Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation versus conventional therapy for advanced primary cutaneous T cell lymphoma

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Abstract

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To compare the efficacy of allogeneic stem cell transplantation and conventional therapy in the treatment of advanced primary cutaneous T cell lymphoma.

Background

Description of the condition

Primary cutaneous T cell lymphomas (CTCL) are a clinically and histologically distinct group of T lymphocyte malignancies that manifest solely in the skin. CTCL are still incurable by conventional therapies. The most common subtype of CTCL is Mycosis fungoides (MF) which typically runs an indolent course in early stages (Whittaker 2007). Patients with advanced stages of CTCL (WHO/EORTC >IIB), have a poor prognosis and the optimal therapy in this situation is still unclarified.

Incidence rates in Germany vary between 3 to 4 per million inhabitants for CTCL overall (Stang 2006). In the United States of America, incidence rates for advanced CTCL including erythrodermic MF and Sézary‐syndrome (SS, leukaemic variant of MF) have been estimated for approximately 10% of all patients with cutaneous lymphoma (Vidulich 2009). In Norway, patients with tumour stage and erythrodermic MF or Sézary‐syndrome represent approximately 30% of all patients with CTCL (Saunes 2009). Therefore, the incidence for advanced CTCL (tumour and erythrodermic stage in WHO/EORTC stage > IIB) in Germany can be estimated at approximately 1 per million inhabitants.

Standard conventional therapy for CTCL is stage dependent and includes a variety of topical and systemic treatments recommended by consensus guidelines (Stadler 2008, Whittaker 2003, Whittaker 2007): radiation, photopheresis, uv‐irradiation, monoclonal antibodies (e.g. Alemtuzumab), interferon‐alpha, cytostatic monotherapies (e.g. gemcitabine, liposomal doxorubicine) or even polychemotherapy (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/ prednisone (CHOP)). Following these consensus guidelines, only short term clinical responses can be achieved in advanced stage CTCL and median survival is around 2.9 years. In patients with Sézary‐syndrome, median survival is even worse with approximately 13 months (Stadler 2008, Whittaker 2003, Whittaker 2007).

As conventional treatments do not lead to long term disease control in advanced stage CTCL, high‐intensity regimens have been investigated as an alternative treatment option. Disappointingly, high‐dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation showed only short‐lived responses (Duarte 2008).

Description of the intervention

Allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation (allo SCT) has been shown to provide a substantial graft‐versus‐lymphoma (GvL) effect in primary cutaneous T cell lymphoma (Duarte 2008). In several retrospective analyses, allo SCT led to long‐term remissions in patients with advanced stage CTCL (WHO/EORTC > IIB) (Dearden 2007, Duarte 2008, Introcaso 2008, Molina 2005). Nevertheless, allo SCT has only been explored in single cases, case series or retrospectively (Wu 2009). Approximately 20 patients with advanced stage CTCL summarized by Duarte et al. have achieved durable remissions in 80% (follow‐up 3 years) after allo SCT. Conditioning regimens were mixed in these case series and consisted of myeloablative (full‐intensity) and also non‐myeloablative (reduced‐intensity) conditioning (RIC). RIC appeared to be equally as efficacious as conventional myeloablative regimens in terms of stable hematopoietic engraftment and remission induction, but with significant less toxicity (Duarte 2008). This is particularly interesting for the broader use of RIC allo SCT in older patients who represent the majority of CTCL individuals. 

How the intervention might work

The use of allogeneic stem cells offers the advantage of a tumour cell free graft. More importantly, allo SCT provides the basis of adoptive immunotherapy, leading to the so called graft‐versus‐tumour‐effect (GvT) (Foss 1992). Patients who relapsed from CTCL after allogeneic SCT have been shown to develop complete remissions again after donor lymphocyte infusions (DLI) which strongly supports the existence of a GvT effect (Duarte 2008). Severe graft‐versus‐host‐disease (GvHD) is one of the major complications after allo SCT. Nevertheless, limited GvHD is associated with prolonged disease‐free survival. As GvHD frequently occurs in the skin, the major manifestation site of MF/CTCL, this phenomenon may also contribute to the efficacy of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in this disease entity (Giralt 2001).

Wu 2009 published a meta‐analysis of 39 cases with advanced cutaneous lymphoma from the literature: 20 patients received an allogeneic and 19 patients an autologous transplantation. Analyses of the overall survival (OS) showed a more favorable outcome of patients who received allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Event‐free survival showed a more durable response in patients who received allogeneic stem cell transplantation. In the allogeneic group, the majority (70%) of patients experienced persistent graft‐versus‐host disease with mild to moderate severity.

Up to date, there are several clinical phase II/III trials investigating the role of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in lymphomas, but in the majority these trials do not focus on primary cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Instead, the majority of these trials are rather broad and open to wide range of hematological malignancies ‐ among which primary cutaneous T cell lymphoma might be present as well. In the ongoing clinical trial NCT00506129 at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 25 patients are planned to receive allogeneic stem cell transplantation in a non‐randomized, open label, uncontrolled, single group assignment. Data collection is planned to be completed in September 2010.

Multicenter, randomized, double blind clinical trials are still missing up to now.

Why it is important to do this review

The results of this systematic review and meta‐analysis will provide evidence on the role of allogeneic stem cell transplantation versus standard conventional therapy in the treatment of advanced primary cutaneous T cell lymphoma. By systematically identifying all studies conducted to date and subsequent meta‐analysis, we aim to overcome the statistical limitations of individual trials, which are mostly underpowered. In addition, a systematic identification of all randomized controlled studies conducted to date and a critical review of their reliability and validity is required. In case of missing prospective and randomized clinical trials, we will show the need for further investigations. Our timely meta‐analysis will strongly influence future treatment recommendations.

Objectives

To compare the efficacy of allogeneic stem cell transplantation and conventional therapy in the treatment of advanced primary cutaneous T cell lymphoma.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Apart from the intervention/control, participants in the intervention and control groups must have been intended to receive identical care. Only studies on the principle of Mendelian randomization will be considered for this review. This is named after Gregor Mendel (1822–1884), a Moravian and an Augustinian monk. In the haematological context, for a patient’s sibling to be a suitable donor, he/she must have inherited the same tissue type as the patient from their mother and father. Since the chances of there being a match depend on the random assortment of genes at fertilization, only one in four siblings will be expected to have the same tissue type as the patient. Thus, whether or not a patient has a matched sibling donor available is essentially for a random process and the presence or absence of a donor can be used as a surrogate for randomization. Mendelian randomization is a method of overcoming this lack of randomized evidence in standard randomized controlled trials Wheatley 2004.

Any published or unpublished genetically randomized trials will be eligible for inclusion in the review. We will include both full text publications and abstract publications. Due to the need of Mendelian randomization in an allogeneic stem cell transplantation trial only sibling donor versus no donor trials will be included. The design of quasi‐randomized trials is considered to be of low quality leading to unreliable study results. Cross‐over trials are generally considered to be inappropriate if the primary outcome is irreversible (for example, mortality) (Higgins 2008a). If randomized controlled clinical trials are missing, applicable publicated results will be discussed.

Types of participants

We will include adult patients (age >= 18 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of advanced primary cutaneous lymphoma, without gender or ethnicity restriction. We will consider advanced stages of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (tumor stage, WHO/EORTC stage > IIB), including newly diagnosed patients, and those with relapsed or resistant disease.  

Types of interventions

The main intervention will be allogeneic stem cell transplantation compared to conventional chemotherapy or immunotherapy. We will consider any chemotherapeutic and immuno‐chemotherapeutic regimen for comparison.

The intervention is defined as follows.

  • Allogeneic stem cell transplantation plus conditioning therapy regardless of agents, with or without radiotherapy, reduced‐intensity conditioning (RIC) or non‐RIC as treatment for advanced cutaneous T cell lymphoma.

The control intervention is defined as follows.

  • Conventional therapy for advanced cutaneous T cell lymphoma therapy such as radiation, photopheresis, uv‐irradiation, monoclonal antibodies (e.g. Alemtuzumab), interferon‐alpha, cytostatic monotherapies (e.g. Gemcitabine or liposomal Doxorubicine) or polychemotherapies (e.g. CHOP).

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes

  • We will evaluate overall survival (OS) as the primary efficacy endpoint.

Secondary outcomes

  • Time to progression

  • Response rate

  • Treatment‐related mortality

  • Adverse event

  • Quality of life

Search methods for identification of studies

We have adapted search strategies from those suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of InterventionsLefebvre 2008. We will apply no language restriction to reduce the language bias. Due to the specifity of allogeneic stem cell transplantation trials search strategies have to consider Mendelian randomization, making the finding and assessment of these studies much more difficult than for standard randomized trials.

Electronic searches

The search will cover:

  • the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL);

  • MEDLINE (see Appendix 1 for search strategy);

We will also search databases of ongoing trials:

Searching other resources

We will handsearch:

  • citations from identified trials and relevant review articles;

  • the following conference proceedings:

    • ASH (American Society of Hematology) 2009 to present;

    • ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) 2009 to present.

(Randomised controlled trials from ASH, ASCO, EBMT and International Conference on Cutaneous T Cell Lymphoma up to 2009 were handsearched by the Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group (CHMG) and are included in CENTRAL).

We will also contact groups or individuals who may have conducted randomized trials in allo SCT as therapy for primary cutaneous T cell lymphoma.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

Two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts of studies identified from the above sources. The first screening will discard studies that are clearly ineligible. If this cannot be done satisfactorily from the title and abstract, we will obtain a full‐text version and discuss eligibility. The aim is to be overly inclusive rather than to risk losing relevant studies. We will assess selected studies with an eligibility form to determine whether they meet the inclusion criteria. We will resolve any disagreement by discussion. If necessary, we will seek further information from the authors where articles contain insufficient data to make a decision about eligibility. The eligibility form contains the following questions.

  1. Is the study described as genetically randomized in order to avoid bias?

  2. Is the diagnosis of CTCL histologically confirmed?

  3. Were the participants in the experimental group treated by allogeneic stem cell transplantation?

  4. Were the participants in the control group treated by chemotherapy or immuno‐chemotherapy or immunotherapy?

  5. Due to the need of Mendelian randomization in an allogeneic stem cell transplantation trial only sibling donor versus no donor trials will be included.

Data extraction and management

Two authors will independently extract data concerning details of study population, intervention and outcomes using a standardized data extraction form. This form will include at least the following terms:

  • general information: author, title, source, publication date, country, language, duplicate publications;

  • study characteristics: trial design, aims, setting and dates, source of participants, examination of proportion of the donor group (Mendelian randomization), inclusion/exclusion criteria, treatment allocation, comparability of groups, subgroup analysis, statistical methods, power calculations, compliance with assigned treatment, length of follow‐up, time‐point of randomization (Mendelian);

  • participant characteristics: age, gender, ethnicity, number of participants recruited/allocated/evaluated, participants lost to follow up, additional diagnoses, percentage actually receiving transplant;

  • interventions: setting, type of (multi‐agent) chemotherapy (intensity of induction and conditioning regimen, number of cycles, with or without radiation), type and dosage of immunotherapy, type and dosage of antibodies, transplantation with or without growth factor support, transplant details, infection prophylaxis, type of maintenance treatment, type of salvage treatment, duration of follow up;

  • outcomes: overall survival, progression‐free survival, response rate, treatment‐related mortality, adverse events, quality of life.

Where possible, we will seek missing data from the authors.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors will independently evaluate all included trials using a list of selected quality criteria. We will evaluate whether the criterion is fulfilled on a three‐point scale: agree, uncertain, disagree. The criteria will be according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2008).

  1. Prospective donor availability reporting

  2. Allocation concealment

  3. Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors

  4. Incomplete outcome data

  5. Selective outcome reporting

  6. Other sources of bias

We will resolve disagreement between the rating review authors by consensus. The review authors will not be blinded to the names of authors, institutions, journals or the outcomes of the trials.

Measures of treatment effect

For binary outcomes, we will calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each trial. We will calculate time‐to‐event data as Hazard Ratios (HR) according to Parmar (Parmar 1998; Tierney 2007).

We will assess heterogeneity of treatment effects between trials using a Chi2 test with a significance level at P < 0.1. We will use statistic to quantify possible heterogeneity (I² > 30% moderate heterogeneity, I² > 75% considerable heterogeneity) (Deeks 2008).

Dealing with missing data

We will impute missing continuous data where necessary (e.g. calculating standard deviations (SDs) from standard errors and P values) and clearly document this in the review. Where it is not possible to calculate missing SDs, we will carry out available case analysis based on participants who completed a trial (Higgins 2008).

Assessment of heterogeneity

We will inspect heterogeneity (the degree of difference between the results of different trials) graphically in the results of the trials and assess this by calculating a test of heterogeneity (Chi2 and I2). We will explore potential causes of heterogeneity by sensitivity and subgroup analysis using meta‐regression (Deeks 2008).

Assessment of reporting biases

In meta‐analyses with at least 10 trials we will examine a funnel plot estimating the treatment effect against the precision of trials (plots of the log of the relative risk for efficacy against the standard error) in order to estimate potential asymmetry that may indicate selection bias (the selective publication of trials with positive findings) or methodological flaws in the small studies. We will also estimate publication bias by the formal linear regression test (Egger 1997, Sterne 2008). We will consider a P value of less than 0.1 significant for this test.

Data synthesis

We will perform analyses according to the recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration. We will use the Cochrane software package Review Manager 5 RevMan2008 for analysis.

We will pool HRs and their confidence intervals for time‐to‐event outcomes using an inverse variance method, and RRs and their confidence intervals for dichotomous data using the Mantel‐Haenszel method. We will use a fixed‐effect model. We will repeat primary analyses using a random‐effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) for sensitivity analyses.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We will consider the following subgroups:

  • age (adults < 65 years, adults >= 65 years);

  • stage;

  • type and intensity of preparative regimen;

  • antibody usage;

  • immunotherapy (interferon) usage;

  • patients newly diagnosed or with relapse;

  • duration of follow up;

  • RIC versus non‐RIC (conditioning therapy)

We will assess heterogeneity of treatment effects between trials by using a Chi2 test with a significance level at P < 0.1. We will use the I² statistic to quantify possible heterogeneity.

Sensitivity analysis

We will base sensitivity analyses on:

  • quality components, including full text publications/abstracts, preliminary results versus mature results;

  • fixed‐effects versus random‐effects model.