Total Body Irradiation and Fludarabine with Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide for Mismatched Related or Unrelated Donor HCT.
Fractionated Total body Irradiation
GVHD
Graft-versus-Host Disease
PTCy
Post-transplant cyclophosphamide
fTBI
mismatched donor transplantation
Journal
Transplantation and cellular therapy
ISSN: 2666-6367
Titre abrégé: Transplant Cell Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101774629
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Aug 2024
07 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
19
06
2024
revised:
31
07
2024
accepted:
01
08
2024
medline:
10
8
2024
pubmed:
10
8
2024
entrez:
9
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains the only curative treatment for most patients with hematological malignancies. A well-matched donor (related or unrelated) remains as the preferred donor for patients undergoing allogeneic HCT; however, a large number of patients rely on alternative donor choices of mismatched related (haploidentical) or unrelated donors to access HCT. In this retrospective study, we described outcomes of patients who underwent mismatched donor (related or unrelated) HCT with radiation-based MAC regimen in combination with FLU, and PTCy as higher intensity GVHD prophylaxis. We analyzed outcomes based on donor type. We retrospectively assessed HCT outcomes in 155 patients who underwent mismatched donor HCT [related/haploidentical vs unrelated (MMUD)] with fractionated-total body irradiation (FTBI) plus fludarabine and post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis at City of Hope from 2015 to 2021. Diagnoses included ALL (46.5%), AML (36.1%) and MDS (6.5%). The median age at HCT was 38 years and 126 (81.3%) patients were from ethnic minorities. HCT-CI was ≥3 in 36.1% and 29% had a disease-risk-index (DRI) of high/very high. Donor type was haplo (67.1%) or MMUD (32.9%). At 2-years post-HCT, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for all subjects were 75.4% and 80.6%, respectively. Donor type did not impact OS [HR=0.72, (95% CI: 0.35,1.49), p=0.37] and DFS [HR=0.78, (95% CI: 0.41,1.48), p=0.44] but younger donors resulted in less grade III-IV acute GVHD (aGVHD, [HR=6.60, (95% CI: 1.80,24.19), p=0.004] and less moderate or severe chronic GVHD [HR=3.53, (95% CI: 1.70,7.34), p<0.001] with a trend toward better survival (p=0.099). MMUD led to significantly faster neutrophil (median 15 vs 16 days, p=0.014) and platelet recovery (median 18 vs 24 days, p=0.029); however, there was no difference in GVHD outcomes between these groups. Non-relapse mortality [HR=0.86, (95% CI: 0.34,2.20), p=0.76] and relapse risk [HR=0.78, 95%CI: (0.33,1.85), p=0.57] were comparable between the two groups. Patient age <40-years and low-intermediate DRI showed a DFS benefit (p=0.004 and 0.029, respectively). High or very High DRI was the only predictor of increased relapse [HR=2.89, 95%CI: (1.32, 6.34), p=0.008]. In conclusion, FLU/FTBI with PTCy was well-tolerated in mismatched donor HCT, regardless of relationship with patient, provided promising results, and improved access to HCT for patients without a matched donor especially patients from ethnic minorities and mixed race.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains the only curative treatment for most patients with hematological malignancies. A well-matched donor (related or unrelated) remains as the preferred donor for patients undergoing allogeneic HCT; however, a large number of patients rely on alternative donor choices of mismatched related (haploidentical) or unrelated donors to access HCT. In this retrospective study, we described outcomes of patients who underwent mismatched donor (related or unrelated) HCT with radiation-based MAC regimen in combination with FLU, and PTCy as higher intensity GVHD prophylaxis. We analyzed outcomes based on donor type.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively assessed HCT outcomes in 155 patients who underwent mismatched donor HCT [related/haploidentical vs unrelated (MMUD)] with fractionated-total body irradiation (FTBI) plus fludarabine and post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis at City of Hope from 2015 to 2021. Diagnoses included ALL (46.5%), AML (36.1%) and MDS (6.5%). The median age at HCT was 38 years and 126 (81.3%) patients were from ethnic minorities. HCT-CI was ≥3 in 36.1% and 29% had a disease-risk-index (DRI) of high/very high. Donor type was haplo (67.1%) or MMUD (32.9%).
RESULTS
RESULTS
At 2-years post-HCT, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for all subjects were 75.4% and 80.6%, respectively. Donor type did not impact OS [HR=0.72, (95% CI: 0.35,1.49), p=0.37] and DFS [HR=0.78, (95% CI: 0.41,1.48), p=0.44] but younger donors resulted in less grade III-IV acute GVHD (aGVHD, [HR=6.60, (95% CI: 1.80,24.19), p=0.004] and less moderate or severe chronic GVHD [HR=3.53, (95% CI: 1.70,7.34), p<0.001] with a trend toward better survival (p=0.099). MMUD led to significantly faster neutrophil (median 15 vs 16 days, p=0.014) and platelet recovery (median 18 vs 24 days, p=0.029); however, there was no difference in GVHD outcomes between these groups. Non-relapse mortality [HR=0.86, (95% CI: 0.34,2.20), p=0.76] and relapse risk [HR=0.78, 95%CI: (0.33,1.85), p=0.57] were comparable between the two groups. Patient age <40-years and low-intermediate DRI showed a DFS benefit (p=0.004 and 0.029, respectively). High or very High DRI was the only predictor of increased relapse [HR=2.89, 95%CI: (1.32, 6.34), p=0.008].
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, FLU/FTBI with PTCy was well-tolerated in mismatched donor HCT, regardless of relationship with patient, provided promising results, and improved access to HCT for patients without a matched donor especially patients from ethnic minorities and mixed race.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39122188
pii: S2666-6367(24)00585-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jtct.2024.08.005
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest Statement No relevant COI Statement