Table 1.

Selected studies of posttransplant maintenance therapy

Lead AuthorYear JournalDiseaseTherapyStudy informationMain clinical outcomeSecondary clinical outcomeSubgroup analysisMain clinical outcome in subgroupToxicityMiscellaneous
Targeted therapy 
Levis4  2024
JCO 
FLT3-ITD AML Gilteritinib 120  mg × 2 y RCT glt vs placebo, n  =  356 RFS HR 0.68, P  =  0.052  MRD+ before or after HCT RFS HR 0.5, P  =  0.0065 favoring MRD+ (no benefit in MRD−)   
Brissot8  2015 Haematologica ALL Ph+ TKI pretransplant and/or posttransplant Retrospective
n  =  473
ALL Ph+ CR1 who underwent alloSCT
n  =  157
TKI after transplant 
Posttransplant TKI maintenance showed benefits in leukemia-free survival (HR  =  0.44; P  =  0.002), overall survival (HR  =  0.42; P  =  0.004), and a lower relapse incidence (HR  =  0.40; P  =  0.01).      
Guan69  2024
Cancer 
ALL Ph+ Imatinib
Dasatinib 
Retrospective, n  =  91 imatinib, n  =  50 dasatinib 5  y imat vs dasat
CIR 16% vs 12%
NRM 5% vs 9.8%
OS 86% vs 78% 
Mild GVHD higher in dasatinib   Neutropenia
GI bleed in dasatinib 
 
Fathi5  2023
Clin Cancer Res 
IDH1 AML Ivosidenib × 12 cycles – RP2D 500  mg daily Phase 1, n  =  18 (16 got ivo) 2  y CIR 19%
2  y NRM 0%
2  y PFS 81%
2  y OS 88% 
6  m aGVHD 6% g2-4   QTc prolongation in n  =  2 N  =  8 stopped
maintenance 
Fatchi6  2022
Blood Adv 
IDH2 AML Enasidenib Phase 1, n  =  23 2  y CIR 16%
2  y PFS 69%
2  y OS 74% 
6  m aGVHD 16% g2-4, 12  m cGVHD 42% mod/sev   Neutropenia, anemia N  =  8 stopped maintenance 
Cheng70  2024
Transplant Immunol 
ALL Ruxolitinib 5-10  mg BID Observational, n  =  8 Relapse in 25% at 14  m f/u aGVHD: 25% gr1-2, 0 gr3-4, 12% cGVHD     
Maintenance chemotherapy 
Garcia13  2024
Blood Adv 
MDS/AML Aza 36  m/m2 D1-5 + ven 400  mg D1-14 × 8 42 d cycles or 12
28 d cycles 
Phase 1, n  =  27
96% MRD+ 
mOS NR at 25  m f/u  n  =  22 who got ven/aza 2  y OS 67%, PFS 59%, NRM 0%, CIR 41% Leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia  
Fan71  2023
BMT 
ALL Decitabine Retrospective, n  =  65 decitabine, n  =  76 control 3  y CIR 19.6% decitabine vs 36% control, HR 0.49   T-ALL
3  y CIR 11.7 vs. 35.9% favoring decitabine
Ph- B-ALL 3 yCIR 19 vs 42% favoring decitabine 
  
Kent12  2023
BMT 
AML Ven × 1  y after HCT Prospective, n  =  49 1  y OS 70% 1  y RFS 67%   Cytopenias, GI 88% completed full year, 67% had dose interruptions 
Pasvolsky10  2024
Clin Lympoma Myeloma Leuk 
AML FLT3-neg/MDS Aza Retrospective matched control, n  =  93 Aza, n  =  257, control 3  y CIR 29% vs 33% P  =  0.09  High risk AML/MDS HR 0.4 CIR, P  =  0.009 favoring Aza;
PFS HR 0.2, P  =  0.004; and AML HR 0.4, P  =  0.04 
  
Pharmacological immunotherapy 
Metheny14  2024
Blood Adv 
ALL Ph+ Inotuzumab – 0.6  mg/m2 identified as MTD Phase 1, high risk of recurrence, n  =  19 1  y nonrelapse mortality 5.6% PFS 89% and
OS 94%
at 1  y with 18  m f/u 
  Thrombocytopenia, no VOD  
Adoptive cell immunotherapy 
Chapuis66  2019
Nat Med 
AML Wilms' Tumor Antigen 1-specific TCR transduced Epstein-Bar virus-specific donor CD8 T cells (TTCR-C4Phase 1
prophylactic infusion
n  =  12
 
3  y RFS 100%, compared to control group 54% (P  =  0.002)    1 patient developed grade 3 acute GVHD. No differences in the incidences of chronic GVHD compared to comparative control group
(55% vs 61%) 
 
Lulla67  2021 Blood AML/MDS Donor-derived mLST Phase 1
Adjuvant arm
n  =  17
(n  =  12, prophylactic infusion for the patients who never relapsed after HSCT, n  =  5 relapsed after HSCT but in CR after salvage therapy)
 
11/17 never relapsed after mLST infusion. Median LFS not reached. 2-year OS 77%   No grade 2 or above GVHD, or no extensive chronic GVHD  
Lead AuthorYear JournalDiseaseTherapyStudy informationMain clinical outcomeSecondary clinical outcomeSubgroup analysisMain clinical outcome in subgroupToxicityMiscellaneous
Targeted therapy 
Levis4  2024
JCO 
FLT3-ITD AML Gilteritinib 120  mg × 2 y RCT glt vs placebo, n  =  356 RFS HR 0.68, P  =  0.052  MRD+ before or after HCT RFS HR 0.5, P  =  0.0065 favoring MRD+ (no benefit in MRD−)   
Brissot8  2015 Haematologica ALL Ph+ TKI pretransplant and/or posttransplant Retrospective
n  =  473
ALL Ph+ CR1 who underwent alloSCT
n  =  157
TKI after transplant 
Posttransplant TKI maintenance showed benefits in leukemia-free survival (HR  =  0.44; P  =  0.002), overall survival (HR  =  0.42; P  =  0.004), and a lower relapse incidence (HR  =  0.40; P  =  0.01).      
Guan69  2024
Cancer 
ALL Ph+ Imatinib
Dasatinib 
Retrospective, n  =  91 imatinib, n  =  50 dasatinib 5  y imat vs dasat
CIR 16% vs 12%
NRM 5% vs 9.8%
OS 86% vs 78% 
Mild GVHD higher in dasatinib   Neutropenia
GI bleed in dasatinib 
 
Fathi5  2023
Clin Cancer Res 
IDH1 AML Ivosidenib × 12 cycles – RP2D 500  mg daily Phase 1, n  =  18 (16 got ivo) 2  y CIR 19%
2  y NRM 0%
2  y PFS 81%
2  y OS 88% 
6  m aGVHD 6% g2-4   QTc prolongation in n  =  2 N  =  8 stopped
maintenance 
Fatchi6  2022
Blood Adv 
IDH2 AML Enasidenib Phase 1, n  =  23 2  y CIR 16%
2  y PFS 69%
2  y OS 74% 
6  m aGVHD 16% g2-4, 12  m cGVHD 42% mod/sev   Neutropenia, anemia N  =  8 stopped maintenance 
Cheng70  2024
Transplant Immunol 
ALL Ruxolitinib 5-10  mg BID Observational, n  =  8 Relapse in 25% at 14  m f/u aGVHD: 25% gr1-2, 0 gr3-4, 12% cGVHD     
Maintenance chemotherapy 
Garcia13  2024
Blood Adv 
MDS/AML Aza 36  m/m2 D1-5 + ven 400  mg D1-14 × 8 42 d cycles or 12
28 d cycles 
Phase 1, n  =  27
96% MRD+ 
mOS NR at 25  m f/u  n  =  22 who got ven/aza 2  y OS 67%, PFS 59%, NRM 0%, CIR 41% Leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia  
Fan71  2023
BMT 
ALL Decitabine Retrospective, n  =  65 decitabine, n  =  76 control 3  y CIR 19.6% decitabine vs 36% control, HR 0.49   T-ALL
3  y CIR 11.7 vs. 35.9% favoring decitabine
Ph- B-ALL 3 yCIR 19 vs 42% favoring decitabine 
  
Kent12  2023
BMT 
AML Ven × 1  y after HCT Prospective, n  =  49 1  y OS 70% 1  y RFS 67%   Cytopenias, GI 88% completed full year, 67% had dose interruptions 
Pasvolsky10  2024
Clin Lympoma Myeloma Leuk 
AML FLT3-neg/MDS Aza Retrospective matched control, n  =  93 Aza, n  =  257, control 3  y CIR 29% vs 33% P  =  0.09  High risk AML/MDS HR 0.4 CIR, P  =  0.009 favoring Aza;
PFS HR 0.2, P  =  0.004; and AML HR 0.4, P  =  0.04 
  
Pharmacological immunotherapy 
Metheny14  2024
Blood Adv 
ALL Ph+ Inotuzumab – 0.6  mg/m2 identified as MTD Phase 1, high risk of recurrence, n  =  19 1  y nonrelapse mortality 5.6% PFS 89% and
OS 94%
at 1  y with 18  m f/u 
  Thrombocytopenia, no VOD  
Adoptive cell immunotherapy 
Chapuis66  2019
Nat Med 
AML Wilms' Tumor Antigen 1-specific TCR transduced Epstein-Bar virus-specific donor CD8 T cells (TTCR-C4Phase 1
prophylactic infusion
n  =  12
 
3  y RFS 100%, compared to control group 54% (P  =  0.002)    1 patient developed grade 3 acute GVHD. No differences in the incidences of chronic GVHD compared to comparative control group
(55% vs 61%) 
 
Lulla67  2021 Blood AML/MDS Donor-derived mLST Phase 1
Adjuvant arm
n  =  17
(n  =  12, prophylactic infusion for the patients who never relapsed after HSCT, n  =  5 relapsed after HSCT but in CR after salvage therapy)
 
11/17 never relapsed after mLST infusion. Median LFS not reached. 2-year OS 77%   No grade 2 or above GVHD, or no extensive chronic GVHD  

Aza, azacitinide; cGVHD, chronic GVHD; CR1, first complete remission; GI, gastrointestinal; LFS, leukemia-free survival; mLST, multiple leukemia antigen–specific T cells; mOS, median overall survival; MTD, maximum tolerated dose; NR, not reached; R2PD, recommended phase 2 dose; T-ALL, T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal