Person: NIkiforow, Sarah
Email Address
AA Acceptance Date
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
First Name
Name
Search Results
Publication The Why, what, and How of the New FACT standards for immune effector cells
(BioMed Central, 2017) Maus, Marcela; NIkiforow, SarahNovel cellular therapies outside of traditional hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) therapy are currently under evaluation in clinical trials across the United States and around the world. Several cellular products, e.g., CD19-directed Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cells, are poised for FDA approval and thus increased use at a wider range of academic centers within the next year, with the likelihood of dissemination to standard oncology practice once safety is confirmed. However, these therapies entail some unique challenges in terms of logistics of delivery and toxicity management. Building on experiences and Standards established for HPC programs, the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT) has established new Standards specific to the use of Immune Effector Cells (IEC), including gene-modified T cells and natural (NK) cells. These Standards specify the clinical and quality infrastructure to facilitate safe administration of immune effector cells and formalize subsequent monitoring and reporting of patient outcomes to enable continual process improvement. Below we detail why these standards came into being, what they entail, and how a clinical team might access educational materials and implement these Standards. We propose that these Standards will be increasingly useful and relied up on as institutions and clinical service lines seek access to these treatment for their patients. FACT will begin accrediting programs that meet these new Standards for clinical administration of Immune Effector Cells in 2017.
Publication Venous thromboembolism is associated with graft-versus-host disease and increased non-relapse mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
(Ferrata Storti Foundation, 2017) Kekre, Natasha; Kim, Haesook; Ho, Vincent; Cutler, Corey; Armand, Philippe; NIkiforow, Sarah; Alyea, Edwin P.; Soiffer, Robert; Antin, Joseph; Connors, Jean; Koreth, JohnAlthough venous thromboembolism rates and risk factors are well described in patients with cancer, there are limited data on the incidence, risk factors and outcomes of thrombosis after allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a curative therapy for patients with hematologic malignancies. We aimed to determine the incidence and risks associated with venous thrombosis in allogeneic stem cell transplants. We studied 2276 recipients of first transplant between 2002–2013 at our institution with a median follow up of 50 months (range 4–146). Using pharmacy records and subsequent chart reviews, 190 patients who received systemic anticoagulation for venous thrombosis were identified. The 1-and 2-year cumulative incidence of all venous thrombotic events were 5.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.6–6.5%) and 7.1% (95% CI 6.1–8.2%), respectively. There was no difference in age, sex, body mass index, diagnosis, disease risk index, conditioning intensity, donor type or graft source between transplant recipients with and without subsequent thrombosis. In multivariable models, both acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease were independently associated with thrombosis occurrence (Hazard ratio (HR)=2.05, 95% CI 1.52–2.76; HR=1.71, 95% CI 1.19–2.46, respectively). Upper extremity thrombosis differed from all other thromboses in terms of timing, risk factors and clinical impact, and was not associated with non-relapse mortality (HR=1.15; 95% CI 0.69–1.90), unlike all other thromboses which did increase non-relapse mortality (HR=1.71; 95% CI 1.17–2.49). In subgroup analysis evaluating conventional thrombosis predictors by comparing patients with and without thrombosis, a history of prior venous thrombosis was the only significant predictor. Venous thromboembolism has a high incidence after allogeneic stem cell transplant and is associated with graft-versus-host disease and non-relapse mortality.
Publication Bortezomib-based immunosuppression after reduced-intensity conditioning hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: randomized phase II results
(Ferrata Storti Foundation, 2018) Koreth, John; Kim, Haesook; Lange, Paulina B.; Poryanda, Samuel J.; Reynolds, Carol G.; Rai, Sharmila Chamling; Armand, Philippe; Cutler, Corey; Ho, Vincent; Glotzbecker, Brett; Yusuf, Rushdia; NIkiforow, Sarah; Chen, Yi-Bin; Dey, Bimalangshu; McMasters, Malgorzata; Ritz, Jerome; Blazar, Bruce R.; Soiffer, Robert; Antin, Joseph; Alyea, Edwin P.Aprior phase I/II trial of bortezomib/tacrolimus/methotrexate prophylaxis after human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-mismatched reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation documented low acute graft-versus-host disease incidence, with promising overall and progression-free survival. We performed an open-label three-arm 1:1:1 phase II randomized controlled trial comparing grade II–IV acute graft-versus-host disease between conventional tacrolimus/methotrexate (A) versus bortezomib/tacrolimus/methotrexate (B), and versus bortezomib/sirolimus/tacrolimus (C), in reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation recipients lacking HLA-matched related donors. The primary endpoint was grade II–IV acute graft-versus-host disease incidence rate by day +180. One hundred and thirty-eight patients (A 46, B 45, C 47) with a median age of 64 years (range: 24–75), varying malignant diagnoses and disease risk (low 14, intermediate 96, high/very high 28) received 7–8/8 HLA-mismatched (40) or matched unrelated donor (98) grafts. Median follow up in survivors was 30 months (range: 14–46). Despite early immune reconstitution differences, day +180 grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease rates were similar (A 32.6%, B 31.1%, C 21%; P=0.53 for A vs. B, P=0.16 for A vs. C). The 2-year non-relapse mortality incidence was similar (A 14%, B 16%, C 6.4%; P=0.62), as were relapse (A 32%, B 32%, C 38%; P=0.74), chronic graft-versus-host disease (A 59%, B 60% C 55%; P=0.66), progression-free survival (A 54%, B 52%, C 55%; P=0.95), and overall survival (A 61%, B 62%, C 62%; P=0.98). Overall, the bortezomib-based regimens evaluated did not improve outcomes compared with tacrolimus/methotrexate therapy. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: 01754389