HLA-haploidentical vs matched unrelated donor transplants with posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based prophylaxis.
Adult
Cyclophosphamide
/ therapeutic use
Female
Graft vs Host Disease
/ prevention & control
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
/ methods
Humans
Immunosuppressive Agents
/ therapeutic use
Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute
/ therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Myelodysplastic Syndromes
/ therapy
Transplantation Conditioning
Transplantation, Haploidentical
/ methods
Transplantation, Homologous
/ methods
Treatment Outcome
Unrelated Donors
Journal
Blood
ISSN: 1528-0020
Titre abrégé: Blood
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7603509
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 07 2021
22 07 2021
Historique:
received:
15
02
2021
accepted:
30
03
2021
entrez:
22
7
2021
pubmed:
23
7
2021
medline:
3
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has enabled haploidentical (Haplo) transplantation to be performed with results similar to those after matched unrelated donor (MUD) transplantation with traditional prophylaxis. The relative value of transplantation with MUD vs Haplo donors when both groups receive PTCy/calcineurin inhibitor/mycophenolate GVHD prophylaxis is not known. We compared outcomes after 2036 Haplo and 284 MUD transplantations with PTCy GVHD prophylaxis for acute leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome in adults from 2011 through 2018. Cox regression models were built to compare outcomes between donor types. Recipients of myeloablative and reduced-intensity regimens were analyzed separately. Among recipients of reduced-intensity regimens, 2-year graft failure (3% vs 11%), acute grades 2 to 4 GVHD (hazards ratio [HR], 0.70; P = .022), acute grades 3 and 4 GVHD (HR, 0.41; P = .016), and nonrelapse mortality (HR, 0.43; P = .0008) were lower after MUD than with Haplo donor transplantation. Consequently, disease-free (HR, 0.74; P = .008; 55% vs 41%) and overall (HR, 0.65; P = .001; 67% vs 54%) survival were higher with MUD than with Haplo transplants. Among recipients of myeloablative regimens, day-100 platelet recovery (95% vs 88%) was higher and grades 3 and 4 acute (HR, 0.39; P = .07) and chronic GVHD (HR, 0.66; P = .05) were lower after MUD than with Haplo donor transplantation. There were no differences in graft failure, relapse, nonrelapse mortality, and disease-free and overall survival between donor types with myeloablative conditioning regimens. These data extend and confirm the importance of donor-recipient HLA matching for allogeneic transplantation. A MUD is the preferred donor, especially for transplantations with reduced-intensity conditioning regimens.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34292325
pii: S0006-4971(21)00843-0
doi: 10.1182/blood.2021011281
pmc: PMC8310426
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Cyclophosphamide
8N3DW7272P
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
273-282Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : U01 HL117659
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK120289
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016086
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HL007149
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL146226
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Blood. 2014 Jul 17;124(3):334-43
pubmed: 24914138
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Dec 1;2(12):1583-1589
pubmed: 27532508
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2011 Jan;101(1):87-93
pubmed: 20724020
Stat Med. 1999 Jun 30;18(12):1489-500
pubmed: 10398287
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995 Jun;15(6):825-8
pubmed: 7581076
Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar;6(3):e132-e143
pubmed: 30824040
N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 18;367(16):1487-96
pubmed: 23075175
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2007 Nov;88(2):95-101
pubmed: 17850917
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Apr;48(4):537-43
pubmed: 23222384
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 1;33(4):364-9
pubmed: 25534391
J Hematol Oncol. 2018 Mar 15;11(1):40
pubmed: 29544522
JCI Insight. 2016;1(5):
pubmed: 27213183
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1989 May;4(3):247-54
pubmed: 2659110
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009 Dec;15(12):1628-33
pubmed: 19896087
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 10;35(26):3002-3009
pubmed: 28644773
Blood. 2015 Aug 20;126(8):1033-40
pubmed: 26130705
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Jun;14(6):641-50
pubmed: 18489989
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 24;371(4):339-48
pubmed: 25054717
Blood. 2016 Mar 17;127(11):1502-8
pubmed: 26764356
J Clin Invest. 2019 Mar 26;129(6):2357-2373
pubmed: 30913039
Transpl Infect Dis. 2019 Aug;21(4):e13096
pubmed: 31004545
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015 Jan;21(1):55-9
pubmed: 25255165
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015 Jun;50 Suppl 2:S31-6
pubmed: 26039204