graft-versus-host reaction

Manufacturing of CD19 Specific CAR T-Cells and Evaluation of their Functional Activity in Vitro

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES , , , , , ,

AV Petukhov1, VA Markova2, DV Motorin1, AK Titov1, NS Belozerova2, PM Gershovich2, AV Karabel’skii2, RA Ivanov2, EK Zaikova1, EYu Smirnov2, PA Butylin1, AYu Zaritskey1

1 VA Almazov National Medical Research Center, 2 Akkuratova str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197341

2 Biocad Biotechnology Company, 34-A Svyazi str., Strel’na, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 198515

For correspondence: Andrei Yur’evich Zaritskey, MD PhD, 2 Akkuratova str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197341; Tel.: +7(812)702-68-28, Fax: +7(812)702-37-65; e-mail: zaritskey@gmail.com

For citation: Petukhov AV, Markova VA, Motorin DV, et al. Manufacturing of CD19 Specific CAR T-Cells and Evaluation of their Functional Activity in Vitro. Clinical oncohematology. 2018;11(1):1–9.

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-1-1-9

ABSTRACT

Background. The most promising variant of adoptive immunotherapy of the B-line oncohematological diseases includes the use of cells with the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cells), that showed extraordinary results in clinical studies.

Aim. To manufacture CAR T-cells for the clinical use and to study their cytotoxicity in vitro.

Methods. Human T-lymphocytes were transduced by the lentiviral vector containing anti-CD19-CAR, RIAD, and GFP genes. The T-cell transduction efficacy was assessed on the basis of GFP protein signal by flow cytometry. Propidium iodide was used to analyse the cell viability. Cytotoxic activity of the manufactured CAR T-cells was studied in the presence of the target cells being directly co-cultivated. Analysis of the number and viability of CAR T-cells and cytokine expression was performed by flow cytometry.

Results. The viability of the transduced T-cells and GFP expression reached 91.87 % and 50.87 % respectively. When cultured in the presence of IL-2 and recombinant CD19 (the target antigen), the amount of CAR-T after 120 h of the process was 1.4 times larger compared with the period of 48 h. In the cytotoxic test of co-cultivation CAR-T with the K562-CD19+ cells the percentage of CAR-T increased to 57 % and 84.5 % after 48 h and 120 h of exposure respectively. When cultured with the K562 cells (test line not expressing CD19) the number of CAR T-cells decreased to 36.2 % within 48 h while the number of K562 cells increased to 58.3 %. The viability of target cells in the experimental and control groups was 3.5 % and 36.74 % respectively. Comparison of IL-6 level in the control and experimental groups revealed that the differences are insignificant, as opposed to the level of other cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF) which proved to be different in both groups.

Conclusion. The present work resulted in the production of anti-CD19 CAR T-cells with adequate viability. The in vitro model demonstrated their cytotoxicity. Manufacturing of CAR T-cells for clinical use is the first step of the development of adoptive immunotherapy in the Russian Federation.

Keywords: CAR T-cells, adoptive immunotherapy, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, lentiviral transduction, graft-versus-host reaction, сytokine release syndrome.

Received: September 15, 2017

Accepted: December 7, 2017

Read in PDF 

REFERENCES

  1. Kanakry CG, Fuchs EJ, Luznik L. Modern approaches to HLA-haploidentical blood or marrow transplantation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;13(1):10–24. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.128.
  2. Podhorecka M, Markowicz J, Szymczyk A, Pawlowski J. Target therapy in hematological malignances: new monoclonal antibodies. Int Sch Res Not. 2014;2014(3):1–16. doi: 10.1155/2014/701493.
  3. Hussaini M. Biomarkers in Hematological Malignancies: A Review of Molecular Testing in Hematopathology. Cancer Control. 2015;22(2):158–66. doi: 10.1177/107327481502200206.
  4. Forman SJ, Rowe JM. The myth of the second remission of acute leukemia in the adult. Blood. 2013;121(7):1077–82. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-08-234492.
  5. Im A, Pavletic SZ. Immunotherapy in hematologic malignancies: past, present, and future. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):94. doi: 10.1186/s13045-017-0453-8.
  6. Luskin MR, DeAngelo DJ. Chimeric Antigen Receptor Therapy in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Clinical Practice. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2017;12(4):370–9. doi: 10.1007/s11899-017-0394-x.
  7. Fesnak A, June CH, Levine BL. Engineered T cells: the promise and challenges of cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16(9):566–81. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2016.97.
  8. Lim W, June C. The Principles of Engineering Immune Cells to Treat Cancer. Cell. 2017;168(4):724–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.016.
  9. Sadelain M, Brentjens R, Riviere I. The basic principles of chimeric antigen receptor design. Cancer Discov. 2013;3(4):388–98. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0548.
  10. Brentjens RJ, Davila ML, Riviere I, et al. CD19-Targeted T Cells Rapidly Induce Molecular Remissions in Adults with Chemotherapy-Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(177):177ra38. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3005930.
  11. Maude SL, Frey N, Shaw P, et al. Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells for Sustained Remissions in Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1507–17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1407222.
  12. Turtle CJ, Hanafi L-A, Berger C, et al. CD19 CAR-T cells of defined CD4+:CD8+ composition in adult B cell ALL patients. J Clin Invest. 2016;126(6):2123–38. doi: 10.1172/JCI85309.
  13. Lee DW, Kochenderfer JN, Stetler-Stevenson M, et al. T cells expressing CD19 chimeric antigen receptors for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children and young adults: A phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9967):517–28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61403-3.
  14. Onea AS, Jazirehi AR. CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CD19 CAR)-redirected adoptive T-cell immunotherapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas. Am J Cancer Res. 2016;6(2):403–24.
  15. Kebriaei P, Singh H, Huls MH, et al. Phase I trials using Sleeping Beauty to generate CD19-specific CAR T cells. J Clin Invest. 2016;126(9):3363–76. doi: 10.1172/JCI86721.
  16. ICML 2017: Data From the TRANSCEND Trial of JCAR017 in Relapsed and Refractory Aggressive B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma — The ASCO Post. Available from: http://www.ascopost.com/News/57764 (accessed 7.10.2017).
  17. Locke FL, Neelapu SS, Bartlett NL, et al. Abstract CT019: Primary results from ZUMA-1: a pivotal trial of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axicel; KTE-C19) in patients with refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cancer Res. 2017;77(13 Suppl):CT019. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT019.
  18. Kalos M, Levine BL, Porter DL, et al. T Cells with Chimeric Antigen Receptors Have Potent Antitumor Effects and Can Establish Memory in Patients with Advanced Leukemia. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(95):95ra73. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002842.
  19. Porter DL, Hwang W-T, Frey NV, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells persist and induce sustained remissions in relapsed refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(303):303ra139. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac5415.
  20. Jensen MC, Riddell SR. Designing chimeric antigen receptors to effectively and safely target tumors. Curr Opin Immunol. 2015;33:9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2015.01.002.
  21. Павлова А.А., Масчан М.А., Пономарев В.Б. Адоптивная иммунотерапия генетически модифицированными Т-лимфоцитами, экспрессирующими химерные антигенные рецепторы. Онкогематология. 2017;12(1):17–32. doi: 10.17650/1818-8346-2017-12-1-17-32. [Pavlova AА, Maschan MА, Ponomarev VB. Adoptitive immunotherapy with genetically engineered T lymphocytes modified to express chimeric antigen receptors. Oncohematology. 2017;12(1):17–32. doi: 10.17650/1818-8346-2017-12-1-17-32. (In Russ)]
  22. Dai H, Wang Y, Lu X, Han W. Chimeric Antigen Receptors Modified T-Cells for Cancer Therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(7):1–15. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv439.
  23. Abate-Daga D, Davila ML. CAR models: next-generation CAR modifications for enhanced T-cell function. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2016;3:16014. doi: 10.1038/mto.2016.14.
  24. Holzinger A, Barden M, Abken H. The growing world of CAR T cell trials: a systematic review. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2016;65(12):1433–50. doi: 10.1007/s00262-016-1895-5.
  25. Jensen MC, Popplewell L, Cooper LJ, et al. Antitransgene rejection responses contribute to attenuated persistence of adoptively transferred CD20/CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor redirected T cells in humans. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16(9):1245–56. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.03.014.
  26. Gong MC, Latouche JB, Krause A, et al. Cancer patient T cells genetically targeted to prostate-specific membrane antigen specifically lyse prostate cancer cells and release cytokines in response to prostate-specific membrane antigen. Neoplasia. 1999;1(2):123–7.
  27. Davila ML, Sadelain M. Biology and clinical application of CAR T cells for B cell malignancies. Int J Hematol. 2016;104(1):6–17. doi: 10.1007/s12185-016-2039-6.
  28. Park JH, Geyer MB, Brentjens RJ. CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapeutics for hematologic malignancies: interpreting clinical outcomes to date. Blood. 2016;127(26):3312–20. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-02-629063.
  29. Grupp S, Kalos M, Barrett D, et al. Chimeric Antigen Receptor–Modified T Cells for Acute Lymphoid Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(16):1509–18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215134.
  30. Yu H, Sotillo E, Harrington C, et al. Repeated loss of target surface antigen after immunotherapy in primary mediastinal large B cell lymphoma. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(1):E11–E13. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24594.
  31. Sotillo E, Barrett DM, Black KL, et al. Convergence of Acquired Mutations and Alternative Splicing of CD19 Enables Resistance to CART-19 Immunotherapy. Cancer Discov. 2015;5(12):1282–95. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-1020.
  32. Fischer J, Paret C, El Malki K, et al. CD19 Isoforms Enabling Resistance to CART-19 Immunotherapy Are Expressed in B-ALL Patients at Initial Diagnosis. J Immunother. 2017;40(5):187–95. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0000000000000169.
  33. Jacoby E, Nguyen SM, Fountaine TJ, et al. CD19 CAR immune pressure induces B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia lineage switch exposing inherent leukaemic plasticity. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12320. doi: 10.1038/ncomms12320.
  34. Gardner R, Wu D, Cherian S, et al. Acquisition of a CD19-negative myeloid phenotype allows immune escape of MLL-rearranged B-ALL from CD19 CAR-T-cell therapy. Blood. 2016;127(20):2406–10. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-08-665547.
  35. Zah E, Lin M-Y, Silva-Benedict A, et al. T Cells Expressing CD19/CD20 Bispecific Chimeric Antigen Receptors Prevent Antigen Escape by Malignant B Cells. Cancer Immunol Res. 2016;4(6):498–508. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-15-0231.
  36. Shah NN, Stetler-Stevenson M, Yuan CM, et al. Minimal Residual Disease Negative Complete Remissions Following Anti-CD22 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) in Children and Young Adults with Relapsed/Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL). Blood. 2016;128(22):650.
  37. Davila ML, Riviere I, Wang X, et al. Efficacy and Toxicity Management of 19-28z CAR T Cell Therapy in B Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(224):224ra25. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008226.
  38. Long AH, Haso WM, Shern JF, et al. 4-1BB costimulation ameliorates T cell exhaustion induced by tonic signaling of chimeric antigen receptors. Nat Med. 2015;21(6):581–90. doi: 10.1038/nm.3838.
  39. Hay KA, Turtle CJ. Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cells: Lessons Learned from Targeting of CD19 in B-Cell Malignancies. Drugs. 2017;77(3):237–45. doi: 10.1007/s40265-017-0690-8.
  40. Wehbi VL, Tasken K. Molecular mechanisms for cAMP-mediated immunoregulation in T cells – role of anchored protein kinase a signaling units. Front Immunol. 2016;7:1–19. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00222.
  41. Newick K, O’Brien S, Sun J, et al. Augmentation of CAR T-cell Trafficking and Antitumor Efficacy by Blocking Protein Kinase A Localization. Cancer Immunol Res. 2016;4(6):541–51. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-15-0263.
  42. Sanjana NE, Shalem O, Zhang F. Improved vectors and genome-wide libraries for CRISPR screening. Nat Methods. 2014;11(8):783–4. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3047.
  43. Kochenderfer JN, Feldman SA, Zhao Y, et al. Construction and Preclinical Evaluation of an Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor. J Immunother. 2009;32(7):689–702. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181ac6138.
  44. Wang K, Wei G, Liu D. CD19: a biomarker for B cell development, lymphoma diagnosis and therapy. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2012;1(1):36. doi: 10.1186/2162-3619-1-36.
  45. Uckun FFM, Jaszcz W, Ambrus JJL, et al. Detailed Studies on Expression and Function of CD19 Surface Determinant by Using B43 Monoclonal Antibody and the Clinical Potential of Anti-CD19 Immunotoxins. Blood. 1988;71(1):13–29.
  46. Wei G, Ding L, Wang J, et al. Advances of CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in refractory/relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2017;6(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s40164-017-0070-9.
  47. Barrett DM, Singh N, Hofmann TJ, et al. Interleukin 6 Is Not Made By Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells and Does Not Impact Their Function. Blood. 2016;128(22):2016–7.
  48. Singh N, Hofmann TJ, Gershenson Z, et al. Monocyte lineage-derived IL-6 does not affect chimeric antigen receptor T-cell function. Cytotherapy. 2017;19(7):867–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2017.04.001.
  49. Hartmann J, Schussler‐Lenz M, Bondanza A, Buchholz CJ. Clinical development of CAR T cells—challenges and opportunities in translating innovative treatment concepts. EMBO Mol Med. 2017;9(9):1183–97. doi: 10.15252/emmm.201607485.
  50. Hagen T. Novartis Sets a Price of $475,000 for CAR T-Cell Therapy. Available from: http://www.onclive.com/web-exclusives/novartis-sets-a-price-of-475000-for-car-tcell-therapy (accessed 31.10.2017).
  51. Yang Y, Jacoby E, Fry TJ. Challenges and opportunities of allogeneic donor-derived CAR T cells. Curr Opin Hematol. 2015;22(6):509–15. doi: 10.1097/MOH.0000000000000181.
  52. Li H, Zhao Y. Increasing the safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy. Protein Cell. 2017;8(8):573–89. doi: 10.1007/s13238-017-0411-9.

Prevention of Acute Graft-Versus-Host Reaction after Allogeneic Unrelated Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Comparison of Effectiveness of Treatment Regimens Based on Anti-Thymocyte Globulin and Cyclophosphamide

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION , , , ,

OV Pirogova, IS Moiseev, EV Babenko, OA Slesarchuk, OV Paina, SN Bondarenko, EV Morozova, AL Alyanskii, BV Afanas’ev

RM Gorbacheva Scientific Research Institute of Pediatric Hematology and Transplantation; Academician IP Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University, 6/8 L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197022

For correspondence: Ol’ga Vladislavovna Pirogova, 6/8 L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197022; Tel: +7(812)338-62-65; e-mail: dr.pirogova@gmail.com

For citation: Pirogova OV, Moiseev IS, Babenko EV, et al. Prevention of Acute Graft-Versus-Host Reaction after Allogeneic Unrelated Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Comparison of Effectiveness of Treatment Regimens Based on Anti-Thymocyte Globulin and Cyclophosphamide. Clinical oncohematology. 2016;9(4):391–97 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2016-9-4-391-397

ABSTRACT

Background & Aims. So far there is no data presented on the effectiveness of prevention of the graft-versus-host reaction (GVH) using post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) prescribed after unrelated donor allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of acute and chronic GVH, the transplantation-associated mortality rate, the event-free and overall survival rates, as well as the toxicity profile and the incidence of infectious complications in the study group using cyclophosphamide for GVH prevention; the other aim is to carry out a comparative analysis of the obtained results with the historical control group.

Methods. 110 adult patients were enrolled in a clinical study to evaluate the effectiveness of GVH prevention, using PTCy (No. NCT02294552). In order to prevent GVH, the study group (PTCy group) received cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). The historical control group (ATG group) consisted of 160 patients prescribed with a GVH prevention regimen including anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), calcineurin inhibitors, and methotrexate or MMF. Peripheral blood stem cells were used as a source of the transplant.

Results. The cumulative incidence of II–IV degree acute GVH (18.2 % vs. 40.4 %, respectively; p < 0.0001), III–IV degree GVH (4.5 % vs. 22.5 %, respectively; p < 0.0001), and chronic GVH (21.7 % vs. 40.6 %, respectively; p < 0.0001) was significantly lower in the PTCy group than in the ATG group. Prevention of GVH based on PTCy was associated with the reduction in transplant-associated mortality (12.7 % vs. 33.7 %, respectively; p = 0.003), increased overall survival (70.9 % vs. 44.4 %, respectively; p < 0.001), event-free survival (68.2 % vs. 38.1 %, respectively; p < 0.001) and GVH- and relapse-free survival rates (59.1 % vs. 16.3 %, respectively; p = 0.001). Prevention of GVH using PTCy (as compared to ATG) was less toxic, accompanied by a reduction in the incidence veno-occlusive disease (2.7 % vs. 10.9 %, respectively; p = 0.016), severe mucositis (69.5 % vs. 87.6 %, respectively; p < 0.001), and invasive mycosis (7.2 % vs. 29 %, respectively; p < 0.001).

Conclusion. A combination of cyclophosphamide with tacrolimus and MMF is an effective regimen for GVH prevention in patients after allo-HSCT from an unrelated donor.

Keywords: graft-versus-host reaction, GVH prevention, allo-HCST, cyclophosphamide, anti-thymocyte globulin.

Received: March 30, 2016

Accepted: May 4, 2016

Read in PDF (RUS) pdficon

REFERENCES

  1. Thomas’ Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science Publishers; 2004. pp. 130–77. doi: 10.1002/9780470987070.
  2. Szydlo R, Goldman JM, Klein JP, et al. Results of allogeneic bone marrow transplants for leukemia using donors other than HLA-identical siblings. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(5):1767–77.
  3. Di Stasi A, Milton DR, Poon LM, et al. Similar transplantation outcomes for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome patients with haploidentical versus 10/10 human leukocyte antigen-matched unrelated and related donors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(12):1975–81. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.08.013.
  4. Zuckerman T, Rowe JM. Alternative donor transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia: which source and when? Curr Opin Hematol. 2007;14(2):152–61. doi: 1097/moh.0b013e328017f64d.
  5. Tolar J, Sodani P, Symons H, et al. Alternative donor transplant of benign primary hematologic disorders. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(5):619–27. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2015.1.
  6. Anasetti C, Beatty PG, Storb R, et al. Effect of HLA incompatibility on graft-versus-host disease, relapse, and survival after marrow transplantation for patients with leukemia or lymphoma. Hum Immunol. 1990;29(2):79–91. doi: 10.1016/0198-8859(90)90071-v.
  7. Kanda Y, Chiba S, Hirai H, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from family members other than HLA-identical siblings over the last decade (1991–2000). Blood. 2003;102(4):1541–7. doi: 10.1182/blood-2003-02-0430.
  8. Ruutu T, Gratwohl A, de Witte T, et al. Prophylaxis and treatment of GVHD: EBMT-ELN working group recommendations for a standardized practice. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(2):168–73. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2013.107.
  9. Flowers ME, Inamoto Y, Carpenter PA, et al. Comparative analysis of risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease and for chronic graft-versus-host disease according to National Institutes of Health consensus criteria. 2011;117(11):3214–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-08-302109.
  10. Finke J, Bethge WA, Schmoor C, et al. Standard graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis with or without anti-T-cell globulin in haematopoietic cell transplantation from matched unrelated donors: a randomised, open-label, multicentre phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(9):855–64. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70225-6.
  11. Soiffer RJ, LeRademacher J, Ho V, et al. Impact of immune modulation with anti-T-cell antibodies on the outcome of reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancies. 2011;117(25):6963–70. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-01-332007.
  12. O’Donnell MR, Long GD, Parker PM, et al. Busulfan/cyclophosphamide as conditioning regimen for allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for myelodysplasia. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(12):2973–9.
  13. Lehnert S, Rybka WB. Amplification of the graft-versus-host reaction by cyclophosphamide: dependence on timing of drug administration. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1994;13(4):473–7. doi: 10.1097/00007890-198606000-00002.
  14. Mayumi H, Himeno K, Tanaka K, et al. Drug-induced tolerance to allografts in mice: Xii. The relationships between tolerance, chimerism, and graft-versus-host disease. Transplantation. 1987;44(2):286–90. doi: 10.1097/00007890-19870800-00021.
  15. Luznik L, Jalla S, Engstrom LW, et al. Durable engraftment of major histocompatibility complex-incompatible cells after nonmyeloablative conditioning with fludarabine, low-dose total body irradiation, and posttransplantation cyclophosphamide. Blood. 2001;98(12):3456–64. doi: 10.1182/blood.v98.12.3456.
  16. Santos GW, Owens AH Jr. A comparison of the effects of selected cytotoxic agents on allogeneic skin graft survival in rats. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1965;116:327–40.
  17. Berenbaum MC. Prolongation of homograft survival in mice with single doses of cyclophosphamide. 1963;200(4901):84. doi: 10.1038/200084a0.
  18. Owens AH Jr, Santos GW. The effect of cytotoxic drugs on graft-versus-host disease in mice. Transplantation. 1971;11(4):378–82. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197104000-00004.
  19. Luznik L, O’Donnell PV, Symons HJ, et al. HLA-Haploidentical Bone Marrow Transplantation for Hematologic Malignancies Using Nonmyeloablative Conditioning and High-Dose, Posttransplantation Cyclophosphamide. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(6):641–50. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.03.005.
  20. Przepiorka D, Weisdorf D, Martin P, et al. 1994 Consensus Conference on Acute GVHD Grading. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995;15(6):825–8.
  21. Filipovich AH, Weisdorf D, Pavletic S, et al. National Institutes of Health consensus development project on criteria for clinical trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease: I. Diagnosis and staging working group report. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2005;11(12):945–56. doi: 1016/j.bbmt.2005.09.004.
  22. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):580–637. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8.
  23. De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(12):1813–21. doi: 10.1086/588660.
  24. Luznik L, Bolanos-Meade J, Zahuraket M, et al. High-dose cyclophosphamide as single-agent, short-course prophylaxis of graft-versus-host disease. 2010;115(16):3224–30. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-11-251595.
  25. Kanakry CG, Tsai HL, Bolanos-Meade J, et al. Single-agent GVHD prophylaxis with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide after myeloablative, HLA-matched BMT for AML, ALL, and MDS. 2014;124(25):3817–27. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-07-587477.
  26. Bradstock KF, Bilmon I, Kwan J, et al. Single-Agent High-Dose Cyclophosphamide for Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis in Human Leukocyte Antigen-Matched Reduced-Intensity Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation Results in an Unacceptably High Rate of Severe Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21(5):941–4. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.01.020.
  27. Holtick U, Chemnitz JM, Shimabukuro-Vornhagen A, et al. OCTET-CY: a phase II study to investigate the efficacy of post-transplant cyclophosphamide as sole graft-versus-host prophylaxis after allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Eur J Haematol. 2015;96(1):27–35. doi: 10.1111/ejh.12541.
  28. Solomon SR, Sanacore M, Zhang X, et al. Calcineurin inhibitor-free graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide and brief-course sirolimus following reduced-intensity peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20(11):1828–34. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.07.020.