Abstract
Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a leukapheresis-based treatment that has been used during the last decades by many clinicians.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
1 Introduction
Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a leukapheresis-based treatment that has been used during the last decades by many clinicians. Based on the results of a prospective, multicenter, international clinical trial in patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), ECP was approved by the FDA as the first cellular immunotherapy for cancer in 1988 (Edelson et al. 1987). During the last decades, ECP has been investigated worldwide for the prevention and treatment of a variety of T-cell-mediated diseases including acute and chronic GVHD, solid organ and tissue transplantation, systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematodes, and Crohn’s disease (Knobler et al. 2020, 2021). Administering ECP to patients suffering from these diseases revealed promising results both in prospective and retrospective single and multicenter clinical studies. Despite its frequent use, the mode of action of ECP remains elusive but includes reduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines, induction of anti-inflammatory cytokines, and modulation of immune cell populations.
2 Technical Aspects
During ECP, the patient’s blood is collected via an antecubital vein or a permanent catheter, and the white blood cells are separated from the red blood cells and plasma by centrifugation in a device that is specifically constructed for the procedure (Knobler et al. 2020, 2021; Schoonemann 2003). Collected mononuclear cells (MNCs) using either continuous or discontinuous cell separators are then exposed ex vivo to a photosensitizing agent, 8-methoxypsoralen (8-MOP), which is added directly to the buffy coat/plasma fraction followed by photoactivation with ultraviolet A (UV-A) irradiation and then reinfusion of the photoactivated product (Schoonemann 2003).
ECP has originally been developed as a single procedure that combines the separation of the MNCs from the whole blood with irradiation of the 8-MOP-treated leukapheresis products within a single machine (“closed system of ECP”). The “offline technique” (two-step method) of ECP treatment includes as the first step cell separation with a standard blood cell separator that can also be used for the collection of peripheral blood stem cells. The apheresis product is transferred into another disposable, 8-MOP is added, and irradiation is performed with a separate machine at a dosage of 2 J/cm2. After irradiation, transfusion of the treated cells is carried out manually by a standard transfusion set. Both ECP techniques have demonstrated clinical efficacy, but almost all clinical studies have been performed with the single ECP technique, and studies comparing both systems are almost completely lacking (Schoonemann 2003; Andreu et al. 1994; Brosig et al. 2016).
3 Results of ECP in Acute GVHD
Until recently, no consensus on the optimal choice of agents for salvage therapy of steroid-refractory acute GVHD has been reached, and treatment choices are based on the physician’s experience, risk of toxicity and potential exacerbation of pre-existing comorbidity, interactions with other agents, and ease of use (Martin et al. 2012). During the last years, more and more HCT centers have administered ECP to patients with steroid refractory acute GVHD. Results of larger prospective studies on the use of ECP in this indication are shown in Table 66.1. The intensified schedule of ECP with two to three treatments per week on a weekly basis significantly improved response rates in patients with GI involvement and grade IV acute GVHD (Greinix et al. 2006).
In a systematic review of prospective studies including 6 studies with 103 patients given ECP for steroid-refractory acute GVHD, an overall response rate (ORR) of 69% was achieved including ORR for skin, liver, and GI involvement of 84%, 55%, and 65%, respectively (Abu-Dalle et al. 2014). Compared to anticytokine treatment, administration of ECP for steroid-refractory acute GVHD not only achieved significantly higher ORR (66% vs. 32%) and CR (54% vs. 20%), but ECP was also an independent predictor of response and survival and was associated with significantly lower NRM and superior survival in steroid-refractory grade II acute GVHD (Jagasia et al. 2013). Compared to other IST, ECP has an excellent safety profile with limited toxicity concerns, no increased concerns for viral reactivations, and no documented interaction with other drugs (Martin et al. 2012).
In May 2022, the European Medical Agency (EMA) approved ruxolitinib for the treatment of patients aged 12 years and older with acute GVHD who have inadequate response to corticosteroids or other systemic therapies based on the results of the REACH2 study comparing ruxolitinib with best available therapy in patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD (Zeiser et al. 2020). Therefore, ruxolitinib has been frequently used as second-line therapy during the last year. In a recently published single-center experience of combining ruxolitinib with ECP in 18 patients with severe SR acute GVHD of lower GI tract (50% each overall grades III and IV) and other organ manifestations (skin n = 7, liver n = 6, and upper GI tract n = 2), the majority of patients (n = 15, 83%) received ruxolitinib a median of 20 days before starting ECP (Modemann et al. 2020). The investigators observed a best ORR of 55% including a CR rate of 44% and an additional PR rate of 11%, respectively. The mean daily steroid dose was 130 mg at the diagnosis of SR acute GVHD and at the start of lead-in ruxolitinib (83% of patients) or ruxolitinib with ECP (17% of patients) treatment and could be tapered to less than 20 mg by day 21 and stopped after a median of 27 days. Thus, the feasibility of a rapid steroid taper and discontinuation of steroids with the combination of ruxolitinib and ECP could be demonstrated. Responding patients had a two-year OS of 70% with a median survival of 18 months. These promising results should be confirmed in prospective studies to increase the treatment options for patients with severe SR acute GVHD.
4 Results of ECP in Chronic GVHD
Many therapeutic options have been reported for salvage treatment of steroid-refractory chronic GVHD, and until recently, no single class of IS agent has been established as standard therapy (Wolff et al. 2011). In August 2017 ibrutinib and in September 2021 ruxolitinib were approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with chronic GVHD after failure of one or more lines of systemic therapies.
ECP represents a frequently used therapeutic approach for the treatment of chronic GVHD patients failing corticosteroids (Table 66.2) (Knobler et al. 2020, 2021; Wolff et al. 2011; Greinix et al. 1998; Flowers et al. 2008; Jagasia et al. 2009; Greinix et al. 2011). Most of the clinical experience in ECP treatment of steroid-refractory chronic GVHD patients is based on retrospective analyses with consistently high response rates in up to 80% of patients with cutaneous manifestations and substantial improvement in sclerodermatous skin involvement (Knobler et al. 2020, 2021; Wolff et al. 2011).
In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, prospective phase II study of ECP in 95 patients with steroid-refractory/dependent/intolerant chronic GVHD, significantly more patients in the ECP arm achieved a complete or partial response of cutaneous manifestations (p < 0.001) as well as a 50% reduction in steroid dose and at least a 25% decrease in total skin score (p = 0.04) by week 12 (Greinix et al. 1998). A steroid-sparing effect of ECP has also been reported by other investigators (Knobler et al. 2020, 2021; Wolff et al. 2011; Flowers et al. 2008; Jagasia et al. 2009).
In a systematic review of prospective studies on the use of ECP in patients with chronic GVHD, an ORR of 71% in cutaneous, 62% in GI, 58% in hepatic, 63% in oral mucosal, and 45% in musculoskeletal manifestations of chronic GVHD was reported (Abu-Dalle et al. 2014). The rate of IS discontinuation was 23%, and ECP was tolerated excellently. In another meta-analysis, high response rates in cutaneous and extracutaneous manifestations of chronic GVHD including 48% of responses in lung involvement were confirmed (Del Fante et al. 2016). The ECP schedule in chronic GVHD is empirical ranging from multiple treatments per week on a weekly basis to two treatments biweekly and in case of response prolongation of the treatment interval to 4–6 weeks, respectively. No clear association between ECP dose intensity and response has been reported. Higher response rates were achieved in steroid-refractory patients given ECP earlier in the course of their disease (Malik et al. 2014; Messina et al. 2003). Improvements in the quality of life and survival in ECP responders have been reported (Knobler et al. 2020, 2021; Wolff et al. 2011; Greinix et al. 1998; Malik et al. 2014; Messina et al. 2003).
In a retrospective analysis, 23 patients with SR chronic GVHD (57% NIH grade 3, 91% beyond second-line treatment, and 87% with more than one organ involved) received the combination of ruxolitinib at 5–10 mg bid and ECP with two treatments on consecutive days every 2–4 weeks (Maas-Bauer et al. 2021). Thirty-five percent of patients started ECP and ruxolitinib treatment simultaneously, whereas 30% started ECP first and the median time of ECP therapy prior to combination treatment was 3.25 (1–7) months. During ECP alone, the best response was PR in 43% (3/7) of patients and 57% (4/7) were nonresponders. Thirty-five percent of patients started ruxolitinib treatment first a median of 15 (1–29) months prior to combination treatment. The best ORR of ruxolitinib alone was PR in 62.5% (5/8), and 37.5% (3/8) did not respond. The best ORR of ECP combined with ruxolitinib was 74% (17/23) including 9% CR and 65% PR and a two-year OS of 75%. Thus, combinational treatment increased ORR in heavily pretreated patients with multiorgan involvement SR chronic GVHD and was able to improve the outcome of patients after inadequate responses to ECP or ruxolitinib monotherapy. Patients received a median of six months of combination therapy.
ECP is a safe and efficacious treatment for patients with chronic GVHD with steroid-sparing capacity. Transient hypotension during treatment and mild anemia and/or thrombocytopenia have been reported as side effects of ECP. Prospective clinical studies are warranted to assess the efficacy of ECP in well-defined cohorts of chronic GVHD patients treated earlier in the course of their disease. Recently, Jagasia and colleagues reported the first results of a randomized, controlled, multicenter study in NIH-defined moderate/severe chronic GVHD patients given ECP in the study arm in combination with standard of care IS (Jagasia et al. 2017). Besides an ORR of 74%, and thus, a promising efficacy ECP demonstrated to be safe and tolerated well.
5 Conclusions
ECP has been used for over 30 years in the treatment of CTCL, acute and chronic GVHD, and solid organ transplant rejection. Multiple scientific organizations recommend its use due to ECP’s efficacy and excellent safety profile (Knobler et al. 2020, 2021). Due to the lack of interactions with other agents and the avoidance of general IS, ECP compares favorably with other IS strategies, supporting its increasingly frequent use as salvage therapy of steroid-refractory/dependent acute and chronic GVHD. Of note, the corticosteroid-sparing potential of ECP has been confirmed in numerous retrospective and prospective studies and translates into immediate clinical benefit for patients with GVHD as well as a reduction of transplant-associated morbidity and mortality.
No general recommendation can be made on the treatment schedule due to missing evidence. Ideally, ECP treatment should be initiated as early as possible after the indication is confirmed. Especially in patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD, earlier treatment onset and an intensified weekly ECP schedule resulted in improved response rates and patients’ outcomes. Prospective studies on the use of ECP as upfront treatment in GVHD as well as in combination with recently approved agents are warranted.
Key Points
-
ECP is a safe and efficacious adjunct therapy of steroid-refractory acute and chronic GvHD.
-
Results in upfront therapy of chronic GvHD are promising.
References
Abu-Dalle I, Reljic T, Nishihori T, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis in steroid-refractory acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease: results of a systematic review of prospective studies. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20:1677–86.
Amat P, Lopez-Corral L, Goterris R, et al. Biomarker profile predicts clinical efficacy of extracorporeal photopheresis in steroid-resistant acute and chronic graft-vs-host disease after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. J Clin Apher. 2021;36:697–710.
Andreu G, Leon A, Heshmati F, et al. Extracorporeal photochemotherapy: evaluation of two techniques and use in connective tissue disorders. Transfus Sci. 1994;15:443–54.
Apisarnthanarax N, Donato M, Korbling M, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis therapy in the management of steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent cutaneous chronic graft-versus- host disease after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: feasibility and results. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;31:459–65.
Brosig A, Hähnel V, Orsó E, et al. Technical comparison of four different photopheresis systems. Transfusion. 2016;56:2510–9.
Calore E, Calo A, Tridello G, et al. Extracorporeal photochemotherapy may improve outcome in children with acute GVHD. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;42:421–5.
Calore E, Marson P, Pillon M, et al. Treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease in childhood with extracorporeal photochemotherapy/photopheresis: the Padova experience. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21:1963–72.
Couriel DR, Hosing C, Saliba R, et al. Extracorporeal photochemotherapy for the treatment of steroid-resistant chronic GVHD. Blood. 2006;107:3074–80.
Dall’Amico. Extracorporeal photochemotherapy for the treatment of graft-versus-host disease. Ther Apher. 2002;6:296–304.
Del Fante C, Galasso T, Bernasconi P, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis as a new supportive therapy for bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51:728–31.
Dignan FL, Greenblatt D, Cox M, et al. Efficacy of bimonthly extracorporeal photopheresis in refractory chronic mucocutaneous GVHD. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47:824–30.
Dignan FL, Aguilar S, Scarisbrick JJ, et al. Impact of extracorporeal photopheresis on skin scores and quality of life in patients with steroid-refractory chronic GVHD. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49:704–8.
Edelson R, Berger C, Gasparro F, et al. Treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma by extracorporeal photochemotherapy. Preliminary results N Engl J Med. 1987;316:297–303.
Flowers MED, Apperley J, von Besien K, et al. A multicenter prospective phase 2 randomized study of extracorporeal photopheresis for treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2008;112:2667–74.
Foss FM, DiVenuti GM, Chin K, et al. Prospective study of extracorporeal photopheresis in steroid-refractory or steroid-resistant extensive chronic graft-versus-host disease: analysis of response and survival incorporating prognostic factors. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2005;35:1187–93.
Gandelman JS, Song DJ, Chen H, et al. A prospective trial of extracorporeal photopheresis for chronic graft-versus-host disease reveals significant disease response and no association with frequency of regulatory T cells. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24:2373–80.
Garban F, Drillat P, Makowski C, et al. Extracorporeal chemophototherapy for the treatment of graft-versus-host disease: hematologic consequences of short-term, intensive courses. Haematologica. 2005;90:1096–101.
Greinix HT, Volc-Platzer B, Rabitsch W, et al. Successful use of extracorporeal photochemotherapy in the treatment of severe acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 1998;92:3098–104.
Greinix HT, Knobler RM, Worel N, et al. The effect of intensified extracorporeal photochemotherapy on long-term survival in patients with severe acute graft-versus-host disease. Haematologica. 2006;91:405–8.
Greinix HT, van Besien K, Elmaagacli AH, et al. Progressive improvement in cutaneous and extracutaneous chronic graft-versus-host disease after a 24-week course of extracorporeal photopheresis–results of a crossover randomized study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17:1775–82.
Gonzalez-Vicent M, Ramirez M, Perez A, et al. Extracorporeal photochemotherapy for steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease in low-weight pediatric patients. Immunomodulatory effects and clinical outcome. Haematologica. 2008;93:1278–80.
Hautmann AH, Wolff D, Hahn J, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis in 62 patients with acute and chronic GVHD: results of treatment with the COBE spectra system. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:439–45.
Jagasia MH, Savani BN, Stricklin G, et al. Classic and overlap chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is associated with superior outcome after extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP). Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15:1288–95.
Jagasia M, Greinix H, Robin M, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis versus anticytokine therapy as a second-line treatment for steroid-refractory acute GVHD: a multicentre comparative analysis. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19:1124–33.
Jagasia M, Greinix H, Scheid C, et al. A randomized controlled study of extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) therapy with UVADEX (methoxsalen) for National Institutes of Health (NIH)-graded moderate to severe chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD). Blood. 2017;130:1970.
Kanold J, Merlin E, Halle P, et al. Photopheresis in pediatric graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic marrow transplantation: clinical practice guidelines based onfield experience and review of the literature. Transfusion. 2007;47:2276–89.
Knobler R, Arenberger P, Arun A, et al. European dermatology forum – updated guidelines on the use of extracorporeal photopheresis 2020 – part 1. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:2693–716.
Knobler R, Arenberger P, Arun A, et al. European dermatology forum – updated guidelines on the use of extracorporeal photopheresis 2020 – part 2. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021;35:27–49.
Maas-Bauer K, Kiote-Schmidt C, Bertz H, et al. Ruxolitinib-ECP combination treatment for refractory severe chronic graft-versus-host disease. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021;56:909–16.
Malik MI, Litzow M, Hogan W, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis for chronic graft-versus-host disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood Res. 2014;49:100–6.
Martin PJ, Rizzo JD, Wingard JR, et al. First-and second-line systemic treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease: recommendations of the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18:1150–63.
Messina C, Locatelli F, Lanino E, et al. Extracorporeal photochemotherapy for paediatric patients with graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Br J Haematol. 2003;122:118–27.
Modemann F, Ayuk F, Wolschke C, et al. Ruxolitinib plus extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) for steroid refractory acute graft-versus-host disease of lower GI-tract after allogeneic stem cell transplantation leads to increased regulatory T cell level. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55(12):2286–93.
Niittyvuopio R, Juvonen E, Heiskanen J, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis in the treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease: a single-center experience. Transfusion. 2018;58(9):1973.
Perfetti P, Carlier P, Strada P, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis for the treatment of steroid refractory acute GVHD. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;42:609–17.
Perotti C, Del Fante C, Tinelli C, et al. Extracorporeal photochemotherapy in graft-versus-host disease: a longitudinal study on factors influencing the response and survival in pediatric patients. Transfusion. 2010;50:1359–69.
Perseghin P, Galimberti S, Balduzzi A, et al. Extracorporeal photochemo-therapy for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease: trend for a possible cell dose-related effect? Ther Apher Dial. 2007;11:85–93.
Rubegni P, Cuccia A, Sbano P, et al. Role of extracorporeal photochemotherapy in patients with refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease. Br J Haematol. 2005;130:271–5.
Sakellari I, Gavriilaki E, Batsis I, et al. Favorable impact of extracorporeal photoperesis in acute and chronic graft versus host disease: prospective single-center study. J Clin Apher. 2018;33:654–60.
Salvaneschi L, Perotti C, Zecca M, et al. Extracorporeal photochemotherapy for treatment of acute and chronic GVHD in childhood. Transfusion. 2001;41:1299–305.
Schoonemann F. Extracorporeal photopheresis technical aspects. Transfus Apher Sci. 2003;28:51–61.
Seaton ED, Szydlo RM, Kanfer E, et al. Influence of extracorporeal photopheresis on clinical and laboratory parameters in chronic graft-versus-host disease and analysis of predictors of response. Blood. 2003;102:1217–23.
Ussowicz M, Musiał J, Mielcarek M, et al. Steroid-sparing effect of extracorporeal photopheresis in the therapy of graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2013;45:3375–80.
Wolff D, Schleuning M, von Harsdorf S, et al. Consensus conference on clinical practice in chronic GVHD: second-line treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17:1–17.
Worel N, Lehner E, Führer H, et al. Extracorporeal photopheresis as second-line therapy for patients with acute graft-versus-host disease: does the number of cells treated matter? Transfusion. 2018;58:1045–53.
Zeiser R, von Bubnoff N, Butler J, et al. Ruxolitinib for glucocorticoid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1800–10.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Greinix, H. (2024). Photopheresis in Adults and Pediatrics. In: Sureda, A., Corbacioglu, S., Greco, R., Kröger, N., Carreras, E. (eds) The EBMT Handbook. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44080-9_66
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44080-9_66
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-44079-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-44080-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)