Michael A Pulsipher1, Leslie E Lehmann2, Alison A Bertuch3, Ghadir Sasa3, Timothy Olson4, Taizo Nakano5, Alfred Gilio6, Lauri M Burroughs7, Jeffrey M Lipton8, James N Huang9, Kathryn Dickerson10, Alice Bertaina11, Cindy Zhuang1, Maggie Malsch2, Mark Fleming2, Edie Weller2, Akiko Shimamura2, David A Williams2. 1. Cancer and Blood Disease Institute, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 2. Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Baylor College of Medicine, Center for Cell and Gene Therapy and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas. 4. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado. 6. Pediatric Hematology & Oncology, Hackensack, NJ. 7. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 8. Division of Hematology/Oncology and Cellular Therapy, Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York, New York. 9. UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and University of California, San Francisco, California. 10. UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 11. Division of Stem Cell Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent data show survival after matched unrelated donor (MUD) bone marrow transplantation (BMT) is similar to matched sibling procedures for young patients with severe aplastic anemia (SAA). Donor delays, risk of transplant-related mortality (TRM), and concern about chronic graft versus host disease raise questions about whether MUD BMT or immune suppression therapy (IST) should be preferred initial therapy for young patients lacking matched sibling donors. PROCEDURE: We performed a pilot trial to assess the feasibility of randomizing patients under age 26 with newly diagnosed SAA to receive IST versus MUD BMT. Primary aims assessed the acceptability of randomization and timing of BMT. Secondary aims measured toxicities, response, and survival. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with possible SAA were screened at nine centers. Of 57 with confirmed SAA, 23 underwent randomization and received therapy with a median follow-up of 18 months. Of 12 randomized to BMT, 10 started BMT as initial therapy at a median of 36 days after randomization. One BMT recipient experienced secondary graft failure, requiring a second procedure. Six of 11 randomized to IST responded, whereas five with refractory disease underwent successful salvage BMT. One patient achieving complete response relapsed after discontinuation of immune suppression and died of infection after salvage BMT. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study showed that a high percentage of patients underwent randomization and received up-front MUD BMT. Our study lays the groundwork for a larger randomized trial that will define best initial therapy for young patients with SAA who have an available MUD.
BACKGROUND: Recent data show survival after matched unrelated donor (MUD) bone marrow transplantation (BMT) is similar to matched sibling procedures for young patients with severe aplastic anemia (SAA). Donor delays, risk of transplant-related mortality (TRM), and concern about chronic graft versus host disease raise questions about whether MUD BMT or immune suppression therapy (IST) should be preferred initial therapy for young patients lacking matched sibling donors. PROCEDURE: We performed a pilot trial to assess the feasibility of randomizing patients under age 26 with newly diagnosed SAA to receive IST versus MUD BMT. Primary aims assessed the acceptability of randomization and timing of BMT. Secondary aims measured toxicities, response, and survival. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients with possible SAA were screened at nine centers. Of 57 with confirmed SAA, 23 underwent randomization and received therapy with a median follow-up of 18 months. Of 12 randomized to BMT, 10 started BMT as initial therapy at a median of 36 days after randomization. One BMT recipient experienced secondary graft failure, requiring a second procedure. Six of 11 randomized to IST responded, whereas five with refractory disease underwent successful salvage BMT. One patient achieving complete response relapsed after discontinuation of immune suppression and died of infection after salvage BMT. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study showed that a high percentage of patients underwent randomization and received up-front MUD BMT. Our study lays the groundwork for a larger randomized trial that will define best initial therapy for young patients with SAA who have an available MUD.
Authors: B M Camitta; E D Thomas; D G Nathan; R P Gale; K J Kopecky; J M Rappeport; G Santos; E C Gordon-Smith; R Storb Journal: Blood Date: 1979-03 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Danielle M Townsley; Phillip Scheinberg; Thomas Winkler; Ronan Desmond; Bogdan Dumitriu; Olga Rios; Barbara Weinstein; Janet Valdez; Jennifer Lotter; Xingmin Feng; Marie Desierto; Harshraj Leuva; Margaret Bevans; Colin Wu; Andre Larochelle; Katherine R Calvo; Cynthia E Dunbar; Neal S Young Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H Yagasaki; Y Takahashi; A Hama; K Kudo; N Nishio; H Muramatsu; M Tanaka; N Yoshida; K Matsumoto; N Watanabe; K Kato; K Horibe; S Kojima Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Navneet S Majhail; Pintip Chitphakdithai; Brent Logan; Roberta King; Steven Devine; Susan N Rossmann; Gregory Hale; Robert J Hartzman; Chatchada Karanes; Ginna G Laport; Eneida Nemecek; Edward L Snyder; Galen E Switzer; John Miller; Willis Navarro; Dennis L Confer; John E Levine Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: David A Williams; Carolyn Bennett; Alison Bertuch; Monica Bessler; Thomas Coates; Seth Corey; Yigal Dror; James Huang; Jeffrey Lipton; Timothy S Olson; Ulrike M Reiss; Zora R Rogers; Colin Sieff; Adrianna Vlachos; Kelly Walkovich; Winfred Wang; Akiko Shimamura Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Zora R Rogers; Taizo A Nakano; Timothy S Olson; Alison A Bertuch; Winfred Wang; Alfred Gillio; Thomas D Coates; Anjulika Chawla; Paul Castillo; Peter Kurre; Christopher Gamper; Carolyn M Bennett; Sarita Joshi; Amy E Geddis; Jessica Boklan; Grzegorz Nalepa; Jennifer A Rothman; James N Huang; Gary M Kupfer; Michaela Cada; Bertil Glader; Kelly J Walkovich; Alexis A Thompson; Rabi Hanna; Adrianna Vlachos; Maggie Malsch; Edie A Weller; David A Williams; Akiko Shimamura Journal: Haematologica Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Amy E DeZern; Mary Eapen; Juan Wu; Julie-An Talano; Melhem Solh; Blachy J Dávila Saldaña; Chatchada Karanes; Mitchell E Horwitz; Kanwaldeep Mallhi; Sally Arai; Nosha Farhadfar; Elizabeth Hexner; Peter Westervelt; Joseph H Antin; H Joachim Deeg; Eric Leifer; Robert A Brodsky; Brent R Logan; Mary M Horowitz; Richard J Jones; Michael A Pulsipher Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 30.153
Authors: Antonio G Solimando; Carmen Palumbo; Mary Victoria Pragnell; Max Bittrich; Antonella Argentiero; Markus Krebs Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 6.208