
FCGCL
L
Housto
n
Heidelb.
UK/IRL
n
90
82
76
40
86
66
50
Mucositis
3-4
6%
12%
na
<5%
na
na
na
Infection 3-4
55%
60%
na
48%
na
na
na
0%
3%
3%
2%
Early death
(< d +100)
<3% <10% <3%
NRM
23%
(6y)
23%
(5y)
16%
(5y)
27%
(3y)
17%
(1y)
24%
(3y)
15%
(4y)
Ext. cGVHD
55%
49-53%
48%
42%
56%
53%
48%
Dreger Blood 2013; Sorror JCO 2008; Brown Leukemia 2013;
Michallet Exp Hematol 2013; Khouri Cancer 2011; Hahn EBMT 2014; Richardson BJH 2013
Survival after RIC alloSCT for CLL
Study
GCLLSG
Seattle
Boston
n
90
82
76
40
2-y PFS
50%
>50%
n.a.
5-y PFS
42%
39%
2-y OS
75%
5-y OS
F/U mo
Heidelb.
UK/IRL
86
77
50
57%
40%*
58%
70% *
43%
46%
36%*
52%
55%*
>60%
n.a.
63%
63%
78%
83%
63%
50%
63%
55%
51%
63%
75%
72 (7-129)
11-87
61
28 (3-71)
37 (11-131) 37 (12-101) 51 (11-143)
100
Percent EFS
100
Percent EFS
* Current PFS
FCGCLL Houston
50
6-y EFS 38% (27, 48)
50
5-y EFS 49% (33, 65)
0
0
24
48
72
96
120
Months from SCT
0
0
12
24
36
48
60
72
Months from SCT
Dreger Blood 2013; Sorror JCO 2008; Brown Leukemia 2013;
Michallet Exp Hematol 2013; Khouri Cancer 2011; Hahn DGHO 2014; Richardson BJH 2013
84
96
Evidence for GVL: Bullet points
- Plateau after RIC
- Efficacy of donor lymphocyte infusions ?
Overall survival from relapse after HSCT
(n = 19 of 77)
Percent Survival
100
75
MRD-neg after
DLI + R
50
25
2-y OS 52% (27, 77)
Med f/u 25mo (6-57)
0
0
12
24
36
48
60
Months from Relapse after HSCT
Median time from HSCT to rel 11mo (3-83)
13.09.2014
Evidence for GVL: Bullet points
- Plateau after RIC
- Efficacy of donor lymphocyte infusions
?
- Detrimental effect of T cell depletion
AlloBMT for CLL using ex-vivo CD6 TCD
(Dana Farber results, n = 25)
Gribben et al, Blood 106:4389 (2005)
Evidence for GVL: Bullet points
-
Plateau after RIC
Efficacy of donor lymphocyte infusions
Detrimental effect of T cell depletion
?
Protective effect of chronic GVHD
CLL: Relapse risk and chronic GVHD
Percent with relapse or
progression
(EBMT survey, n = 77)
100
cGVHD always absent
75
50
25
after cGVHD onset
0
0
12
24
36
48
Months from SCT
Leukemia 17:841 (2005)
Evidence for GVL: Bullet points
-
Plateau after RIC
Efficacy of donor lymphocyte infusions
Detrimental effect of T cell depletion
Protective effect of chronic GVHD
Minimal residual disease (MRD) kinetics ?
CLL: Quantitative MRD assessment
by 4 color flow cytometry (MRD-flow)
a=
b=
c=
d=
e=
f=
4
CD19+ B cells
exclude doublets
CD5- background
CD5+ CD20low
CD43+ CD20low
CD43+ CD5+ 10E-
Sensitivity 1 in 104
Böttcher et al, LEUKEMIA 2004; Rawstron et al, LEUKEMIA 2007
alloSCT for CLL: MRD response patterns
CLL3X (n=52)
Other pattern
(42%)
A: MRD- after CSA taper
MRD- immediately
after SCT (16%)
CSA taper
GVHD
MRD- after CSA
taper (42%)
Dreger et al, Blood 116:2438 (2010)
Ritgen et al, Leukemia 22:1377 (2008)
GVL vs GVHD in CLL: Key questions
- GVL effects do exist
- Are GVL effects durable
?
Clinical impact of MRD negativity on disease
control after alloHSCT (landmark studies)
UK (9-month landmark)
Milan (6-month landmark)
Richardson et al, Br J Haematol 160:640 (2013)
Farina et al, Haematologica 94:654 (2009)
CLL3X 6-year follow-up: Relapse
by MRD negativity at +12mo
(of 38 patients with MRD monitoring and event-free at mo +12)
Clinical Relapse
+12 M RD+ (10)
100
+12 M RD- (28)
50
HR 26.2 (6-115); p 0.0001
0
12
Percent MRD
or clinical relapse
Percent relapsed
100
MRD or clinical relapse
50
16% (95%CI 1-50)
0
36
60
84
Months from SCT
Dreger et al, Blood 121:3284 (2013)
108
36
60
84
Months from SCT
108
CLL3X 6-year follow-up: Relapse
by MRD negativity at +12mo
Percent not in MRD-negative
clinical remission
(of 38 patients with MRD monitoring and event-free at mo +12)
100


50



 






TP53 mut
NOTCH1 mut
 
      


SF3B1 mut
no marker
16% (95%CI 1-51)
0
12
36
60
84
Months from SCT
Blood 121:3284 (2013)
17p-
108
Evidence for durability of MRD
response: Other intensive treatment
1000
10
MRD-level
10-1-1
10
10-2-2
10
10-3-3
10
10-4-4
10
10-5-5
10
Alemtuzumab: Hillmen JCO 2005
26
0
80
81
-1
10
10
1-
90
0- 09090
91 91
-1 -1
8 80
18 1 0
1-813636
0
36 3 0
6
1- 15454
0
54 5 0
4
1- 07272
0
72 7 0
2
1- 19090
00
in
be itia
l D
f.
Ca b dx x
m ef.
pa SC
th T
10-6-6
10
autoSCT (CLL3)
FC + alemtuzumab (CLL4B)
Ritgen 2005
GVL vs GVHD in CLL: Key questions
- GVL effects do exist
- GVL effects are mostly durable
- Can we have GVL w/o (chronic) GVHD ?
CLL: Relapse risk and chronic GVHD
Percent with relapse or
progression
(EBMT survey, n = 77)
100
cGVHD always absent
75
50
25
after cGVHD onset
0
0
12
24
36
48
Months from SCT
Leukemia 17:841 (2005)
CLL: MRD response patterns by cGVHD
(Heidelberg, n=61)
Ext. cGVHD 49%
DLI: 18/61 (30%)
(9 pre-emptive, 8 therapeutic)
Chronic GVHD yes
Chronic GVHD no
(n=42)
(n=19)
Other pattern
(17%)
MRD- after DLI
(7%)
MRD- immediately
after SCT (24%)
MRD- after CSA
taper (52%)
Other pattern
(26%)
MRD- after DLI
(11%)
MRD- immediately
after SCT (47%)
MRD- after CSA
taper (16%)
Hahn et al, unpublished
Can we separate GVL from GVHD by
T cell depletion?
Other pattern
(25%)
MRD- after DLI
(12%)
DLI: 31/50 (62%)
(19 pre-emptive, 12 therapeutic)
MRD- immediately
after SCT (56%)
MRD- after CSA
taper (2%)
Ext. cGVHD 48%
GVL vs GVHD in CLL: Key questions
-
GVL effects do exist
GVL effects are mostly durable
Can we have GVL w/o GVHD: not yet
Does GVL help in real life
?
OS from 3-month landmark after start of
search by compatible donor availability
(high-risk CLL; donor vs no-donor comparison, n=97)
100
Percent alive
78% (95%CI 69%-88%)
75
Median
follow-up
28 months
50
55% (34%-90%)
donor yes (83)
25
donor no (14)
HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.85); p=0.014
0
0
12
24
36
48
60
72
Months from 3-month landmark
Herth et al, Ann Oncol 25:200 (2014)
GVL vs GVHD in CLL: Key questions
-
GVL effects do exist
GVL effects are mostly durable
Can we have GVL w/o GVHD: not yet
Does GVL help in real life: it used to do
?
Indications
EBMT CLL transplant consensus
H
I
G
H
R
I
S
K
V
E
R
Y
H
I
G
H
allo-SCT is a reasonable treatment
option in poor-risk CLL:
– .Relapse <24 mo after intensive treatment
(purine analogue combinations or auto-SCT)
– .p53 mutation with treatment indication
– .Non-response or early relapse (<12 mo) after
purine analogue-based therapy
(= fludarabine resistance)
Leukemia 21:12-17 (2007)
EBMT-ERIC position statement
- High-risk CLL definition needs to be refined
- Could be 17p-/TP53mut R/R CLL in the era of
small molecules
- SCT indication needs to be individualized
considering disease risk and transplant risk and
patient‘s preferences
- SCT remains the most effective tool for GVLsensitive very high-risk CLL
Blood, epub Oct 9 2014
Thank you
CLL3X trial
S Stilgenbauer
R Busch
M Ritgen
S Böttcher
D Beelen
S Cohen
J Schubert
N Schmitz
M Hallek
T Zenz
H Döhner
MRD
P Corradini
C Moreno
S Böttcher
M Ritgen
Med V
M Rieger
S Dietrich
AD Ho
T Luft
U Hegenbart
LWP/CMWP
A Boumendil
H Finel
C Kyriakou
JJ Luan
Anna Sureda
A van Biezen
R Brand
D Milligan
D Niederwieser
M Sobh
J Schetelig
T de Witte
M Michallet
…and you for your interest!