Abstract

Not available.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES One of the treatment modalities that can be used for hyperleukocytosis is leukapheresis. However, the result of studies showing the benefit of early mortality through the use of leukapheresis versus no leukapheresis is still inconclusive. Hence, we aimed to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the effect of leukapheresis on early mortality in AML patients with hyperleukocytosis. METHODS We conducted a literature search on five databases (PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, Clinicalkey, and JSTOR) up to October 2021 for studies comparing early mortality outcomes between hyperleukocytosis AML patients treated with leukapheresis versus no leukapheresis. Summary odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity tests were presented in I(2) value and publication bias was analyzed using a funnel plot. RESULTS Eleven retrospective cohort studies were eligible based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference in early mortality between patients receiving leukapheresis and not receiving leukapheresis in studies using hyperleukocytosis cutoff of 95,000/mm(3) or 100,000/mm(3) (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.74-1.86; p: 0.50; I(2): 0%). Similarly, studies using hyperleukocytosis cutoff of 50,000/mm(3) also showed no benefits of early mortality (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.43-1.05; p: 0.08; I(2): 0%). Most of the studies used had a moderate risk of bias due to being observational studies. Funnel plot showed an indication of publication bias on studies using hyperleukocytosis cutoff of ≥50,000/mm(3). CONCLUSION The use of leukapheresis does not provide early mortality benefit in adult AML patients with hyperleukocytosis.

Abstract

Clinically significant bleeding in patients with hematologic malignancies is a heterogeneous composite outcome currently defined as World Health Organization (WHO) bleeding Grades 2, 3, and 4. However, the clinical significance of some minor bleeds categorized as WHO Grades 1 and 2 remains controversial. We analyzed the number and frequency of individual signs and symptoms of WHO Grades 1 and 2 bleeds and explored their association with more severe incident bleeds graded as WHO Grades 3 and 4. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We aggregated daily bleeding assessment data from three randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with hematologic malignancies that used bleeding as an outcome. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to identify signs and symptoms categorized as WHO Grades 1 and 2 bleeds that were associated with more severe bleeds (Grades 3 and 4). RESULTS We collected data from 315 patients (n = 5476 daily bleeding assessments; 3383 [61.8%] with a bleed documented). A total of 98.3% (3326/3383) were Grade 1 and 2 bleeds and 1.7% (57/3383) were Grades 3 and 4. Grade 1 and 2 bleeds were composed of 20 different bleeding signs and symptoms. Hematuria (hazard ratio, 16.1; 95% confidence interval, 4.4-59.2; P < .0001) was associated with incident Grade 3 or 4 bleeds. CONCLUSION In patients with hematologic malignancy, only hematuria (microscopic and/or macroscopic) was associated with more severe incident bleeds. This findings require validation in independent data sets.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Up to 20% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) present with hyperleukocytosis, usually defined as a white blood cell (WBC) count greater than 100 × 10(9) /L. Given the high early mortality rate, emergent cytoreduction with either leukapheresis, hydroxyurea, or chemotherapy is indicated, but the optimal strategy is unknown. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS For this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science from inception through March 2020 for multiarm studies comparing early mortality rates of patients with AML treated with leukapheresis and those who were not. The risk ratio (RR) of early death for patients who received leukapheresis vs patients who did not was estimated using a sum of the log-ratio of individual study estimates weighted by sample size. RESULTS Among 13 two-arm, retrospective studies with 1743 patients (486 leukapheresis and 1257 nonleukapheresis patients), leukapheresis did not improve the primary outcome of early mortality compared to treatment strategies in which leukapheresis was not used (RR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.13; P = .321) without statistically significant heterogeneity between studies (Cochran's Q, 18; P = .115; I(2) , 33.4%). Patients presenting with clinical leukostasis tended to be more likely to undergo leukapheresis (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.99-4.08; P = .052). CONCLUSION As we did not find evidence of a short-term mortality benefit and considering the associated complications and logistic burden, our results argue against the routine use of leukapheresis for hyperleukocytosis among patients with AML.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of treatment delay and premature discontinuation of key anti-leukaemic agents, potentially compromising survival. Yet, the trade-off between benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is uncertain. OBJECTIVES The primary objectives were to assess the benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis for first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism in adults with ALL receiving asparaginase-based therapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. The secondary objectives were to compare the benefits and harms of different groups of primary systemic thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the main results per type of drug (heparins, vitamin K antagonists, synthetic pentasaccharides, parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors, direct oral anticoagulants, and blood-derived products for antithrombin substitution). SEARCH METHODS We conducted a comprehensive literature search on 02 June 2020, with no language restrictions, including (1) electronic searches of Pubmed/MEDLINE; Embase/Ovid; Scopus/Elsevier; Web of Science Core Collection/Clarivate Analytics; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and (2) handsearches of (i) reference lists of identified studies and related reviews; (ii) clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov registry; the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry; the World Health Organisation's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and pharmaceutical manufacturers of asparaginase including Servier, Takeda, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ohara Pharmaceuticals, and Kyowa Pharmaceuticals), and (iii) conference proceedings (from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology (ASH); the European Haematology Association (EHA); the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)). We conducted all searches from 1970 (the time of introduction of asparaginase in ALL treatment). We contacted the authors of relevant studies to identify any unpublished material, missing data, or information regarding ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs); including quasi-randomised, controlled clinical, cross-over, and cluster-randomised trial designs) comparing any parenteral/oral preemptive anticoagulant or mechanical intervention with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or comparing two different pre-emptive anticoagulant interventions in adults aged at least 18 years with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based chemotherapy regimens. For the description of harms, non-randomised observational studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Using a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using standardised tools (RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies) and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included asymptomatic venous thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, adverse events (i.e. clinically relevant non-major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia for trials using heparins), and quality of life. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For non-randomised studies, we evaluated all studies (including studies judged to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains) in a sensitivity analysis exploring confounding. MAIN RESULTS We identified 23 non-randomised studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review, of which 10 studies provided no outcome data for adults with ALL. We included the remaining 13 studies in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, in which we identified invalid control group definition in two studies and judged outcomes of nine studies to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains and outcomes of two studies at serious risk of bias. We did not assess the benefits of thromboprophylaxis, as no RCTs were included. In the main descriptive analysis of harms, we included two retrospective non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at serious risk of bias. One study evaluated antithrombin concentrates compared to no antithrombin concentrates. We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.19 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on venous thromboembolism-related mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We do not know whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and quality of life in adults with ALL treated with asparaginase-based chemotherapy, as data were insufficient. The remaining study (224 participants) evaluated prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis. However, this study reported insufficient data regarding harms including all-cause mortality, major bleeding, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and quality of life. In the sensitivity analysis of harms, exploring the effect of confounding, we also included nine non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at critical risk of bias primarily due to uncontrolled confounding. Three studies (179 participants) evaluated the effect of antithrombin concentrates and six studies (1224 participants) evaluated the effect of prophylaxis with different types of heparins. When analysing all-cause mortality; venous thromboembolism-related mortality; and major bleeding (studies of heparin only) including all studies with extractable outcomes for each comparison (antithrombin and low-molecular-weight heparin), we observed small study sizes; few events; wide CIs crossing the line of no effect; and substantial heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots. Although the observed heterogeneity could arise through the inclusion of a small number of studies with differences in participants; interventions; and outcome assessments, the likelihood that bias due to uncontrolled confounding was the cause of heterogeneity is inevitable. Subgroup analyses were not possible due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We do not know from the currently available evidence, if thromboprophylaxis used for adults with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is associated with clinically appreciable benefits and acceptable harms. The existing research on this question is solely of non-randomised design, seriously to critically confounded, and underpowered with substantial imprecision. Any estimates of effect based on the existing insufficient evidence is very uncertain and is likely to change with future research.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Many clinical and demographic factors can influence survival of patients with hematological malignancies who have intracranial hemorrhages. Understanding the influence of these factors on patient survival can guide treatment decisions and may inform prognostic discussions. We conducted a systematic literature review to determine survival of patients with intracranial hemorrhages and concomitant hematologic malignancy. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Ovid, SCOPUS, and Embase databases were queried with the following terms: ("intracranial hemorrhages" OR "brain hemorrhage" OR "cerebral hemorrhage" OR "subdural hematoma" OR "epidural hematoma" OR "intraparenchymal hemorrhage") AND ("Hematologic Neoplasms" OR "Myeloproliferative Disorders" OR "Myelofibrosis" OR "Essential thrombocythemia" OR "Leukemia"). Abstracts and articles were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria that were determined a priori. RESULTS Literature review yielded 975 abstracts from which a total of 68 full-text articles were reviewed. 12 articles capturing 634 unique patients were included in the final qualitative analysis. Median overall survival for all patients ranged from 20 days - 1.5 months while median overall survival for the subset of patients having ICH within 10 days of diagnosis of hematological malignancy was 5 days. Intraparenchymal hemorrhages, multiple foci of hemorrhage, transfusion-resistant low platelet counts, leukocytosis, low GCS scores at presentation, and ICH early in treatment course were associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Survival for patients with hematological malignancies and concomitant ICHs remains poor. Early detection, recognition of poor prognostic and correction of hematological abnormalities appears essential to prevention and treatment of ICHs in this patient population.

Abstract

Objective: The mobilization and collection of sufficient autologous peripheral blood stem cells (APBSCs) are important for the fast and sustained reconstruction of hematopoietic function after autologous transplantation. This study aims to evaluate the mobilization effect and safety of thrombopoietin (TPO) combined with chemotherapy + G-CSF for APBSCs in patients with refractory/relapsed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Methods: A total of 78 patients were included in the present study. After receiving mobilization chemotherapy, all patients were randomly divided into two groups: TPO group (n=40), patients were given subcutaneous injection of rhTPO + G-CSF, and control group (n=38), patients were given subcutaneous injection of G-CSF. The primary endpoint was the total number of obtained CD34+ cells. The secondary endpoints were the mononuclear cell count, the proportion of target and minimum mobilization, the engraftment time of neutrophils and platelets after APBSCT, the number of platelet and red blood cell infusions, the incidence of infectious fever and fever duration, and TPO-related side effects in patients. Results: TPO participation significantly increased the total CD34+ cell count. A higher proportion of patients in the TPO group achieved the minimum and target CD34+ cells, when compared to the control group. TPO-related adverse events were not observed in either of these groups. In addition, there were no significant differences in engraftment time, the number of platelet and red blood cell transfusions, the incidence of infectious fever, and fever duration between these two groups. Conclusion: TPO combined with chemotherapy + G-CSF can safely and effectively enhance the mobilization effect for APBSCs in patients with refractory/relapsed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Abstract

Pathogen inactivation of platelet concentrates reduces the risk of blood-borne infections. However, its effect on platelet function and hemostatic efficacy of transfusion is unclear. We conducted a randomized noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy of pathogen inactivated platelets using riboflavin and ultraviolet B illumination technology (intervention) compared to standard plasma-stored platelets (control) for the prevention of bleeding in patients with hematologic malignancies and thrombocytopenia. The primary outcome parameter was the proportion of transfusion treatment periods in which the patient had grade 2 or higher bleeding as defined by World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Between November 2010 and April 2016, 469 unique patients were randomized to 567 transfusion treatment periods (283 in the control arm, 284 in the intervention arm). There was a 3% absolute difference in grade ≥ 2 bleeding in the intention-to-treat analysis: 51% of the transfusion treatment periods in the control arm and 54% in the intervention arm (95% CI -6 to 11, p-value for noninferiority 0.012). In the per-protocol analysis, however, difference in grade ≥ 2 bleeding was 8%: 44% in the control arm and 52% in the intervention arm (95% CI -2 to 18, p-value for noninferiority 0.19). Transfusion increment parameters were about 50% lower in the intervention arm. There was no difference in the proportion of patients developing HLA class I alloantibodies. In conclusion, the noninferiority criterion for pathogen inactivated platelets was met in the intention-to-treat analysis. This finding was not demonstrated in the per protocol analysis. (The Netherlands National Trial Registry number: NTR2106).

Abstract

Importance: Pathogen reduction of platelet concentrates may reduce transfusion-transmitted infections but is associated with qualitative impairment, which could have clinical significance with regard to platelet hemostatic capacity. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of platelets in additive solution treated with amotosalen-UV-A vs untreated platelets in plasma or in additive solution in patients with thrombocytopenia and hematologic malignancies. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Evaluation of the Efficacy of Platelets Treated With Pathogen Reduction Process (EFFIPAP) study was a randomized, noninferiority, 3-arm clinical trial performed from May 16, 2013, through January 21, 2016, at 13 French tertiary university hospitals. Clinical signs of bleeding were assessed daily until the end of aplasia, transfer to another department, need for a specific platelet product, or 30 days after enrollment. Consecutive adult patients with bone marrow aplasia, expected hospital stay of more than 10 days, and expected need of platelet transfusions were included. Interventions: At least 1 transfusion of platelets in additive solution with amotosalen-UV-A treatment, in plasma, or in additive solution. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of patients with grade 2 or higher bleeding as defined by World Health Organization criteria. Results: Among 790 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 55 [13.4] years; 458 men [58.0%]), the primary end point was observed in 126 receiving pathogen-reduced platelets in additive solution (47.9%; 95% CI, 41.9%-54.0%), 114 receiving platelets in plasma (43.5%; 95% CI, 37.5%-49.5%), and 120 receiving platelets in additive solution (45.3%; 95% CI, 39.3%-51.3%). With a per-protocol population with a prespecified margin of 12.5%, noninferiority was not achieved when pathogen-reduced platelets in additive solution were compared with platelets in plasma (4.4%; 95% CI, -4.1% to 12.9%) but was achieved when the pathogen-reduced platelets were compared with platelets in additive solution (2.6%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 11.1%). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or 4 bleeding was not different among treatment arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the hemostatic efficacy of pathogen-reduced platelets in thrombopenic patients with hematologic malignancies was noninferior to platelets in additive solution, such noninferiority was not achieved when comparing pathogen-reduced platelets with platelets in plasma. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01789762.

Abstract

Effect of allogeneic blood transfusion on the expression of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) in peripheral blood of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) was investigated. A total of 91 ALL children admitted to Nanfang Hospital from June 2014 to January 2017 were selected as the study group. Patients were randomly divided into allogeneic blood transfusion group (n=38) and non-transfusion group (n=53). In addition, a total of 64 healthy children were also selected from June 2014 to January 2017 as the control group. Patients in allogeneic blood transfusion group were transfused with red blood cell suspension and machine-collected platelets, while patients in non-transfusion group were not treated with blood transfusion. Peripheral venous blood was collected before and at 4, 8 and 12 weeks after blood transfusion to prepare serum. Serum IL-6 and sIL-2R levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Before transfusion, serum levels of IL-6 and sIL-2R were significantly lower in the study group than those in control group (p<0.05), and no significant differences in serum levels of IL-6 and sIL-2R were found between the allogeneic blood transfusion and non-transfusion group. After transfusion, serum levels of IL-6 and sIL-2R were stable for 12 weeks in the non-transfusion group, while IL-6 and sIL-2R levels were significantly increased in the allogeneic blood transfusion group. The results showed that serum level of IL-6 and sIL-2R was increased in ALL patients with allogeneic blood transfusion, which resulted in reduced antibody production and decreased cellular immunity. The patients had low immunity, and attention should be paid on the pathogen infection prevention.