The Use of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Classical Hodgkin’s Lymphoma during the COVID-19 Pandemic (Pirogov Medical Center’s Experience)

VO Sarzhevskii, EA Demina, NE Mochkin, AA Spornik, AA Mamedova, EG Smirnova, AE Bannikova, AA Samoilova, VS Bogatyrev, OYu Bronov, YuA Abovich, VYa Melnichenko

NI Pirogov Russian National Medical Center of Surgery, 70 Nizhnyaya Pervomaiskaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 105203

For correspondence: Vladislav Olegovich Sarzhevskii, MD, PhD, 70 Nizhnyaya Pervomaiskaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 105203; Tel.: +7(495)603-72-17; e-mail:

For citation: Sarzhevskii VO, Demina EA, Mochkin NE, et al. The Use of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Classical Hodgkin’s Lymphoma during the COVID-19 Pandemic (Pirogov Medical Center’s Experience). Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(3):307–15 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-3-307-315


Background. Currently, there are neither systematic data nor clinical guidelines for checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy in cancer patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this respect classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cHL) is no exception. The article deals with the experience of Pirogov Medical Center (NI Pirogov Russian National Medical Center of Surgery) in PD-1-inhibitor immunotherapy in relapsed/refractory cHL in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors endeavour to cover matters of current interest concerning immunotherapy and differential diagnosis of pulmonary adverse events emerging in the context of new realities in providing medical care to cancer patients.

Aim. To assess feasibility and safety of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy in relapsed/refractory cHL in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials & Methods. This is a retrospective analysis of adverse events of therapy and COVID-19 mortality, and incidence in 50 cHL patients who received immunotherapy at the Pirogov Medical Center in the period of spring COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

Results. During the reported period (from March 11, 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, to May 25, 2020) the group of 50 cHL patients showed relatively low overall incidence rate of newly diagnosed immune-mediated adverse events (14 %; n = 7). Severe adverse events were identified in 2 (4 %) patients. Bacterial infection incidence was 6 % (n = 3). Clinical signs of corona virus confirmed by subsequent laboratory COVID-19 tests were observed in 2 (4 %) patients. One patient died due to the non-COVID-19-associated reason. The main issue the center’s staff was faced with was the need for differential diagnosis between drug-induced (as well as immune-mediated) pulmonitis and COVID-19-associated pneumonia.

Conclusion. The retrospective analysis reveals that PD-1-inhibitor immunotherapy in cHL patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is a feasible method of therapy, but it requires high awareness. Special focus should be given to clinical and radiological similarities of COVID-19-associated pneumonia and pulmonitis as a complication of immunotherapy.

Keywords: classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma, immunotherapy, PD-1-inhibitors, COVID-19 pandemic.

Received: May 29, 2020

Accepted: June 28, 2020

Read in PDF


  1. Coronavirus W.H.O. WHO; 2020. COVID-19. [Internet] Available from: (accessed 28.05.2020).

  2. Стопкороновирус.рф. [электронный документ] Доступно по: https://стопкоронавирус.рф. Ссылка активна на 28.05.2020.[Stopcoronavirus.rf. [Internet] Available from: https://стопкоронавирус.рф (accessed 28.05.2020) (In Russ)]

  3. Liang W, Guan W, Chen R, et al. Cancer patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide analysis in China. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(3):335–7. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30096-6.

  4. Zhang L, Zhu F, Xie L, et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19-infected cancer patients: a retrospective case study in three hospitals within Wuhan, China. Ann Oncol. 2000 (in press). doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

  5. Petrelli F, Ardito R, Borgonovo K, et al. Haematological toxicities with immunotherapy in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2018;103:7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.129.

  6. Finkel I, Sternschuss M, Wollner M, et al. Immune-related neutropenia following treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother. 2020;43(2):67–74. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0000000000000293.

  7. Choi J, Lee SY. Clinical characteristics and treatment of immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immune Netw. 2020;20(1):e9. doi: 10.4110/in.2020.20.e9.

  8. Stroud CR, Hegde A, Cherry C, et al. Tocilizumab for the management of immune mediated adverse events secondary to PD-1 blockade. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019;25(3):551–7. doi: 10.1177/1078155217745144.

  9. Xu X, Han M, Li T, et al. Effective treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with tocilizumab. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2020;117(20):10970–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117.

  10. Ansell S, Lesokhin A, Borrello I, et al. PD-1 Blockade With Nivolumab in Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(4):311–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1411087.

  11. Armand P, Engert A, Younes A, et al. Nivolumab for Relapsed/Refractory Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma After Failure of Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Extended Follow-Up of the Multicohort Single-Arm Phase II CheckMate 205 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(14):1428–39. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.0793.

  12. Chen R, Zinzani P, Fanale M, et al. Phase II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab for Relapsed/Refractory Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(19):2125–32. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.72.1316.

  13. D’Souza A, Jaiyesimi I, Trainor L, et al. Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Administration: Adverse Events. Transfus Med Rev. 2008;22(4):280–90. doi: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2008.05.005.

  14. Rochefoucauld J, Noel N, Lambotte O. Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events Associated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Patients: A Patient-Centred Approach. Intern Emerg Med. 2020. doi: 10.1007/s11739-020-02295-2.

  15. Diamantopoulos P, Gaggadi M, Kassi E, et al. Late-onset Nivolumab-Mediated Pneumonitis in a Patient With Melanoma and Multiple Immune-Related Adverse Events. Melanoma Res. 2017;27(4):391–5. doi: 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000355.

Breakthrough Hemolysis as a Challenging Issue in Targeted Therapy of Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria (Resolution of Expert Panel)


Ирина Александровна Вилюм — ассистент кафедры клинической фармакологии и доказательной медицины, ПСПбГМУ им. акад. И.П. Павлова, член отделения ISPOR, член Ассоциации специалистов в области оценки технологии здравоохранения, г. Санкт-Петербург.

Мария Алексеевна Виноградова — канд. мед. наук, руководитель отделения репродуктивной гематологии и клинической гемостазиологии, НМИЦ акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии им. акад. В.И. Кулакова, г. Москва.

Татьяна Семеновна Капорская — канд. мед. наук, руководитель отделения гематологии, Областная клиническая больница, г. Иркутск.

Татьяна Семеновна Константинова — канд. мед. наук, руководитель отделения гематологии, Областная клиническая больница № 1, г. Екатеринбург.

Александр Дмитриевич Кулагин — д-р мед. наук, профессор кафедры гематологии, трансфузиологии и трансплантологии, ПСПбГМУ им. акад. И.П. Павлова, г. Санкт-Петербург.

Галина Борисовна Кучма — канд. мед. наук, доцент кафедры факультетской терапии и эндокринологии, Оренбургский государственный медицинский университет, г. Оренбург.

Елена Алексеевна Лукина — д-р мед. наук, профессор, руководитель отделения орфанных заболеваний, НМИЦ гематологии, г. Москва.

Елена Алексеевна Михайлова — д-р мед. наук, профессор, ведущий научный сотрудник отделения химиотерапии гемобластозов и депрессий кроветворения, НМИЦ гематологии, г. Москва.

Валентина Захаровна Молоствова — заместитель главного врача по терапии, клинический руководитель отделения гематологии и химиотерапии, Краевая клиническая больница № 1 им. проф. С.И. Сергеева, г. Хабаровск.

Вадим Вадимович Птушкин — д-р мед. наук, профессор, заместитель главного врача по гематологии, Городская клиническая больница им. С.П. Боткина, г. Москва.

Ольга Дмитриевна Сердюк — руководитель отделения гематологии, Краевой клинический онкологический диспансер № 1, г. Краснодар.

20 декабря 2019 г. в Москве состоялся совет экспертов, в ходе которого ведущие специалисты обсудили актуальную проблему прорывного внутрисосудистого гемолиза на фоне современной таргетной терапии пароксизмальной ночной гемоглобинурии (ПНГ) с целью дальнейшего улучшения результатов лечения в России. Собранию совета экспертов предшествовало дистанционное анкетирование специалистов по реальной клинической практике длительной антикомплементарной терапии ПНГ.

В совещании приняли участие гематологи федеральных и региональных центров: Мария Алексеевна Виноградова, Татьяна Семеновна Капорская, Татьяна Семеновна Константинова, Александр Дмитриевич Кулагин, Галина Борисовна Кучма, Елена Алексеевна Лукина, Елена Алексеевна Михайлова, Валентина Захаровна Молоствова, Вадим Вадимович Птушкин, Ольга Дмитриевна Сердюк, а также специалист в области оценки технологий здравоохранения Ирина Александровна Вилюм.

Советом экспертов были рассмотрены следующие аспекты патогенетической терапии ПНГ:

  • причины недостаточной эффективности таргетной терапии ПНГ;
  • проблема прорывного внутрисосудистого гемолиза на фоне современной терапии ПНГ;
  • клинико-экономические последствия прорывного гемолиза у пациентов с ПНГ, получающих терапию экулизумабом;
  • клиническая тактика в случае прорывного гемолиза и возможные пути улучшения таргетного контроля гемолиза при ПНГ.

Пароксизмальная ночная гемоглобинурия (ПНГ) является редким клональным заболеванием крови, характеризуется хроническим внутрисосудистым гемолизом, костномозговой недостаточностью, угрожающими жизни тромбозами и другими тяжелыми осложнениями.

С 2012 г. в России современным методом терапии внутрисосудистого гемолиза при ПНГ является использование экулизумаба, представляющего собой гуманизированное моноклональное антитело против С5-компонента системы комплемента. Длительность лечения экулизумабом у ряда больных ПНГ в России превышает 7 лет.

По данным отечественных и зарубежных публикаций, около 1/3 пациентов с ПНГ имеет лишь субоптимальный ответ на терапию экулизумабом. Основной вклад в недостаточную эффективность экулизумаба при ПНГ вносят следующие причины и механизмы: прорывной внутрисосудистый гемолиз, экстраваскулярный гемолиз (опсонизация эритроцитов с фенотипом ПНГ за счет активного связывания фрагментов C3 и последующее повышенное разрушение эритроцитов в селезенке и печени) и нарушения кроветворения (недостаточность костного мозга, клональная эволюция).

Накопленный опыт антикомплементарной терапии позволил включить в новую редакцию «Клинических рекомендаций по диагностике и лечению ПНГ» следующие термины.

Прорывной гемолиз — это утрата контроля внутрисосудистого гемолиза, в т. ч. с развитием гемолитического криза, на фоне регулярной патогенетической терапии ПНГ.

Фармакокинетический прорывной гемолиз (ФК) развивается у пациентов с индивидуальными параметрами снижения концентрации экулизумаба за 1–4 дня до очередного введения препарата в поддерживающей фазе.

Фармакодинамический прорывной гемолиз (ФД) связан с комплемент-активирующими состояниями (инфекции, операции, беременность и др.) и может развиваться у любого пациента.

Эксперты, представляющие федеральные центры и крупные регионы России, обсудив результаты проведенного анкетирования, а также опираясь на современные данные НИИ ДОГиТ им. Р.М. Горбачевой ПСПбГМУ им. И.П. Павлова о долгосрочной эффективности терапии экулизумабом, сделали следующие выводы.

  • В реальной клинической практике до 30 % пациентов с ПНГ имеют субоптимальный контроль гемолиза и нуждаются в коррекции терапевтической тактики.
  • ФК прорывной гемолиз является частой причиной недостаточной эффективности экулизумаба при ПНГ.
  • До 15 % пациентов с ПНГ демонстрируют ФК прорывной гемолиз. Коррекция лечения в этом случае предполагает сокращение интервала между введениями стандартной дозы 900 мг экулизумаба до 10–12 дней или увеличение дозы до 1200 мг каждые 14 дней. Уменьшение интервала между введениями до 12–10 дней остается более доступной опцией в реальной клинической практике (у каждого второго пациента возникает необходимость сокращения интервала), но создает ряд неудобств в связи с графиком инфузий препарата. Данная тактика позволяет добиться контроля прорывного гемолиза не у всех пациентов, у около 30 % больных требуется увеличение дозы до 1200 мг. У небольшой группы пациентов с ФК/ФД прорывным гемолизом (~10 %) приходится одновременно сокращать интервал и повышать дозу экулизумаба до 1200–1500 мг.

Эксперты наблюдали развитие симптомов и осложнений при возникновении прорывного гемолиза (утомляемость, слабость, боль в животе, эпизоды острого повреждения почек, тромбозы). До 50 % пациентов, по мнению экспертов, нуждаются в гемотрансфузиях в связи с прорывным гемолизом. В ряде регионов из-за ограниченного доступа к экулизумабу нет возможности ни увеличить дозу, ни сократить интервал. В таких случаях потребность в гемотрансфузиях повышается. Прорывной гемолиз зачастую требует госпитализации пациентов в стационар и назначения дополнительной терапии для стабилизации состояния.

Эксперты приняли во внимание результаты фармакоэкономического анализа последствий прорывного гемолиза у пациентов с ПНГ, получающих терапию экулизумабом, подготовленного на кафедре клинической фармакологии и доказательной медицины ПСПбГМУ им. И.П. Павлова. При моделировании распространенности ПНГ и учете текущих показаний патогенетическая терапия экулизумабом в России, в т. ч. с использованием биоаналога, требует значительных средств бюджета — до 13,5 млрд рублей в год. Показано, что коррекция терапии при развитии прорывного гемолиза (увеличение дозы, сокращение интервалов между введениями или одновременное использование подобных приемов) закономерно влечет за собой рост затрат на патогенетическую терапию в 1,8 раза в расчете на 1 пациента. Для снижения издержек предложено начинать коррекцию терапии с увеличения дозировки экулизумаба как более экономичного подхода и только при сохранении случаев прорывных гемолизов использовать тактику сокращения интервалов. Дополнительно отмечено, что использование пролонгированного ингибитора С5-компонента комплемента, отличного по фармакокинетическим характеристикам, может быть способом решения проблем, связанных с экономическими последствиями развития эпизодов прорывного гемолиза при терапии экулизумабом. Эксперты рекомендовали продолжить изучение этого вопроса и провести дополнительный анализ.

Принимая во внимание актуальность проблемы прорывного гемолиза и развитие таргетного контроля гемолиза при ПНГ, эксперты обсудили результаты ключевых клинических исследований нового пролонгированного ингибитора С5-компонента комплемента равулизумаба по сравнению с экулизумабом у взрослых пациентов с ПНГ и пришли к следующим выводам.

  1. В случае ФК прорывного гемолиза может быть рекомендовано использование пролонгированного ингибитора комплемента для улучшения таргетного контроля внутрисосудистого гемолиза и профилактики развития угрожающих жизни осложнений ПНГ.
  2. Равулизумаб может быть рекомендован для лечения ПНГ у 10–15 % пациентов, испытывающих ФК прорывной гемолиз. Равулизумаб сохраняет эффективность, равную экулизумабу, при более редком режиме введения (1 раз в 2 мес.). Он быстро (к концу первой инфузии) и стойко (С5 < 0,5 мкг/мл) ингибирует свободный С5 на протяжении 52-недельного периода. В исследованиях равулизумаба не зарегистрированы случаи ФК прорывного гемолиза, связанные с уровнем свободного C5 ≥ 0,5 мкг/мл, а перевод пациентов с экулизумаба на равулизумаб приводил к существенному уменьшению частоты ФК прорывного гемолиза, что, вероятно, обусловлено улучшением контроля свободного С5. Редкие события ФД прорывного гемолиза на фоне лечения равулизумабом связаны с развитием инфекции. Эффективное лечение инфекции купирует эпизод и не приводит к отказу от лечения.
  3. Равулизумаб может быть рекомендован к включению в «Клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению ПНГ» с момента регистрации в России.
  4. Терапия равулизумабом может служить индивидуальным показанием к назначению в следующих клинических группах пациентов: работающие пациенты, профессиональная деятельность которых не позволяет регулярные пропуски работы (каждые 14 дней); пациенты, проживающие на отдаленных территориях, что резко затрудняет проведение внутривенных инфузий каждые 14 дней; пациенты с отсутствием или резко затрудненным венозным доступом.

Read in PDF


  1. Кулагин А.Д., Лисуков И.А., Птушкин В.В. и др. Национальные клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению пароксизмальной ночной гемоглобинурии. Онкогематология. 2014;9(2):20–8. doi: 10.17650/1818-8346-2014-9-2-20-28.[Kulagin AD, Lisukov IA, Ptushkin VV, et al. National clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. Oncohematology. 2014;9(2):20–8. doi: 10.17650/1818-8346-2014-9-2-20-28. (In Russ)]

  2. Kulagin A, Klimova O, Rudakova T, et al. Benefits and limitations of long-term eculizumab treatment for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH): Real-world data from large cohort study in Russia. Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts). 2018;132:2589. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-120139.

  3. De Fontbrune F, De Latour R. Ten years of clinical experience with eculizumab in patients with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria. Semin Hematol. 2018;55(3):124–9. doi: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2018.04.001.

  4. Lee JW, de Fontbrune FS, Lee LWL, et al. Ravulizumab (ALXN1210) vs eculizumab in adult patients with PNH naive to complement inhibitors: the 301 study. Blood. 2019;133(6):530–9. doi: 1182/blood-2018-09-876136.

  5. Kulasekararaj AG, Hill A, Rottinghaus ST, et al. Ravulizumab (ALXN1210) vs eculizumab in C5-inhibitor–experienced adult patients with PNH: the 302 study. 2019;133(6):540–549. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-09-876805.

  6. Hill A, Piatek CI, de Latour RP, et al. Breakthrough Hemolysis in Adult Patients with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria Treated with Ravulizumab: Results of a 52-Week Extension from Two Phase 3 Studies. Blood. 2019;134(Suppl 1):952. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-128929.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerance of Anagrelide, the First Domestic Generic, Compared with Reference Drug

SK Zyryanov1,2, VV Chistyakov1, OI Butranova1, ES Stepanova1, OG Potanina1, RA Abramovich1

1 RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198

2 Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 24, 10 Pistsovaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 127015

For correspondence: Olga Igorevna Butranova, MD PhD, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198; Tel.: +7(903)376-71-40; e-mail:,

For citation: Zyryanov SK, Chistyakov VV, Butranova OI, et al. Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerance of Anagrelide, the First Domestic Generic, Compared with Reference Drug. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(3):346–53. (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-3-346-353


Background. Anagrelide is used for the treatment of essential thrombocythemia. This drug selectively affects thrombocytes without inducing pronounced myelosuppression, which provides a satisfactory safety profile.

Aim. To compare pharmacokinetics and to assess bioequivalence of two anagrelide drugs for oral administration in healthy volunteers.

Materials & Methods. Open, randomized, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study comparing pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of anagrelide included 30 volunteers. The participants received a single dose of either test or reference drug, depending on the study period. Serial blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected within 12 hours after drug administration. Plasma anagrelide concentration was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed by non-compartmental method. ANOVA analysis of variance was used for assessing the difference between the mean values of the AUC0-t, AUC0-∞ and Cmax pharmacokinetic parameters at 5 % significance level.

Results. The mean values of maximum concentration (Сmax) after a single dose of anagrelide were 12.68 ± 2.99 ng/mL and 12.46 ± 3.15 ng/mL for test and reference drugs, respectively. Relative bioavailability was 1.16 ± 0.18. The AUC0-12 mean values calculated by anagrelide concentrations after a single dose of test and reference drugs were 30.38 ± 7.0 ng • h/mL and 28.78 ± 7.50 ng • h/mL, respectively, and the AUC0-∞ mean values were 31.13 ± 7.15 ng • h/mL and 29.55 ± 7.61 ng • h/mL, respectively. The assessment of main vital functions and laboratory parameters did not reveal any effect of the drugs on the health status of trial participants.

Conclusion. Pharmacokinetic profile of the test drug (generic anagrelide) did not considerably differ from that of reference drug, which indicates in vivo bioequivalence of it. The assessment of drug safety yielded satisfactory tolerance; no serious adverse events have been reported.

Keywords: anagrelide, generic, bioequivalence, essential thrombocythemia, safety, tolerance.

Received: February 19, 2020

Accepted: May 25, 2020

Read in PDF


  1. Меликян А.Л., Ковригина А.М., Суборцева И.Н. и др. Национальные клинические рекомендации по диагностике и терапии Ph-негативных миелопролиферативных заболеваний (истинная полицитемия, эссенциальная тромбоцитемия, первичный миелофиброз) (редакция 2018 г.). Гематология и трансфузиология. 2018;63(3):275–315. doi: 10.25837/HAT.2019.51.88.001.[Melikyan AL, Kovrigina AM, Subortseva IN, et al. National clinical recommendations for diagnosis and therapy of Ph-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, primary myelofibrosis) (edition 2018). Russian Journal of Hematology and Transfusiology. 2018;63(3):275–315. doi: 25837/HAT.2019.51.88.001. (In Russ)]

  2. Mesa RA, Jamieson C, Bhatia R, et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, Version 2.2018. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017;15(10):1193–207. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0157.

  3. Rungjirajittranon T, Owattanapanich W, Ungprasert P, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of thrombosis and bleeding at diagnosis of Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5387-9.

  4. Tefferi A, Barbui T. Polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia: 2017 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(1):94–108. doi: 10.1002/ajh.24607.

  5. Tefferi A, Vannucchi AM, Barbui T. Essential thrombocythemia treatment algorithm 2018. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(1):2. doi: 10.1038/s41408-017-0041-8.

  6. Ianotto JC, Curto-Garcia N, Lauermanova M, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with essential thrombocythemia or polycythemia vera diagnosed before 20 years of age: a systematic review. Haematologica. 2019;104(8):1580–8. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2018.200832.

  7. Tefferi A, Barbui T. Polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia: 2019 update on diagnosis, risk‐stratification and management. Am J Hematol. 2019;94(1):133–43. doi: 10.1002/ajh.25303.

  8. Barbui T, Tefferi A, Vannucchi AM, et al. Philadelphia chromosome-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: revised management recommendations from European LeukemiaNet. Leukemia. 2018;32(5):1057–69. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0077-1.

  9. Gisslinger H, Gotic M, Holowiecki J, et al. Anagrelide compared with hydroxyurea in WHO-classified essential thrombocythemia: the ANAHYDRET Study, a randomized controlled trial. Blood. 2013;121(10):1720–8. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-07-443770.

  10. Samuelson B, Chai-Adisaksopha C, Garcia D. Anagrelide compared with hydroxyurea in essential thrombocythemia: a meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2015;40(4):474–9. doi: 10.1007/s11239-015-1218-2.

  11. Ito T, Hashimoto Y, Tanaka Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of anagrelide as a first-line drug in cytoreductive treatment-naive essential thrombocythemia patients in a real-world setting. Eur J Haematol. 2019;103(2):116–23. doi: 10.1111/ejh.13265.

  12. Besses C, Zeller W, Alvarez-Larran A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of anagrelide hydrochloride in young (18–50 years) and elderly (≥ 65 years) patients with essential thrombocythemia. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;50(11):787–96. doi: 10.5414/CP201711.

  13. Petrides PE, Schoergenhofer C, Widmann R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of a Novel Anagrelide Extended-Release Formulation in Healthy Subjects: Food Intake and Comparison With a Reference Product. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2018;7(2):123–31. doi: 10.1002/cpdd.340.

  14. Petrides PE, Gisslinger H, Steurer M, et al. Pharmacokinetics, bioequivalence, tolerability, and effects on platelet counts of two formulations of anagrelide in healthy volunteers and patients with thrombocythemia associated with chronic myeloproliferation. Clin Ther. 2009;31(2):386–98. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.02.008.

  15. Okamoto S, Miyakawa Y, Smith J, et al. Open-label, dose-titration and continuation study to assess efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of anagrelide in treatment-naive Japanese patients with essential thrombocythemia. Int J Hematol. 2013;97(3):360–8. doi: 10.1007/s12185-013-1265-4.

Early Response and Long-Term Outcomes of Ruxolitinib Therapy in Myelofibrosis: Multicenter Retrospective Study in 10 Centers of the Russian Federation

EG Lomaia1, NT Siordiya1, OM Senderova2, OE Ochirova3, EB Zhalsanova3, AYu Furtovskaya1, GP Dimov4, MG Pozina4, OYu Li5, KB Trizna6, MA Mikhalev7, EV Sokurova8, AA Otmorskaya9, AS Khazieva10, VV Ust’yantseva11, YuD Rogovaya1, AYu Zaritskey1

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

2 Irkutsk Regional Clinical Hospital, 100 Yubileinyi microdistrict, Irkutsk, Russian Federation, 664049

3 NA Semashko Republican Clinical Hospital, 12 Pavlova str., Ulan-Ude, Russian Federation, 670031

4 Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 1, 16 Vorovskogo str., Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, 454048

5 Sakhalin Regional Clinical Hospital, 430 Mira pr-t, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russian Federation, 693004

6 Tomsk Regional Clinical Hospital, 96 Ivana Chernykh str., Tomsk, Russian Federation, 634063

7 Krasnoyarsk Interdistrict Clinical Hospital No. 7, 4 Akademika Pavlova str., Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation, 660003

8 Vladivostok Polyclinic No. 4, 5 Voropaeva str., Vladivostok, Russian Federation, 690000

9 Regional Clinical Hospital, 1 Lyapidevskogo str., Barnaul, Russian Federation, 656024

10 Krasnoyarsk Regional Clinical Hospital, 3A Partizana Zheleznyaka str., Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation, 660022

11 Railway Clinical Hospital, the Chelyabinsk Railway Station, 41 Tsvillinga str., Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, 454000

For correspondence: Nadiya Tamazovna Siordiya, 2 Akkuratova str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197341; e-mail:

For citation: Lomaia EG, Siordiya NT, Senderova OM, et al. Early Response and Long-Term Outcomes of Ruxolitinib Therapy in Myelofibrosis: Multicenter Retrospective Study in 10 Centers of the Russian Federation. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(3):335–45 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-3-335-345


Aim. To assess the efficacy of targeted therapy with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis in real clinical practice in Russia. To determine the prognostic value of spleen reduction in the early stages of ruxolitinib treatment and its effect on overall survival.

Materials & Methods. The present retrospective study was based on the data of 10 centers of Russia. It included 56 myelofibrosis (primary or post-polycythemic and post-thrombocythemic) patients who received ruxolitinib. The median age of patients was 56 years (range 26–76 years). Most of them (59 %) were considered intermediate-1 risk according to DIPSS and had massive splenomegaly (80 %), and constitutional symptoms (86 %). The initial drug dose was 30 mg per day in 64 % of cases, and the level of thrombocytes was ≥ 200 × 109/L in 61 % of patients. The spleen size was evaluated by palpation.

Results. By the start of data collection most of patients (79 %) had been treated with ruxolitinib. In no case therapy was withdrawn for the reason of drug toxicity. On ruxolitinib constitutional symptoms were reversed in 70 %, 87 %, and 98 % of patients by months 1, 3 and 6, respectively. In 36 % and 46 % of patients by months 3 and 6, respectively, ≥ 50 % decrease in spleen size was observed. Overall, in 31 % and 27 % of cases the size of the spleen decreased by less than 25 % by months 3 and 6, respectively. The factors affecting the changes in spleen size have not been identified. The probability of overall survival by years 2 and 5 of follow-up was 97 % and almost 70 %, respectively. This parameter was significantly affected by the extent of spleen size reduction by month 3 of follow-up as well as by its initial size.

Conclusion. Ruxolitinib shows high efficacy for both decrease of general myelofibrosis symptoms and reduction in spleen size. The extent of spleen reduction is an important prognostic factor. In patients with insufficient spleen reduction an increase in drug dose is advisable. If it is not possible, alternative methods of treatment should be sought.

Keywords: myelofibrosis, ruxolitinib, spleen size changes, constitutional symptoms, overall survival.

Received: January 31, 2020

Accepted: May 15, 2020

Read in PDF


  1. Tefferi A, Lasho TL, Jimma T, et al. One Thousand Patients With Primary Myelofibrosis: The Mayo Clinic Experience. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87(1):25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.11.001.

  2. Patriarca F, Bacigalupo A, Sperotto A, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in myelofibrosis: the 20-year experience of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto di Midollo Osseo (GITMO). Haematologica. 2008;93(10):1514–22. doi: 10.3324/haematol.12828.

  3. Harrison CN, Mesa RA, Kiladjian JJ, et al. Health-related quality of life and symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis treated with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy. Br J Haematol. 2013;162(2):229–39. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12375.

  4. Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib I, et al. A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ruxolitinib for Myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):799–807. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110557.

  5. Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib I, et al. Long-term treatment with ruxolitinib for patients with myelofibrosis: 5-year update from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 COMFORT-I trial. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s13045-017-0417-z.

  6. Miller CB, Komrokji RS, Mesa RA, et al. Practical Measures of Clinical Benefit With Ruxolitinib Therapy: An Exploratory Analysis of COMFORT-I. Clin Lymphoma Myel Leuk. 2017;17(8):479–87. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2017.05.015.

  7. Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA, et al. The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood. 2009;114(5):937–51. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-03-209262.

  8. Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2391–405. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-03-643544.

  9. Tefferi A, Cervantes F, Mesa R, et al. Revised response criteria for myelofibrosis: International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) and European LeukemiaNet (ELN) consensus report. 2013;122(8):1395–8. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-03-488098.

  10. Джакави® (инструкция по медицинскому применению). Novartis Pharma, AG (Швейцария). Доступно по: Ссылка активна на 15.05.2020.[Jakavi® (package insert). Novartis Pharma, AG, Switzerland. Available from: (accessed 15.05.2020) (In Russ)]

  11. Verstovsek S, Kantarjian HM, Estrov Z, et al. Long-term outcomes of 107 patients with myelofibrosis receiving JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib: survival advantage in comparison to matched historical controls. Blood. 2012;120(6):1202–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-02-414631.

  12. Vannucchi AM, Kantajian HM, Kiladjian JJ, et al. A pooled analysis of overall survival in COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II, 2 randomized phase III trials of ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis. Haematologica. 2015;100(9):1139–45. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2014.119545.

  13. Mesa RA, Verstovsek S, Gupta V, et al. Effects of ruxolitinib treatment on metabolic and nutritional parameters in patients with myelofibrosis from COMFORT-I. Clin Lymphoma Myel Leuk. 2015;15(4):214–21.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2014.12.008.

  14. Palandri F, Palumbo GA, Bonifacio M, et al. Baseline factors associated with response to ruxolitinib: an independent study on 408 patients with myelofibrosis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(45):79073–86. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.18674.

  15. Palandri F, Tiribelli M, Benevolo G, et al. Efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in intermediate-1 IPSS risk myelofibrosis patients: Results from an independent study. Hematol Oncol. 2018;36(1):285–90. doi: 10.1002/hon.2429.

  16. Palandri F, Catani L, Bonifacio M, et al. Ruxolitinib in elderly patients with myelofibrosis: impact of age and genotype. A multicentre study on 291 elderly patients. Br J Haematol. 2018;183(1):35–46. doi: 10.1111/bjh.15497.

  17. Harrison CN, Schaap N, Vannucchi A, et al. Fedratinib (FEDR) in myelofibrosis (MF) patients previously treated with ruxolitinib (RUX): A reanalysis of the JAKARTA-2 study. HemaSphere. 2019;3:671–72. doi: 10.1097/01.hs9.0000564100.83392.c9.

  18. Al-Ali HK, Griesshammer M, le Coutre P, et al. Safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase 3b expanded-access study in patients with myelofibrosis: a snapshot of 1144 patients in the JUMP trial. 2016;101(9):1065–73. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2016.143677.

Comorbidity and Personalized Treatment of Multiple Myeloma in Real Clinical Practice

NV Skvortsova1, IB Kovynev1, KV Khalzov1, TI Pospelova1, IN Nechunaeva2

1 Novosibirsk State Medical University, 52 Krasnyi pr-t, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630091

2 Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 2, 21 Polzunova str., Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630051

For correspondence: Nataliya Valer’evna Skvortsova, MD, PhD, 52 Krasnyi pr-t, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630091; Tel.: 8(905)955-59-91; Fax: 8(383)279-94-06; e-mail:

For citation: Skvortsova NV, Kovynev IB, Khalzov KV, et al. Comorbidity and Personalized Treatment of Multiple Myeloma in Real Clinical Practice. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(3):322–34 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-3-322-334


Aim. To study incidence and structure of comorbidity in multiple myeloma (MM) patients depending on their age; to determine its effect on overall survival, efficacy, and safety of the first-line therapy in real clinical practice.

Materials & Methods. Overall, 369 patients with newly diagnosed MM were enrolled in the trial from January 2012 to December 2017. Among them there were 134 men and 235 women hospitalized at the Unit of Hematology in the Novosibirsk Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 2. Median age of patients was 67 years (range 32–82 years).

Results. The analyzed patients were divided into three age groups: the first group of young/middle age (32–59 years) (n = 105), the second group of elderly patients (60–74 years) (n = 186), and the third group of old age (≥ 75 years) (n = 78). In each patient prior to chemotherapy the comorbidity spectrum was identified and CIRS-G, CCI, and MCI comorbidity scores were calculated. Patients with newly diagnosed MM in real clinical practice prove to have high and increasing with age comorbidity incidence (91 % in patients of young/middle age, 97,7 % and 100 % in patients of elderly and old age, respectively). Comorbidity significantly reduces overall survival (OS) of MM patients. Important OS predictors are rhythm and conduction disorder (odds ratio, OR, 2.762; < 0.002), chronic pancreatitis (OR 1.864; < 0.001), exogenous constitutive obesity (OR 1.948; < 0.002), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 2.105; < 0.021), chronic kidney disease, stage С4–С5 (OR 2.255; < 0.003), and chronic heart failure, functional class II (OR 1.915; < 0.002). Highest importance in predicting OS, efficacy, and tolerance to chemotherapy in MM patients is attached to MCI score (OR 3.771; < 0.001). MM patients with high risk by MCI are characterized by lower rate and depth of response to the first-line therapy, shorter time before the first relapse, higher incidence of non-hematologic toxicity of grade ≥ 3, and therapy withdrawal or drug dose reduction.

Conclusion. Comorbidity assessment in MM patients is important for outcome prediction and treatment planning.

Keywords: multiple myeloma, comorbidity, comorbidity scores, overall survival, personalized treatment.

Received: April 2, 2020

Accepted: June 18, 2020

Read in PDF


  1. Plummer С, Driessen C, Szabo Z, et al. Management of cardiovascular risk in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J. 2019;9(3):26. doi: 10.1038/s41408-019-0183-y.

  2. National Cancer Institute. Cancer stat facts: myeloma 2017. Available from: (accessed 12.05.2020).

  3. National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) 2017. Available from:С5х11.pdf (accessed 12.05.2020).

  4. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review (CSR) 1975–2014, Available from: (accessed 12.05.2020).

  5. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):e538–e548. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5.

  6. Morgan GJ, Walker BA, Davies FE. The genetic architecture of multiple myeloma. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(5):335–48. doi: 10.1038/nrc3257.

  7. Bianchi G, Munshi NC. Pathogenesis beyond the cancer clone(s) in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2015;125(20):3049–58. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-11-568881.

  8. Liwing J, Uttervall K, Lund J, et al. Improved survival in myeloma patients: Starting to close in on the gap between elderly patients and a matched normal population. Br J Haematol. 2014;164(5):684–93. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12685.

  9. Bringhen S, Mateos MV, Zweegman S, et al. Age and organ damage correlate with poor survival in myeloma patients: Meta-analysis of 1435 individual patient data from 4 randomized trials. Haematologica. 2013:98(6):980–7. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.075051.

  10. Costa LJ, Brill IK, Omel J, et al. Recent trends in multiple myeloma incidence and survival by age, race, and ethnicity in the United States. Blood Adv. 2017;1(1):282–7. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2016002493.

  11. Hsu P, Lin T, Gau JP, et al. Risk of early mortality in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Medicine. 2015;94(50):1–7. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002305.

  12. Holmstrom MO, Gimsing P, Abildgaard N, et al. Causes of early death in multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for high-dose therapy with hematopoietic stem cell support: A study based on the nationwide Danish Myeloma Database. Am J Hematol. 2015;90(4):E73–E74. doi: 10.1002/ajh.23932.

  13. Chen YK, Han SM, Yang Y, et al. Early mortality in multiple myeloma: Experiences from a single institution. Hematology. 2016;21(7):392–8. doi: 10.1080/10245332.2015.1101969.

  14. Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, et al. Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: Changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients. Leukemia. 2014;28(5):1122–8. doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.313.

  15. Costa LJ, Gonsalves WI, Kumar SK. Early mortality in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2015;29(7):1616–8. doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.33.

  16. Williams GR, Mackenzie A, Magnuson A, et al. Comorbidity in Older Adults with Cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2016;7(4):249–57. doi: 1016/j.jgo.2015.12.002.

  17. Романова Е.В. Влияние коморбидности на эффективность лечения пациентов с множественной миеломой. Сибирский медицинский журнал. 2015;134(3):54–7.[Romanova EV. The effect of comorbidity on the efficacy of treatment in patients with multiple myeloma. Sibirskii meditsinskii zhurnal. 2015;134(3):54–7. (In Russ)]

  18. Юрова Е.В., Семочкин С.В. Множественная миелома, осложненная сопутствующей кардиологической патологией. Гематология и трансфузиология. 2017;62(3):140–6. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2017-62-3-140-146.[Yurova EV, Semochkin SV. Multiple myeloma complicated by concomitant cardiological pathology. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya. 2017;62(3):140–6. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2017-62-3-140-146. (In Russ)]

  19. Zhong Y-P, Zhang Y-Z, Liao A-J, et al. Geriatric Assessment to Predict Survival and Risk of Serious Adverse Events in Elderly Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients: A Multicenter Study in China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2017;130(2):130–4. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.197977.

  20. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Mateos M-V, et al. Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: an International Myeloma Working Group report. Blood. 2015;125(13):2068–74. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-12-615187.

  21. Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: A report from international myeloma working group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(26):2863–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.2267.

  22. Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(15):3412–20. doi: 10.1200/jco.2005.04.242.

  23. Bila J, Jelicic J, Djurasinovic V, et al. Prognostic effect of comorbidity indices in elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myel Leuk. 2015;15(7):416–9. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2015.03.004.

  24. Onec B, Okutan H, Albayrak M, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Common Comorbidity Scores and Freiburger Comorbidity Index as Prognostic Variables in a Real Life Multiple Myeloma Population. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2016;32(4):424–30. doi: 10.1007/s12288-015-0618-y.

  25. Kim SM, Kim MJ, Jung HA, et al. Comparison of the Freiburg and Charlson Comorbidity Indices in Predicting Overall Survival in Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma. BioMed Res Intern. 2014;2014:1–11. doi: 10.1155/2014/437852.

  26. Pompei P, Ales KL, Mac Kenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.

  27. Sorror ML, Maris MB, Storb R, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)-specific comorbidity index: a new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT. Blood. 2005;106(8):2912–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-05-2004.

  28. Linn BS, Linn MW, Gurel L. Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1968;16(5):622–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x.

  29. Kaplan MH, Feinstein AR. The importance of classifying initial co-morbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chron Dis. 1974;27(7–8):387–404. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(74)90017-4.

  30. Miller M, Towers A. A manual of guidelines for scoring the cumulative illness rating scale for geriatrics (CIRS-G). May 1991. Available from: (accessed 12.05.2020).

  31. Engelhardt M, Dold SM, Ihorst G, et al. Geriatric assessment in multiple myeloma patients: validation of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) score and comparison with other common comorbidity scores. Haematologica. 2016;101(9):1110–9. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2016.148189.

  32. Engelhardt M, Domm AS, Dold SM, et al. A concise revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index as a valid prognostic instrument in a large cohort of 801 multiple myeloma patients. Haematologica. 2017;102(5):910–21. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2016.162693.

  33. Kleber M, Ihorst G, Terhorst M, et al. Comorbidity as a prognostic variable in multiple myeloma: comparative evaluation of common comorbidity scores and use of a novel MM-comorbidity score. Blood Cancer J. 2011;1(9):e35. doi: 10.1038/bcj.2011.34.

  34. Kleber M, Ihorst G, Gross B, et al. Validation of the Freiburg Comorbidity Index in 466 multiple myeloma patients and combination with the international staging system are highly predictive for outcome. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2013;13(5):541–51. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2013.03.013.

  35. Mohammadi M, Cao Y, Glimelius I, et al. The impact of comorbid disease history on all-cause and cancer-specific mortality in myeloid leukemia and myeloma – a Swedish population-based study. BMC Cancer. 2015;15(1):850. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1857-x.

  36. Gregersen H, Vangsted A, Abildgaard N, et al. The impact of comorbidity on mortality in multiple myeloma: a Danish nationwide population- based study. Cancer Med. 2017;6(7):1807–16. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1128.

  37. Larocca A, Bringhen S, Evangelista A, et al. A simple score, based on geriatric assessment, improves prediction of survival, and risk of serious adverse events in elderly newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Blood. 2013;122(21):687. doi: 10.1182/blood.v122.21.687.687.

  38. Sarfati D, Gurney J, Stanley J, et al. Cancer-specific administrative data-based comorbidity indices provided valid alternative to Charlson and National Cancer Institute Indices. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(5):586–95. doi: 1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.012.

  39. Offidani M, Corvatta L, Polloni C, et al. Assessment of vulnerability measures and their effect on survival in a real- life population of multiple myeloma patients registered at Marche Region Multiple Myeloma Registry. Clin Lymphoma Myel Leuk. 2012;12(6):423–32. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2012.06.008.

  40. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):e538–е548. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5.

  41. Durie BGM, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer. 1975;36(3):842– doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197509)36:3<842::aid-cncr2820360303>;2-u.

  42. Менделеева Л.П., Вотякова О.М., Покровская О.С. и др. Национальные клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению множественной миеломы. Гематология и трансфузиология. 2016;61(1, прил. 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1-S2-1-24.[Mendeleeva LP, Votyakova OM, Pokrovskaya OS, et al. National clinical guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya. 2016;61(1, Suppl 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1-S2-1-24. (In Russ)]

  43. Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20(9):1467–73. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404284.

  44. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Version 4.0. Available from: (accessed 12.05.2020).

  45. Blade J, Fernandez-Llama P, Bosch F, et al. Renal failure in multiple myeloma. Intern Med. 1998;158(17):1889–93. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.17.1889.

  46. Hari P, Romanus D, Luptakova K, et al. The impact of age and comorbidities on practice and outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in the era of novel therapies. J Geriatr Oncol. 2018;9(2):138–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.09.007.

  47. Dimopoulos MA, Terpos E, Niesvizky R, Palumbo A. Clinical characteristics of patients with relapse multiple myeloma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41(10):827–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.07.005.

  48. Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Hajek R, et al. Factors that influence health-related quality of life in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma aged ≥ 65 years treated with melphalan, prednisone and lenalidomide followed by lenalidomide maintenance: Results of a randomized trial. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(7):1489–97. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2013.847933.

  49. Chien JW, Chen XC, Chen XZ. Carbon monoxide diffusion capacity: how low can you go for hematopoietic cell transplantation eligibility. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15(4):447–53. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.12.509.

  50. Labonte L, Iqbal T, Zaidi MA, et al. Utility of comorbidity assessment in predicting transplantation-related toxicity following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(9):1039–44. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.06.019.

Treatment of Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas in Pregnancy

YaK Mangasarova1, AU Magomedova1, ES Nesterova1, LG Gorenkova1, FE Babaeva1, RG Shmakov2, SK Kravchenko1

1 National Research Center for Hematology, 4 Novyi Zykovskii pr-d, Moscow, Russian Federation, 125167

2 VI Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, 4 Akademika Oparina str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117997

For correspondence: Yana Konstantinovna Mangasarova, MD, PhD, 4 Novyi Zykovskii pr-d, Moscow, Russian Federation, 125167; Tel.: +7(926)395-82-52; e-mail:

For citation: Mangasarova YaK, Magomedova AU, Nesterova ES, et al. Treatment of Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas in Pregnancy. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(3):316–21 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-3-316-321


Background. The management of aggressive lymphomas in pregnancy depends on the time of diagnosis and immunomorphological variant of tumor. The rarity of aggressive lymphomas in pregnant women, the absence of consistent approaches to the treatment of such patients, the lack of data on physical growth of children as well as the incidence of newborns’ congenital and acquired pathology make this subject of vital importance.

Aim. To analyze the treatment results in patients with newly diagnosed aggressive lymphoma at different stages of pregnancy.

Materials & Methods. From 1993 to 2020 at the National Research Center for Hematology 74 pregnant women with lymphomas were treated. Aggressive tumors were detected in 17 (23 %) of them: primary mediastinal (thymic) large B-cell lymphoma (n = 14), anaplastic large-cell lymphoma ALK+ (n = 1), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, unspecified (n = 1), and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 1). The median age of patients was 30 years (range 21–37 years). The median pregnancy stage on the diagnosis of aggressive lymphoma was 21 weeks (range 11–32 weeks).

Results. In 1 case on the diagnosis of aggressive lymphoma at 11 weeks gestation dexamethasone 8 mg daily was administered up to the second trimester of pregnancy, afterwards the patient received polychemotherapy. On the diagnosis of aggressive lymphoma in the second (n = 13) and third (n = 2) trimesters of pregnancy the patients received polychemotherapy followed by delivery. In the third trimester of pregnancy delivery was performed with subsequent polychemotherapy in 1 patient. There were born 18 babies (1 pregnancy was multifetal): 8 girls and 10 boys.

Conclusion. As a result of the chosen tactics and the work of interdisciplinary team of doctors all patients, who completed the treatment, are followed-up in complete remission. All born babies, despite chemotherapy and perinatal complications, are alive and develop without abnormalities.

Keywords: malignant lymphoproliferative disorders, chemotherapy, primary mediastinal (thymic) large B-cell lymphoma, pregnancy.

Received: April 1, 2020

Accepted: June 22, 2020

Read in PDF


  1. Lishner M, Avivi I, Apperley JF, et al. Hematologic malignancies in pregnancy: management guidelines from an international consensus meeting. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(5):501–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.4445.

  2. Ortega J. Multiple agent chemotherapy including bleomycin of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma during pregnancy. Cancer. 1977;40(6):2829–35. doi: 1002/1097-0142(197712)40:6<2829::aid-cncr2820400613>;2-i.

  3. Amit O, Barzilai M, Avivi I. Management of hematologic malignancies: special considerations in pregnant women. Drugs. 2015;75(15):1725–38. doi: 10.1007/s40265-015-0464-0.

  4. Perez CA, Amin J, Aguina LM, et al. Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma during pregnancy. Case Rep Hematol. 2012;2012:1–3. doi: 10.1155/2012/197347.

  5. Lee EJ, Ahn KH, Hong SC, et al. Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in pregnancy may be associated with preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2014;57(6):526–9. doi: 10.5468/ogs.2014.57.6.526.

  6. Decker M, Rothermundt C, Hollander G, et al. Rituximab plus CHOP for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma during second trimester of pregnancy. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(8):693–4. doi: 1016/s1470-2045(06)70797-5.

  7. Fiascone S, Datkhaeva I, Winer ES, et al. Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma in pregnancy. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016;57(1):240–3. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2015.1049168.

  8. Evens AM, Advani R, Lossos IS, et al. Lymphoma in pregnancy: excellent fetal outcomes and maternal survival in a large multicenter analysis. Blood. 2011;118(21):94. doi: 1182/blood.v118.21.94.94.

  9. Шмаков Р.Г., Ахмедова А.И., Полушкина Е.С. и др. Современные принципы ведения беременности у пациенток с лимфомами. Акушерство и гинекология. 2019;7:40–8. doi: 10.18565/aig.2019.7.40-48.[Shmakov RG, Akhmedova AI, Polushkina ES, et al. Modern principles of pregnancy management in patients with lymphomas. Akusherstvo i ginekologiia. 2019;7:40–8. doi: 10.18565/aig.2019.7.40-48. (In Russ)]

  10. Мангасарова Я.К., Барях Е.А., Воробьев В.И. и др. Первичная медиастинальная В-крупноклеточная лимфома у беременных. Терапевтический архив. 2014;86(7):53–8.[Mangasarova YaK, Baryakh EA, Vorob’ev VI, et al. Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma in pregnancy. Terapevticheskii arkhiv. 2014;86(7):53–8. (In Russ)]

  11. Pentheroudakis G, Pavlidis N. Cancer and pregnancy: poena magna, not anymore. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(2):126–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.10.014.

  12. Sica A, Vitiello P, Papa A, et al. Use of Rituximab in NHL Malt Type Pregnant in I° Trimester for Two Times. Open Med (Wars). 2019;14:757–60. doi: 10.1515/med-2019-0087.

  13. Cohen-Kerem R, Nulman I, Abramow-Newerly M, et al. Diagnostic radiation in pregnancy: perception versus true risks. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006;28(1):43–8. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32039-4.

  14. Kal HB, Struikmans H. Radiotherapy during pregnancy: fact and fiction. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(5):328–33. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70169-8.

  15. Horowitz NA, Benyamini N, Wohlfart K, et al. Reproductive organ involvement in non-Hodgkin lymphoma during pregnancy: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):e275–e282. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70589-2.

  16. Testa AC, De Blasis I, Di Legge A, et al. Burkitt’s lymphoma of the breast metastatic to the ovary diagnosed during pregnancy. Ultras Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(3):364–6. doi: 10.1002/uog.12533.

  17. El-Messidi A, Patenaude V, Abenhaim HA. Incidence and outcomes of women with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in pregnancy: A population-based study on 7.9 million births. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41(4):582–9. doi: 10.1111/jog.12597.

  18. Framarino-dei-Malatesta M, Sammartino P, Napoli A. Does anthracycline-based chemotherapy in pregnant women with cancer offer safe cardiac and neurodevelopmental outcomes for the developing fetus? BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):777. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3772-9.

  19. Peterson C, Lester DR Jr, Sanger W. Burkitt’s lymphoma in early pregnancy. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):e136–e138. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.6355.

  20. Aviles A, Neri N. Hematological malignancies and pregnancy: a final report of 84 children who received chemotherapy in utero. Clin Lymphoma. 2001;2(3):173–7. doi: 10.3816/clm.2001.n.023.

Efficient Transduction of T-Lymphocytes by Lentiviral Particles in Oncoimmunological Studies

EK Zaikova1,2, KA Levchuk1, DYu Pozdnyakov1, AA Daks2, AYu Zaritskey1, AV Petukhov1,2,3

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

2 Institute of Cytology, 4 Tikhoretskii pr-t, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 194064

3 Sirius University of Science and Technology, 1 Olimpiiskii pr-t, Sochi, Russian Federation, 354340

For correspondence: Ekaterina Konstantinovna Zaikova, 2 Akkuratova str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197341; e-mail:

For citation: Zaikova EK, Levchuk KA, Pozdnyakov DYu, et al. Efficient Transduction of T-Lymphocytes by Lentiviral Particles in Oncoimmunological Studies. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(3):295–306 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-3-295-306


Aim. To compare different methods of lentivirus concentration in order to select the best way of providing high-level transduction for generating laboratory CAR-T cells.

Materials & Methods. Concentration of lentiviral supernatant was carried out by 4 methods: ultrafiltration, ultracentrifugation, polyethylene glycol (PEG), water-soluble non-ionic polymer, precipitation method, and ion-exchange chromatography. Functional viral titer was determined by mCherry reporter protein expression in the transduced HeLa cell line as well as by rapid immunochromatographic (IC) tests. Physical titer was determined by ELISA. Transduction efficiency of healthy donor’s T-lymphocytes was assessed by flow cytometry with respect to signal intensity of reporter protein FusionRed. Functional activity of generated anti-CD19 CAR-T was evaluated by microscopy after co-cultivation with CD19-HeLa+ cell line as well as subsequent cytokine testing.

Results. Lentivirus purification and concentration by ultrafiltration provided the greatest number of transduced cells, i.e. 84.7 %. Methods of ultracentrifugation, PEG precipitation, and ion-exchange chromatography yielded 56.08 %, 74.22 %, and 21.05 % of T-cell transduction, respectively. Results of rapid IC tests were comparable (r = 0.91) with cell line titer data. The mean T-cell transduction efficiency was 59.55 % ± 2.94 %, and its maximum reached 76.26 %.

Conclusion. The focus was laid on optimization of CAR-T cell production during the generation of lentiviral vectors and their purification. Ultrafiltration was selected as the best method of lentiviral supernatant concentration to efficiently transduce T-lymphocytes and to generate functional CAR-T cell population.

Keywords: CAR-T lymphocytes, CD19, recombinant lentivirus, lentivirus concentration.

Received: April 29, 2020

Accepted: June 25, 2020

Read in PDF


  1. Blaese R, Culver K, Miller A, et al. T Lymphocyte-Directed Gene Therapy for ADA-SCID: Initial Trial Results After 4 Years. Science. 1995;270(5235):475–80. doi: 10.1126/science.270.5235.475.

  2. Kochenderfer J, Feldman S, 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.

  3. Brentjens R, Latouche J, Santos E, et al. Eradication of systemic B-cell tumors by genetically targeted human T lymphocytes co-stimulated by CD80 and interleukin-15. Nat Med. 2003;9(3):279–86. doi: 10.1038/nm827.

  4. Pule M, Savoldo B, Myers G, et al. Virus-specific T cells engineered to coexpress tumor-specific receptors: persistence and antitumor activity in individuals with neuroblastoma. Nat Med. 2008;14(11):1264–70. doi: 10.1038/nm.1882.

  5. Kochenderfer J, Dudley M, Feldman S, et al. B-cell depletion and remissions of malignancy along with cytokine-associated toxicity in a clinical trial of anti-CD19 chimeric-antigen-receptor–transduced T cells. Blood. 2012;119(12):2709–20. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-10-384388.

  6. Brentjens R, Davila M, 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.

  7. Lewinski M, Bushman F. Retroviral DNA Integration—Mechanism and Consequences. Adv Genet. 2005;55:147–81. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2660(05)55005-3.

  8. Kochenderfer J, Dudley M, Carpenter R, et al. Donor-derived CD19-targeted T cells cause regression of malignancy persisting after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2013;122(25):4129–39. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-08-519413.

  9. Cruz C, Micklethwaite K, Savoldo B, et al. Infusion of donor-derived CD19-redirected virus-specific T cells for B-cell malignancies relapsed after allogeneic stem cell transplant: a phase 1 study. Blood. 2013;122(17):2965–73. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-06-506741.

  10. 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.

  11. Kalos M, Levine B, Porter D, 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.

  12. Qin D, Huang Y, Li D, et al. Paralleled comparison of vectors for the generation of CAR-T cells. Anticancer Drugs. 2016;27(8):711–22. doi: 10.1097/cad.0000000000000387.

  13. Gogol-Doring A, Ammar I, Gupta S, et al. Genome-wide Profiling Reveals Remarkable Parallels Between Insertion Site Selection Properties of the MLV Retrovirus and the piggyBac Transposon in Primary Human CD4+ T Cells. Mol Ther. 2016;24(3):592–606. doi: 10.1038/mt.2016.11.

  14. Izsvak Z, Hackett P, Cooper L, Ivics Z. Translating Sleeping Beauty transposition into cellular therapies: Victories and challenges. BioEssays. 2011;33(6):478–9. doi: 10.1002/bies.201190025.

  15. Manuri P, Wilson M, Maiti S, et al. piggyBac Transposon/Transposase System to Generate CD19-Specific T Cells for the Treatment of B-Lineage Malignancies. Hum Gene Ther. 2010;21(4):427–37. doi: 10.1089/hum.2009.114.

  16. Nakazawa Y, Huye L, Salsman V, et al. PiggyBac-mediated Cancer Immunotherapy Using EBV-specific Cytotoxic T-cells Expressing HER2-specific Chimeric Antigen Receptor. Mol Ther. 2011;19(12):2133–43. doi: 10.1038/mt.2011.131.

  17. Barrett D, Zhao Y, Liu X, et al. Treatment of Advanced Leukemia in Mice with mRNA Engineered T Cells. Hum Gene Ther. 2011;22(12):1575–86. doi: 10.1089/hum.2011.070.

  18. Dai X, Park J, Du Y, et al. One-step generation of modular CAR-T cells with AAV–Cpf1. Nat Meth. 2019;16(3):247–54. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0329-7.

  19. Mann R, Mulligan R, Baltimore D. Construction of a retrovirus packaging mutant and its use to produce helper-free defective retrovirus. Cell. 1983;33(1):153–9. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(83)90344-6.

  20. Le Doux J, Davis H, Morgan J, Yarmush M. Kinetics of retrovirus production and decay. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1999;63(6):654–62. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0290(19990620)63:6<654::aid-bit3>;2-1.

  21. Andreadis S, Brott D, Fuller A, Palsson B. Moloney murine leukemia virus-derived retroviral vectors decay intracellularly with a half-life in the range of 5.5 to 7.5 hours. J Virol. 1997;71(10):7541–8. doi: 10.1128/jvi.71.10.7541-7548.1997.

  22. Naldini L, Blomer U, Gallay P, et al. In Vivo Gene Delivery and Stable Transduction of Nondividing Cells by a Lentiviral Vector. Science. 1996;272(5259):263–7. doi: 10.1126/science.272.5259.263.

  23. Sakuma T, Barry M, Ikeda Y. Lentiviral vectors: basic to translational. Biochem J. 2012;443(3):603–18. doi: 10.1042/bj20120146.

  24. Dull T, Zufferey R, Kelly M, et al. A Third-Generation Lentivirus Vector with a Conditional Packaging System. J Virol. 1998;72(11):8463–71. doi: 10.1128/jvi.72.11.8463-8471.1998.

  25. Vannucci L, Lai M, Chiuppesi F, et al. Viral vectors: a look back and ahead on gene transfer technology. New Microbiol. 2013;36(1):1–22.

  26. Modlich U, Navarro S, Zychlinski D, et al. Insertional Transformation of Hematopoietic Cells by Self-inactivating Lentiviral and Gammaretroviral Vectors. Mol Ther. 2009;17(11):1919–28. doi: 10.1038/mt.2009.179.

  27. Sastry L, Xu Y, Duffy L, et al. Product-Enhanced Reverse Transcriptase Assay for Replication-Competent Retrovirus and Lentivirus Detection. Hum Gene Ther. 2005;16(10):1227–36. doi: 10.1089/hum.2005.16.1227.

  28. Cornetta K, Yao J, Jasti A, et al. Replication-competent Lentivirus Analysis of Clinical Grade Vector Products. Mol Ther. 2011;19(3):557–66. doi: 10.1038/mt.2010.278.

  29. Sena-Esteves M, Gao G. Titration of Lentivirus Vectors. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2018;2018(4):pdb.prot095695. doi: 10.1101/pdb.prot095695.

  30. Kutner R, Zhang X, Reiser J. Production, concentration and titration of pseudotyped HIV-1-based lentiviral vectors. Nat Protoc. 2009;4(4):495–505. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2009.22.

  31. Merten O, Hebben M, Bovolenta C. Production of lentiviral vectors. Mol Ther Meth Clin Devel. 2016;3:16017. doi: 10.1038/mtm.2016.17.

  32. Sena-Esteves M, Tebbets J, Steffens S, et al. Optimized large-scale production of high titer lentivirus vector pseudotypes. J Virol Meth. 2004;122(2):131–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2004.08.017.

  33. Boudeffa D, Fenard D, Mormin M, et al. Development of Innovative Scalable Protocols for the Purification of Lentiviral Vectors Pseudotyped With GaLV-TR or Mutated Measles Virus Glycoproteins. Mol Ther. 2015;23:S214–S215. doi: 10.1016/s1525-0016(16)34143-0.

  34. Baekelandt V, Eggermont K, Michiels M, et al. Optimized lentiviral vector production and purification procedure prevents immune response after transduction of mouse brain. Gene Ther. 2003;10(23):1933–40. doi: 10.1038/

  35. Sanber K, Knight S, Stephen S, et al. Construction of stable packaging cell lines for clinical lentiviral vector production. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):9021. doi: 10.1038/srep09021.

  36. Зайцев Д.В., Зайкова Е.К., Головкин А.С. и др. Гранулоцитарно-макрофагальный колониестимулирующий фактор и технология CAR-T при солидных опухолях в эксперименте. Клиническая онкогематология. 2020;13(2):115–22. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-2-115-122.[Zaytsev DV, Zaikova EK, Golovkin AS, et al. Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor and CAR-T Technology for Solid Tumors in Experiment. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(2):115–22. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-2-115-122. (In Russ)]

  37. Петухов, А.В., Маркова, В.А., Моторин, Д.В. и др. Получение CAR T-лимфоцитов, специфичных к CD19, и оценка их функциональной активности in vitro. Клиническая онкогематология. 2018;11(1):1–9. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-1-1-9.[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. (In Russ)]

Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma Treatment with and without the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Post-Transplantation Period

SV Gritsaev, II Kostroma, AA Zhernyakova, IM Zapreeva, VN Chebotkevich, SS Bessmeltsev, AV Chechetkin

Russian Research Institute of Hematology and Transfusiology, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024

For correspondence: Ivan Ivanovich Kostroma, MD, PhD, 16 2-ya Sovetskaya str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191024; Tel.: 8(812)717-54-68; e-mail:

For citation: Gritsaev SV, Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, et al. Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma Treatment with and without the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Post-Transplantation Period. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(3):289–94 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-3-289-294


Background. There exist different data on how the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) affects the duration of post-transplantation agranulocytosis in multiple myeloma (MM) patients.

Aim. To study the effect of G-CSF, administered after auto-HSCT to MM patients, on the duration of neutrophil engraftment, febrile neutropenia rate, and hospitalization duration.

Materials & Methods. The trial included 36 MM patients aged 42–69 years (median 59 years), 16 of which were not treated with G-CSF (1st group), and 20 patients received a single injection of 6 mg pegylated G-CSF on Day +4 or Day +5 (2nd group).

Results. Patients of the 1st group were significantly younger than patients of the 2nd group: median 55.5 and 61 years, respectively (= 0.006). There were no differences with respect to the number of patients who previously received lenalidomide, the overall and very good partial response rate, the number of the first and repeated auto-HSCTs, and the number of melphalan conditioning regimens. The patients who received G-CSF engrafted neutrophils on day 11 (median) after auto-HSCT, i.e. earlier than patients without G-CSF administration who engrafted neutrophils on day 13 (= 0.006). In the 1st group intravenous antibiotics were administered for a longer time than in the group with G-CSF: median 13 and 11 days, respectively (= 0.04). In 2 patients from the group without G-CSF sepsis was diagnosed. G-CSF administration led to a shorter hospital stay: median 16 and 18 days in the 1st and 2nd groups, respectively (= 0.08). There were no differences in the number of patients with febrile neutropenia.

Conclusion. G-CSF administration improves the course of the post-transplantation period in MM patients. The final decision on the feasibility of G-CSF administration after auto-HSCT can be made after more clinical observations are available.

Keywords: multiple myeloma, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

Received: January 14, 2020

Accepted: April 30, 2020

Read in PDF


  1. Бессмельцев С.С., Абдулкадыров К.М. Множественная миелома: руководство для врачей. М.: СИМК, 2016. 512 с.[Bessmeltsev SS, Abdulkadyrov KM. Mnozhestvennaya mieloma: rukovodstvo dlya vrachei. (Multiple myeloma: manual for physicians.) Moscow: SIMK Publ.; 2016. 512 p. (In Russ)]

  2. Менделеева Л.П., Вотякова О.М., Покровская О.С. и др. Национальные клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению множественной миеломы. Гематология и трансфузиология. 2016;61(1, прил. 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1-S2-1-24.[Mendeleeva LP, Votyakova OM, Pokrovskaya OS, et al. National clinical guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya. 2016;61(1, Suppl 2):1–24. doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1-S2-1-24. (In Russ)]

  3. Attal M, Lauwers-Cances V, Hulin C, et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone with transplantation for myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(14):1311–20. doi: 1056/NEJMoa1611750.

  4. Грицаев С.В., Кузяева А.А., Бессмельцев С.С. Отдельные аспекты аутологичной трансплантации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток при множественной миеломе. Клиническая онкогематология. 2017;10(1):7–12. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12.[Gritsaev SV, Kuzyaeva AA, Bessmel’tsev SS. Certain Aspects of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Multiple Myeloma. Clinical oncohematology. 2017;10(1):7–12. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2017-10-1-7-12. (In Russ)]

  5. Trivedi M, Martinez S, Corringham S, et al. Optimal use of G-CSF administration after hematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43(12):895–908. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2009.75.

  6. Cox JE, Campos S, Wu J, et al. Efficacy of deferred dosing of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in autologous hematopoietic transplantation for multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49(2):219–22. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2013.149.

  7. Sborov DW, Cho YK, Cottini F, et al. G-CSF improves safety when you start the day after autologous transplant in multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017;58(12):2947–51. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2017.1318436.

  8. Samaras P, Blickenstorfer M, Siciliano RD, et al. Pegfilgrastim reduces the length of hospitalization and the time to engraftment in multiple myeloma patients treated with melphalan 200 and auto-SCT compared with filgrastim. Ann Hematol. 2011;90(1):89– doi: 10.1007/s00277-010-1036-8.

  9. Gertz MA, Gastineau DA, Lacy MQ, et al. SCT without growth factor in multiple myeloma: engraftment kinetics, bacteremia and hospitalization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(7):956–61. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2010.233.

  10. Martinez-Cibrian N, Magnano L, Gutierrez-Garcia G, et al. At-home autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma with and without G-CSF administration: a comparative study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(4):593–5. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2015.287.

  11. Spitzer TR. Engraftment syndrome following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;27(9):893–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1703015.

  12. Usmani SZ, Hoering A, Cavo M, et al. Clinical predictors of long-term survival in newly diagnosed transplant eligible multiple myeloma – an IMWG Research Project. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(12):123. doi: 10.1038/s41408-018-0155-7.

  13. Hari P, Reece DE, Randhawa J, et al. Final outcomes of escalated melphalan 280 mg/m2 with amifostine cytoprotection followed autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: high CR and VGPR rates do not translate into improved survival. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019;54(2):293–9. doi: 10.1038/s41409-018-0261-y.

  14. Грицаев С.В., Кострома И.И., Жернякова А.А. и др. Опыт применения режима кондиционирования Thio/Mel перед трансплантацией аутологичных гемопоэтических стволовых клеток при множественной миеломе. Клиническая онкогематология. 2019;12(3):282–8. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2019-12-3-282-288.[Gritsaev SV, Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, et al. Experience with the Use of Thio/Mel Conditioning Regimen Prior to Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma. Clinical oncohematology. 2019;12(3):282–8. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2019-12-3-282-288. (In Russ)]

  15. Sato S, Tamai Y, Okada S, et al. Atraumatic splenic rupture due to ectopic extramedullary hematopoiesis after autologous stem cell transplantation in a patient with AL amyloidosis. Intern Med. 2018;57(3):399–402. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.9018-17.

  16. Chen J, Pan J, Zhan T, et al. Autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: growth factor matters. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25(9):e293–e297. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.05.035.

  17. Gutierrez-Garcia G, Rovira M, Magnano L, et al. Innovative strategies minimize engraftment syndrome in multiple myeloma patients with novel induction therapy following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53(12):1541–7. doi: 10.1038/s41409-018-0189-2.

  18. Cho YK, Irby DJ, Li J, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of neutropenia in patients with myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan for autologous stem cell transplant. CPT: Pharmacometr Syst Pharmacol. 2018;7(11):748–58. doi: 10.1002/psp4.12345.

  19. Кострома И.И., Жернякова А.А., Чубукина Ж.В. и др. Заготовка гемопоэтических стволовых клеток у больных множественной миеломой: влияние предшествующей аутоТГСК терапии леналидомидом и режима мобилизации. Клиническая онкогематология. 2018;11(2):192–7. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-2-192-197.[Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, Chubukina ZhV, et al. Hematopoietic Stem Cell Collection in Multiple Myeloma Patients: Influence of the Lenalidomide-Based Therapy and Mobilization Regimen Prior to Auto-HSCT. Clinical oncohematology. 2018;11(2):192–7. doi: 10.21320/2500-2139-2018-11-2-192-197. (In Russ)]

  20. Кострома И.И., Жернякова А.А., Грицаев С.В. Отдельные аспекты заготовки аутотрансплантата у больных множественной миеломой. Вопросы онкологии. 2019;65(4):504–9.[Kostroma II, Zhernyakova AA, Gritsaev SV. Some aspects of autotransplant collection in patients with multiple myeloma. Voprosy onkologii. 2019;65(4):504–9. (In Russ)]

  21. Рыбакова Л.П., Алексанян Л.Р., Грицаев С.В. и др. Состояние окислительно-антиокислительной системы у больных множественной миеломой при аутологичной трансплантации гемопоэтических стволовых клеток. Сибирский медицинский журнал. 2017;32(2):41–4.[Rybakova LP, Aleksanyan LR, Gritsaev SV, et al. The state of oxidant-antioxidant system in patients with multiple myeloma during autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Sibirskii meditsinskii zhurnal. 2017;32(2):41–4. (In Russ)]

Long-Term Outcomes of Nivolumab Therapy in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Classic Hodgkin’s Lymphoma after High-Dose Chemotherapy with Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Real Clinical Practice

KV Lepik1, NP Volkov1, NB Mikhailova1, EV Kondakova1, LA Tsvetkova1, YuR Zalyalov1, EE Lepik1, LV Fedorova1, AV Beinarovich1, MV Demchenkova2, OG Smykova1, PV Kotselyabina1, IS Moiseev1, VV Baikov1, BV Afanasyev1

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

2 Regional Oncologic Dispensary, 32 Frunze str., Irkutsk, Russian Federation, 664035

For correspondence: Kirill Viktorovich Lepik, MD, PhD, 6/8 L’va Tolstogo str., Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, 197022; е-mail:

For citation: Lepik KV, Volkov NP, Mikhailova NB, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Nivolumab Therapy in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Classic Hodgkin’s Lymphoma after High-Dose Chemotherapy with Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Real Clinical Practice. Clinical oncohematology. 2020;13(3):280–8 (In Russ).

DOI: 10.21320/2500-2139-2020-13-3-280-288


Aim. To assess prognostic factors and to analyze the outcomes of nivolumab therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cHL) after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT).

Materials & Methods. The retrospective analysis included 42 patients treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg after auto-HSCT in the period from 2016 to 2020. The response to nivolumab therapy was assessed every three months by whole-body PET/CT based on LYRIC criteria. Toxicity profile was assessed by establishing adverse events (AE) based on NCI CTCAE 4.03 criteria.

Results. The study included 42 patients with relapsed/refractory cHL: 21 (50 %) men and 21 (50 %) women. The median age was 32.5 years (range 22–43 years). At diagnosis the following cHL stages were identified: stage II in 14 pts (33.3 %), stage III in 12 pts (28.6 %), and stage IV in 16 pts (38.1 %). Primary chemoresistance after the first-line therapy was observed in 26 pts (61.9 %) and early relapse in 4 pts (9.52 %). The median follow-up was 38 months, 3-year overall survival was 97 % (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 83.2–99.6 %), 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 34.8 % (95% CI 20.3–49.9 %; median 12.9 months). Objective response was reported in 69 % of patients, complete response (CR) in 33.3 %, partial response in 35.7 %, stable disease in 7.1 %, indeterminate response in 14.3 %, and progression in 9.5 % of patients. The analysis of factors affecting PFS revealed significant differences in patients who reached CR after 6 nivolumab cycles: 3-year PFS 56.2 % (95% CI 24.4–79.1 %) vs. 25.2 % (95% CI 10.46–43.1 %) in patients who did not reach CR (= 0.054). If extranodal lesions were identified at nivolumab therapy onset, PFS was 29 % (95% CI 7.8–37.5 %) vs. 68 % (95% CI 35.9–86.8 %) in their absence (= 0.0079). The overall rate of AEs on nivolumab therapy was 92.9 %, severe AEs of grade 3–4 were observed in 19.1 % of patients.

Conclusion. Nivolumab shows high efficacy in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory cHL after the failure of auto-HSCT and considerably improves prognosis compared with historical control. The efficacy of nivolumab is independent of brentuximab vedotin use and duration of prior therapy. Throughout the follow-up period the toxicity level of nivolumab was acceptable and controlled. Clinical factors that affect prognosis for patients on immunotherapy were identified.

Keywords: Hodgkin’s lymphoma, nivolumab, brentuximab vedotin, auto-HSCT, immunotherapy.

Received: March 24, 2020

Accepted: June 15, 2020

Read in PDF


  1. Canellos GP, Anderson JR, Propert KJ, et al. Chemotherapy of advanced Hodgkin’s disease with MOPP, ABVD, or MOPP alternating with ABVD. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(21):1478–84. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199211193272102.

  2. Diehl V, Franklin J, Pfreundschuh M, et al. Standard and increased-dose BEACOPP chemotherapy compared with COPP-ABVD for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(24):2386–95. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022473.

  3. Engert A, Diehl V, Franklin J, et al. Escalated-dose BEACOPP in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: 10 years of follow-up of the GHSG HD9 study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(27):4548–54. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.8820.

  4. Schmitz N, Pfistner B, Sextro M, et al. Aggressive conventional chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy with autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for relapsed chemosensitive Hodgkin’s disease: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9323):2065–71. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08938-9.

  5. Gravanis I, Tzogani K, van Hennik P, et al. The European Medicines Agency Review of Brentuximab Vedotin (Adcetris) for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory CD30+ Hodgkin Lymphoma or Systemic Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Summary of the Scientific Assessment of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Oncologist. 2016;21(1):102–9. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0276.

  6. Younes A, Gopal AK, Smith SE, et al. Results of a pivotal phase II study of brentuximab vedotin for patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(18):2183–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.0410.

  7. Chen R, Gopal AK, Smith SE, et al. Five-year survival and durability results of brentuximab vedotin in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2016;128(12):1562–6. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-02-699850.

  8. Green MR, Monti S, Rodig SJ, et al. Integrative analysis reveals selective 9p24.1 amplification, increased PD-1 ligand expression, and further induction via JAK2 in nodular sclerosing Hodgkin lymphoma and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2010;116(17):3268–77. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-05-282780.

  9. Green MR, Rodig S, Juszczynski P, et al. Constitutive AP-1 activity and EBV infection induce PD-L1 in Hodgkin lymphomas and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders: implications for targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 18(6);1611–8. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1942.

  10. Roemer MG, Advani RH, Ligon AH, et al. Shipp MA. PD-L1 and PD-L2 Genetic Alterations Define Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma and Predict Outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2690–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.4482.

  11. Venkataraman A, Sieber JR, Schmidt AW, et al. Variable responses of human microbiomes to dietary supplementation with resistant starch. Microbiome. 2016;4(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s40168-016-0178-x.

  12. Armand P, Engert A, Younes A, et al. Nivolumab for Relapsed/Refractory Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma After Failure of Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Extended Follow-Up of the Multicohort Single-Arm Phase II CheckMate 205 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(14):1428–39. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.0793.

  13. Ramchandren R, Domingo-Domenech E, Rueda A, et al. Nivolumab for Newly Diagnosed Advanced-Stage Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma: Safety and Efficacy in the Phase II CheckMate 205 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(23):1997–2007. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00315.

  14. Makady A, de Boer A, Hillege H, et al. What Is Real-World Data? A Review of Definitions Based on Literature and Stakeholder Interviews. Value Health. 2017;20(7):858–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.008.

  15. Manson G, Mear JB, Herbaux C, et al. Long-term efficacy of anti-PD1 therapy in Hodgkin lymphoma with and without allogenic stem cell transplantation. Eur J Cancer. 2019;115:47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.04.006.

  16. Halabi S, Owzar K. The importance of identifying and validating prognostic factors in oncology. Semin Oncol. 2010;37(2):e9–e18. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.04.001.

  17. Cheson BD, Ansell S, Schwartz L, et al. Refinement of the Lugano Classification lymphoma response criteria in the era of immunomodulatory therapy. Blood. 2016;128(21):2489–96. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-05-718528.

  18. Lepik KV, Mikhailova NB, Moiseev IS, et al. Nivolumab for the treatment of relapsed and refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma after ASCT and in ASCT-naive patients. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019;60(9):2316–9. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1573368.

  19. Bair SM, Strelec LE, Feldman TA, et al. Outcomes and Toxicities of Programmed Death-1 (PD-1) Inhibitors in Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients in the United States: A Real-World, Multicenter Retrospective Analysis. Oncologist. 2019;24(7):955–62. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0538.

  20. Arai S, Fanale M, DeVos S, et al. Defining a Hodgkin lymphoma population for novel therapeutics after relapse from autologous hematopoietic cell transplant. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54(11):2531–3. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2013.798868.