Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010 Mar 2;16(5):563–564. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.02.025

Introduction to the Reports from the National Cancer Institute 1st International Workshop on the Biology, Prevention, and Treatment of Relapse after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Michael R Bishop 1,13, Edwin P Alyea 3rd 2,13, Mitchell S Cairo 3,13, JH Frederik Falkenburg 4,13, Carl H June 5,13, Nicolaus Kröger 6,13, Richard F Little 7,13, Jeffrey S Miller 8,13, Steven Z Pavletic 1,13, David Porter 5,13, Stanley R Riddel 9,13, Koen van Besien 10,13, Alan S Wayne 11,13, Daniel J Weisdorf 8,13, Roy Wu 7,13, Sergio Giralt 12,13
PMCID: PMC2996879  NIHMSID: NIHMS190903  PMID: 20202482

Important advances in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) over the past 20 years have substantially reduced the risk of treatment-related morbidity and mortality. However, in that same time period, the incidence of relapse has not changed significantly, despite the introduction of donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) as a specific modality to treat relapse [1,2]. Relapse is the leading cause of death following allogeneic HSCT, and it remains the primary cause of death among patients surviving more than two year after allogeneic HSCT [1]. Moreover, the risk of relapse and disease progression is significantly higher following non-myeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning than after myeloablative allogeneic HSCT for almost all malignant diseases for which these regimens have been employed [35].

Prior to the introduction of DLI, the primary approaches to the treatment of relapse were withdrawal of immune suppression, use of conventional chemotherapeutic agents, and consideration of a second allogeneic HSCT [6,7]. Initial reports demonstrated DLI was dramatically effective for relapsed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and provided optimism that there was an efficacious modality which could potentially benefit the majority of patients who experienced relapse following allogeneic HSCT. This enthusiasm was quickly dampened by the subsequent reports that DLI benefited only a minority of patients with diseases other than CML [8,9]. The optimal dose, frequency, and cell type for DLI remains to be determined [9]. Various attempts have been made to augment the potency and specificity of DLI; however, the utilization and efficacy remains essentially unchanged [1012].

The one major advancement that has occurred over the past 20 years, relative to the problem of relapse after allogeneic HSCT, is our improved understanding of the biology that underlies the graft-versus-leukemia/tumor (GVT) effect [13,14]. Research on the biology of GVT, such as the role of killer immunoglobulin receptors, could eventually have significant clinical impact [15]. Other factors, independent of GVT, also affect relapse. These include specific disease biology, tumor microenvironment, sanctuary sites and chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy resistance. How these factors interrelate to predict long-term disease control versus disease recurrence (early vs. late) is uncertain and requires further study. The experience with both syngeneic and autologous HSCT demonstrated that the conditioning regimen is important for long–term disease control [16]. However, as more and more patients are undergoing allografting with reduced-intensity and non-myeloablative conditioning regimens, disease progression and relapse will increasingly be an important cause of treatment failure. This has led to the use of strategies, such as administration of “targeted agents” and immunomodulatory agents post-transplantation to reduce the risk of relapse associated with these conditioning regimens.

It was with the recognition that relapse after allogeneic HSCT is a significant clinical problem, that there is growing understanding of the mechanisms underlying the biology of relapse, and the perception there was a lack of coordination of efforts in the basic, translational and clinical research on relapse, that the idea of organizing a workshop on this subject emerged. Initially starting as an informal query, it rapidly became apparent there was significant interest in this topic and there were many individuals who were highly interested in participating in such an effort. An initial organizational meeting hosted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) took place in San Francisco during the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Subsequent meetings led to the formation of separate committees addressing the biology, epidemiology, prevention, monitoring and treatment of relapse. Committee chairs recruited various members both within and importantly outside the transplant community with diverse expertise relative to their specific committee topic. Each committee was given the charge of reviewing and summarizing the available scientific data on their specific topic, identifying ongoing research of great interest and potential, as well as where research was felt to be deficient. The results of these efforts were presented and discussed at a workshop sponsored by the NCI occurring November 2–3, 2009 in Bethesda, MD and included over 250 international participants. The goals of this workshop were to review the current state of the science, to present respective committee recommendations, and to have debate and discussion among all of the workshop participants with the ultimate goal of promoting a coordinated research effort to address the problem of relapse. Over the following months a summary of each committee’s findings and recommendations will be presented in the Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. The purpose of these reports is multifold including providing a scientific review on various topics related to relapse after allogeneic HSCT, but more importantly to stimulate discussion and identify and prioritize research efforts on this important clinical problem.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Intramural Research Program.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  • 1.Gratwohl A, Brand R, Frassoni F, et al. Acute and Chronic Leukemia Working Parties; Infectious Diseases Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Cause of death after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in early leukaemias: an EBMT analysis of lethal infectious complications and changes over calendar time. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2005;36:757–769. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kolb HJ, Mittermüller J, Clemm C, et al. Donor leukocyte transfusions for treatment of recurrent chronic myelogenous leukemia in marrow transplant patients. Blood. 1990;76:2462–2465. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Crawley C, Iacobelli S, Björkstrand B, Apperley JF, Niederwieser D, Gahrton G. Reduced-intensity conditioning for myeloma: lower nonrelapse mortality but higher relapse rates compared with myeloablative conditioning. Blood. 2007;109:3588–3594. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-07-036848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hari P, Carreras J, Zhang MJ, et al. Allogeneic transplants in follicular lymphoma: higher risk of disease progression after reduced-intensity compared to myeloablative conditioning. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14:236–245. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2007.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ringdén O, Labopin M, Ehninger G, et al. Reduced intensity conditioning compared with myeloablative conditioning using unrelated donor transplants in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4570–4577. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.9692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gale RP. Approaches to leukemic relapse following bone marrow transplantation. Transplant Proc. 1978;10:167–171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Frassoni F, Barrett AJ, Grañena A, et al. Relapse after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for acute leukaemia: a survey by the E.B.M.T. of 117 cases. Br J Haematol. 1988;70:317–320. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1988.tb02488.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Collins RH, Jr, Shpilberg O, Drobyski WR, et al. Donor leukocyte infusions in 140 patients with relapsed malignancy after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:433–444. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.2.433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tomblyn M, Lazarus HM. Donor lymphocyte infusions: the long and winding road: how should it be traveled? Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008 Nov;42(9):569–579. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2008.259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Alyea EP, Soiffer RJ, Canning C, et al. Toxicity and efficacy of defined doses of CD4(+) donor lymphocytes for treatment of relapse after allogeneic bone marrow transplant. Blood. 1998;91:3671–3680. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shimoni A, Gajewski JA, Donato M, et al. Long-Term follow-up of recipients of CD8-depleted donor lymphocyte infusions for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia relapsing after allogeneic progenitor cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2001;7:568–575. doi: 10.1016/s1083-8791(01)70017-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Porter DL, Levine BL, Bunin N, et al. A phase 1 trial of donor lymphocyte infusions expanded and activated ex vivo via CD3/CD28 costimulation. Blood. 2006;107:1325–1331. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-08-3373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kolb HJ. Graft-versus-leukemia effects of transplantation and donor lymphocytes. Blood. 2008;112:4371–4383. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-03-077974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Welniak LA, Blazar BR, Murphy WJ. Immunobiology of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Annu Rev Immunol. 2007;25:139–170. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.25.022106.141606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ruggeri L, Capanni M, Urbani E, et al. Effectiveness of donor natural killer cell alloreactivity in mismatched hematopoietic transplants. Science. 2002;295:2097–2100. doi: 10.1126/science.1068440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fefer A, Cheever MA, Greenberg PD. Identical-twin (syngeneic) marrow transplantation for hematologic cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;76:1269–1273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES