User login
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers say they have identified biomarkers that may help guide early treatment decisions in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
The biomarkers, ST2 and REG3-alpha, were measured during the first month of GVHD treatment and proved more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM). In fact, biomarker assessment revealed patients who responded to treatment but had a high risk of NRM and nonresponders who had a low risk of NRM.
The researchers also found that biomarkers changed over the first month of treatment but remained significant predictors of NRM. This suggests that modifying treatment according to biomarker findings at various time points could result in better outcomes for patients.
“We think this is going to transform the way we treat graft-versus-host disease,” said James L.M. Ferrara, MD, DSc, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Dr. Ferrara and Hrishikesh Srinagesh, along with their colleagues at Mount Sinai, have conducted extensive research with these biomarkers and presented some of their findings at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
Comparing biomarkers and response
In one study, the researchers evaluated 355 patients who had undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant at 1 of 20 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between January 2016 and February 2018. All patients developed acute GVHD and received systemic steroids as treatment.
Patients provided blood samples weekly for the first month of treatment, and concentrations of ST2 and REG3-alpha were measured in each sample. Both biomarker concentrations were used to calculate the biomarker probability of NRM.
“The concentration of those two biomarkers are put into a computer, and we get … a single number, and that gives us the probability of mortality,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[W]e call this the MAGIC algorithm probability, or MAP. And when a MAP is low, the patient has a very low chance of dying from graft-versus-host disease, when it’s intermediate, they have an intermediate risk, and when it’s high, they have a high risk.”
The researchers then compared the MAP and clinical response for their ability to predict 6-month NRM throughout the first month of therapy for acute GVHD.
MAP bests response
After 1 month of therapy, the MAP was more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.84 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).
Likewise, the MAP after 1 week of therapy was more accurate than clinical response at 1 month for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.80 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).
“[T]he clinical responses were good, but not great, at predicting long-term outcome, where the biomarker, the MAP, was significantly better,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[A]t every time point we tested, the biomarkers were better than the clinical responses.”
The researchers also identified subgroups of clinical responders and nonresponders for whom MAP more accurately predicted 6-month NRM.
The team found that 61% of clinical nonresponders were actually low risk according to MAP. And the incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly lower in the MAP-designated low-risk patients than in MAP-designated high-risk patients – 22% and 56%, respectively (P less than .001).
On the other hand, 10% of clinical responders were high risk according to MAP. The incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly higher in the high-risk patients than in the low-risk patients – 40% and 13%, respectively (P less than .001).
Assessing changes over time
The researchers found that patients who were initially high risk by MAP but had not experienced NRM by 6 months had significant decreases in their MAP after 4 weeks of treatment (P = .003). Patients who did experience NRM had a significant increase in their MAP whether their initial MAP was low (P = .007) or high (P = .024).
“What we found was that patients who lived tended to either have low biomarkers at the start of treatment and stay low or start out with high biomarkers and have reductions over the first month of therapy,” Mr. Srinagesh said. “Conversely, patients who tended to do worse were those who had either increases in their biomarkers or stayed high at all time points.”
The researchers identified a threshold – 0.290 – for separating patients by mortality risk.
“Patients who started out above the threshold and then went below it had a 5-fold reduction in mortality, whereas patients who started out below the threshold and rose above it had a 5-fold increase in mortality,” Mr. Srinagesh said.
MAP in clinical trials and practice
Based on these findings and results from related studies, the researchers theorize that MAP would be a better endpoint for clinical trials than clinical response.
At present, there are three trials in which researchers are using MAP as an endpoint to assess the efficacy of treatment for GVHD (NCT02133924, NCT03459040, and NCT03846479). Dr. Ferrara said a fourth trial is set to begin this summer.
Additionally, MAP is being used in clinical practice. A company called Viracor Eurofins Clinical Diagnostics licensed the MAGIC algorithm and provides three related tests for consumer use.
Viracor’s aGVHD Pre-Symptomatic Algorithm assigns patients to high- and low-risk groups based on results from samples collected 7 days after transplant. The aGVHD Symptomatic Onset Algorithm assigns patients to high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. The aGVHD Post-Treatment Algorithm, which can be used 7 days or more after GVHD treatment initiation, stratifies steroid-resistant patients into high- or low-risk groups for both NRM and overall survival.
“We are still in early days of figuring out how to use [the biomarker tests], but … what I’ve heard is that people are finding them to be useful in their clinical practice,” Dr. Ferrara said.
Dr. Ferrara has an ownership interest in and receives royalties from Viracor. Mr. Srinagesh reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers say they have identified biomarkers that may help guide early treatment decisions in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
The biomarkers, ST2 and REG3-alpha, were measured during the first month of GVHD treatment and proved more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM). In fact, biomarker assessment revealed patients who responded to treatment but had a high risk of NRM and nonresponders who had a low risk of NRM.
The researchers also found that biomarkers changed over the first month of treatment but remained significant predictors of NRM. This suggests that modifying treatment according to biomarker findings at various time points could result in better outcomes for patients.
“We think this is going to transform the way we treat graft-versus-host disease,” said James L.M. Ferrara, MD, DSc, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Dr. Ferrara and Hrishikesh Srinagesh, along with their colleagues at Mount Sinai, have conducted extensive research with these biomarkers and presented some of their findings at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
Comparing biomarkers and response
In one study, the researchers evaluated 355 patients who had undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant at 1 of 20 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between January 2016 and February 2018. All patients developed acute GVHD and received systemic steroids as treatment.
Patients provided blood samples weekly for the first month of treatment, and concentrations of ST2 and REG3-alpha were measured in each sample. Both biomarker concentrations were used to calculate the biomarker probability of NRM.
“The concentration of those two biomarkers are put into a computer, and we get … a single number, and that gives us the probability of mortality,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[W]e call this the MAGIC algorithm probability, or MAP. And when a MAP is low, the patient has a very low chance of dying from graft-versus-host disease, when it’s intermediate, they have an intermediate risk, and when it’s high, they have a high risk.”
The researchers then compared the MAP and clinical response for their ability to predict 6-month NRM throughout the first month of therapy for acute GVHD.
MAP bests response
After 1 month of therapy, the MAP was more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.84 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).
Likewise, the MAP after 1 week of therapy was more accurate than clinical response at 1 month for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.80 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).
“[T]he clinical responses were good, but not great, at predicting long-term outcome, where the biomarker, the MAP, was significantly better,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[A]t every time point we tested, the biomarkers were better than the clinical responses.”
The researchers also identified subgroups of clinical responders and nonresponders for whom MAP more accurately predicted 6-month NRM.
The team found that 61% of clinical nonresponders were actually low risk according to MAP. And the incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly lower in the MAP-designated low-risk patients than in MAP-designated high-risk patients – 22% and 56%, respectively (P less than .001).
On the other hand, 10% of clinical responders were high risk according to MAP. The incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly higher in the high-risk patients than in the low-risk patients – 40% and 13%, respectively (P less than .001).
Assessing changes over time
The researchers found that patients who were initially high risk by MAP but had not experienced NRM by 6 months had significant decreases in their MAP after 4 weeks of treatment (P = .003). Patients who did experience NRM had a significant increase in their MAP whether their initial MAP was low (P = .007) or high (P = .024).
“What we found was that patients who lived tended to either have low biomarkers at the start of treatment and stay low or start out with high biomarkers and have reductions over the first month of therapy,” Mr. Srinagesh said. “Conversely, patients who tended to do worse were those who had either increases in their biomarkers or stayed high at all time points.”
The researchers identified a threshold – 0.290 – for separating patients by mortality risk.
“Patients who started out above the threshold and then went below it had a 5-fold reduction in mortality, whereas patients who started out below the threshold and rose above it had a 5-fold increase in mortality,” Mr. Srinagesh said.
MAP in clinical trials and practice
Based on these findings and results from related studies, the researchers theorize that MAP would be a better endpoint for clinical trials than clinical response.
At present, there are three trials in which researchers are using MAP as an endpoint to assess the efficacy of treatment for GVHD (NCT02133924, NCT03459040, and NCT03846479). Dr. Ferrara said a fourth trial is set to begin this summer.
Additionally, MAP is being used in clinical practice. A company called Viracor Eurofins Clinical Diagnostics licensed the MAGIC algorithm and provides three related tests for consumer use.
Viracor’s aGVHD Pre-Symptomatic Algorithm assigns patients to high- and low-risk groups based on results from samples collected 7 days after transplant. The aGVHD Symptomatic Onset Algorithm assigns patients to high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. The aGVHD Post-Treatment Algorithm, which can be used 7 days or more after GVHD treatment initiation, stratifies steroid-resistant patients into high- or low-risk groups for both NRM and overall survival.
“We are still in early days of figuring out how to use [the biomarker tests], but … what I’ve heard is that people are finding them to be useful in their clinical practice,” Dr. Ferrara said.
Dr. Ferrara has an ownership interest in and receives royalties from Viracor. Mr. Srinagesh reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – Researchers say they have identified biomarkers that may help guide early treatment decisions in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).
The biomarkers, ST2 and REG3-alpha, were measured during the first month of GVHD treatment and proved more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month nonrelapse mortality (NRM). In fact, biomarker assessment revealed patients who responded to treatment but had a high risk of NRM and nonresponders who had a low risk of NRM.
The researchers also found that biomarkers changed over the first month of treatment but remained significant predictors of NRM. This suggests that modifying treatment according to biomarker findings at various time points could result in better outcomes for patients.
“We think this is going to transform the way we treat graft-versus-host disease,” said James L.M. Ferrara, MD, DSc, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Dr. Ferrara and Hrishikesh Srinagesh, along with their colleagues at Mount Sinai, have conducted extensive research with these biomarkers and presented some of their findings at the Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
Comparing biomarkers and response
In one study, the researchers evaluated 355 patients who had undergone allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant at 1 of 20 Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) centers between January 2016 and February 2018. All patients developed acute GVHD and received systemic steroids as treatment.
Patients provided blood samples weekly for the first month of treatment, and concentrations of ST2 and REG3-alpha were measured in each sample. Both biomarker concentrations were used to calculate the biomarker probability of NRM.
“The concentration of those two biomarkers are put into a computer, and we get … a single number, and that gives us the probability of mortality,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[W]e call this the MAGIC algorithm probability, or MAP. And when a MAP is low, the patient has a very low chance of dying from graft-versus-host disease, when it’s intermediate, they have an intermediate risk, and when it’s high, they have a high risk.”
The researchers then compared the MAP and clinical response for their ability to predict 6-month NRM throughout the first month of therapy for acute GVHD.
MAP bests response
After 1 month of therapy, the MAP was more accurate than clinical response for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.84 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).
Likewise, the MAP after 1 week of therapy was more accurate than clinical response at 1 month for predicting 6-month NRM. The area under the curve was 0.80 and 0.65, respectively (P less than .001).
“[T]he clinical responses were good, but not great, at predicting long-term outcome, where the biomarker, the MAP, was significantly better,” Dr. Ferrara said. “[A]t every time point we tested, the biomarkers were better than the clinical responses.”
The researchers also identified subgroups of clinical responders and nonresponders for whom MAP more accurately predicted 6-month NRM.
The team found that 61% of clinical nonresponders were actually low risk according to MAP. And the incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly lower in the MAP-designated low-risk patients than in MAP-designated high-risk patients – 22% and 56%, respectively (P less than .001).
On the other hand, 10% of clinical responders were high risk according to MAP. The incidence of 6-month NRM was significantly higher in the high-risk patients than in the low-risk patients – 40% and 13%, respectively (P less than .001).
Assessing changes over time
The researchers found that patients who were initially high risk by MAP but had not experienced NRM by 6 months had significant decreases in their MAP after 4 weeks of treatment (P = .003). Patients who did experience NRM had a significant increase in their MAP whether their initial MAP was low (P = .007) or high (P = .024).
“What we found was that patients who lived tended to either have low biomarkers at the start of treatment and stay low or start out with high biomarkers and have reductions over the first month of therapy,” Mr. Srinagesh said. “Conversely, patients who tended to do worse were those who had either increases in their biomarkers or stayed high at all time points.”
The researchers identified a threshold – 0.290 – for separating patients by mortality risk.
“Patients who started out above the threshold and then went below it had a 5-fold reduction in mortality, whereas patients who started out below the threshold and rose above it had a 5-fold increase in mortality,” Mr. Srinagesh said.
MAP in clinical trials and practice
Based on these findings and results from related studies, the researchers theorize that MAP would be a better endpoint for clinical trials than clinical response.
At present, there are three trials in which researchers are using MAP as an endpoint to assess the efficacy of treatment for GVHD (NCT02133924, NCT03459040, and NCT03846479). Dr. Ferrara said a fourth trial is set to begin this summer.
Additionally, MAP is being used in clinical practice. A company called Viracor Eurofins Clinical Diagnostics licensed the MAGIC algorithm and provides three related tests for consumer use.
Viracor’s aGVHD Pre-Symptomatic Algorithm assigns patients to high- and low-risk groups based on results from samples collected 7 days after transplant. The aGVHD Symptomatic Onset Algorithm assigns patients to high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. The aGVHD Post-Treatment Algorithm, which can be used 7 days or more after GVHD treatment initiation, stratifies steroid-resistant patients into high- or low-risk groups for both NRM and overall survival.
“We are still in early days of figuring out how to use [the biomarker tests], but … what I’ve heard is that people are finding them to be useful in their clinical practice,” Dr. Ferrara said.
Dr. Ferrara has an ownership interest in and receives royalties from Viracor. Mr. Srinagesh reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
REPORTING FROM ALF 2019
