Graft Purging in Autologous Bone Marrow Transplantation: A Promise Not Quite Fulfilled

The analysis, "Graft Purging in Autologous Bone Marrow Transplantation: A Promise Not Quite Fulfilled," by Drs. Joseph Alvarnas and Stephen Forman, is very timely. The authors" conclusion is succinctly presented in their title. For about a decade late in the 20th century, the merits-or in some cases, the absolute necessity-of purging autologous bone marrow harvests prior to transplantation were fervently presented by various authors. Target diseases included leukemias, lymphomas, myeloma, and breast cancer. It was suggested that the transplantation of unpurged autologous bone marrow harvests might even be considered unethical. As noted by Alvarnas and Forman, several (phase I) studies demonstrated the feasibility of removing or reducing the number of tumor cells in autologous bone marrow harvests. Unfortunately, the clinical benefits of purging harvests were not always obvious and became increasingly controversial. Appropriate Time for Reassessment Proponents of purging and their opponents became increasingly polarized. For reasons that are not entirely obvious, a little over 5 years ago the passion and heat generated by this topic began to dissipate, and recently, debate on the purging front has been relatively cool, possibly because of a shift in interest, as the authors note, toward the use of reducedintensity allogeneic (mini-allo) transplants. Consequently, this is a most appropriate time for a dispassionate presentation and analysis of the available data-a service provided by Alvarnas and Forman's excellent review. The emphasis of the review is hematologic diseases but the authors' conclusions on the clinical impact of graft purging likely applies to all diseases in which this approach has been attempted. For efficiency, this commentary focuses on lymphoma as the target disease. As the authors claim, there is at a minimum indirect evidence that tumor cells contaminating grafts can contribute to relapse posttransplantation. As they also note, the relative contribution to relapse of infused tumor cells vs tumor-surviving therapy is much less clear. This remains an unanswered theoretical question, although in a clinical context it is of little importance. Purging Techniques Alvarnas and Forman present a detailed review of purging techniques. A more critical analysis of the possible consequences of purging techniques might also have value. As they note, "Interest in graft purging was dramatically stimulated by the 1991 publication of a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute trial that evaluated the course of 114 patients with follicular NHL." This trial employed a very novel biologic purging technique that induced B-cell death using monoclonal antibodies and baby rabbit complement.[ 1] Removal of tumor cells was documented using bcl-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. More recent purging approaches largely employ the physical removal of tumor cells, eg, antibodies attached to magnetic beads[2] or purification of stem cells. The importance of this distinction is that the major determinant of clinical outcomes in lymphoma is disease sensitivity vs resistance to therapy. Patients whose lymphoma does not show a major response to frontline chemotherapy have poorer outcomes.[3] The biologic purging technique employed in the original Dana-Farber trial likely not only purged lymphoma cells from the harvest, but potentially also identified patients with sensitive (ie, purged to negativity) vs resistant disease. In retrospect it was the ideal technique. Consequently, the clinical outcome of this trial was likely the best that could ever be expected. On the one hand, this maybe lead to exaggerated expectations of purging technologies. At the same time, it may eventually have promoted despair at the failure to replicate this clinical success. It is interesting that chemopurging trials that also have a biologic component have produced limited benefits, albeit most evident in subgroup analyses.[4] Purely physical approaches to purging tumor cells from harvests generally have not demonstrated clinical benefits.[2] Future Trials Despite these reservations, as Alvarnas and Forman note, "the concept of graft purging is seductive." A number of phase II studies and a registry analysis[5] have suggested a clinical benefit,