BACKGROUND: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) classification has recently been improved by the National Institutes of Health (NIH); patients' stratification with those new criteria has implications for patients' prognosis. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: To assess whether the NIH consensus classification (NCC) better predicts survival and response to extracorporeal photochemotherapy (ECP), and to identify variables associated with response and survival, we retrospectively analyzed 102 patients with cGVHD reclassified according to NCC treated with ECP (1997-2010) at our center. Cox regression was used in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: Of the 102 patients, 64 (62.7%) had classic cGVHD, 24 (23.5%) had overlap cGVHD, and seven (6.9%) patients each had late and persistent acute GVHD. The cumulative ECP-specific follow-up was 2333.3 person-years. Response was complete in 16 (15.7%), partial in 38 (37.3%), minimal in 28 (27.5%), and absent in 20 (19.6%). Of the 22 deaths, 15 (68.2%) occurred among patients with minimal or no response (p = 0.031). The only variables associated with response were nonmyeloablative transplant (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-9.08; p = 0.009), donor lymphocyte infusion (hazard ratio, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.2-5.56; p = 0.015), and lung involvement (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: ECP is a safe and effective treatment for cGVHD and response to ECP is the only variable that influences survival. We found no correlation between response and NCC clinical subtype, number, or degree of organ involvement, except for lung, or the variables mentioned above. Prospective studies are needed to identify subsets of patients with higher probability of response.
BACKGROUND: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) classification has recently been improved by the National Institutes of Health (NIH); patients' stratification with those new criteria has implications for patients' prognosis. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: To assess whether the NIH consensus classification (NCC) better predicts survival and response to extracorporeal photochemotherapy (ECP), and to identify variables associated with response and survival, we retrospectively analyzed 102 patients with cGVHD reclassified according to NCC treated with ECP (1997-2010) at our center. Cox regression was used in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: Of the 102 patients, 64 (62.7%) had classic cGVHD, 24 (23.5%) had overlap cGVHD, and seven (6.9%) patients each had late and persistent acute GVHD. The cumulative ECP-specific follow-up was 2333.3 person-years. Response was complete in 16 (15.7%), partial in 38 (37.3%), minimal in 28 (27.5%), and absent in 20 (19.6%). Of the 22 deaths, 15 (68.2%) occurred among patients with minimal or no response (p = 0.031). The only variables associated with response were nonmyeloablative transplant (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-9.08; p = 0.009), donor lymphocyte infusion (hazard ratio, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.2-5.56; p = 0.015), and lung involvement (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: ECP is a safe and effective treatment for cGVHD and response to ECP is the only variable that influences survival. We found no correlation between response and NCC clinical subtype, number, or degree of organ involvement, except for lung, or the variables mentioned above. Prospective studies are needed to identify subsets of patients with higher probability of response.
Authors: C Del Fante; T Galasso; P Bernasconi; L Scudeller; F Ripamonti; C Perotti; F Meloni Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Roger Belizaire; Haesook T Kim; Samuel J Poryanda; Nikola V Mirkovic; Evelyn Hipolito; William J Savage; Carol G Reynolds; Marie J Fields; Jennifer Whangbo; Tomohiro Kubo; Sarah Nikiforow; Edwin P Alyea; Philippe Armand; Corey S Cutler; Vincent T Ho; Bruce R Blazar; Joseph H Antin; Jerome Ritz; Robert J Soiffer; John Koreth Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-04-09
Authors: Fevzi F Yalniz; Mohammad H Murad; Stephanie J Lee; Steven Z Pavletic; Nandita Khera; Nilay D Shah; Shahrukh K Hashmi Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Francine M Foss; Xin Victoria Wang; Selina M Luger; Opeyemi Jegede; Kenneth B Miller; Edward A Stadtmauer; Theresa L Whiteside; David E Avigan; Randall D Gascoyne; Daniel Arber; Henry Wagner; Roger K Strair; William J Hogan; Kellie A Sprague; Hillard M Lazarus; Mark R Litzow; Martin S Tallman; Sandra J Horning Journal: Transfusion Date: 2020-07-12 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Beatrice Drexler; Andreas Buser; Laura Infanti; Gregor Stehle; Joerg Halter; Andreas Holbro Journal: Transfus Med Hemother Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 3.747
Authors: Mohsin Ilyas Malik; Mark Litzow; William Hogan; Mrinal Patnaik; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Larry J Prokop; Jeffrey L Winters; Shahrukh Hashmi Journal: Blood Res Date: 2014-06-25
Authors: Arun Alfred; Peter C Taylor; Fiona Dignan; Khaled El-Ghariani; James Griffin; Andrew R Gennery; Denise Bonney; Emma Das-Gupta; Sarah Lawson; Ram K Malladi; Kenneth W Douglas; Tracey Maher; Julie Guest; Laura Hartlett; Andrew J Fisher; Fiona Child; Julia J Scarisbrick Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Y Inamoto; M Jagasia; W A Wood; J Pidala; J Palmer; N Khera; D Weisdorf; P A Carpenter; M E D Flowers; D Jacobsohn; P J Martin; S J Lee; S Z Pavletic Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 5.483