The gvhd Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the gvhd Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The gvhd and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The GvHD Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Medac and supported through grants from Sanofi and Therakos. The funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View gvhd content recommended for you
Triple posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) prophylaxis has improved survival rates in patients receiving haploidentical (haplo) human leukocyte antigen (HLA) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), likely due to tolerogenic effects on donor T cells. Incidences of acute and chronic GvHD are also reduced to a level comparable to transplantation with matched unrelated donors (MUD) following traditional prophylaxis. Furthermore, the use of PTCy has since been expanded to include MUD recipients following clinical trials demonstrating superiority over traditional prophylaxis.1 However, it is currently uncertain whether conditioning regimens and posttransplant prophylaxis methods are contributory factors in these results.
Here, we present results from a recent observational study, published by Gooptu et al.1 in Blood, which compared posttransplant outcomes following MUD or haplo transplantation with PTCy GvHD prophylaxis. The study separately analyzed patients by conditioning regimen (reduced intensity conditioning [RIC] and myeloablative conditioning [MAC] regimens).
A controlled observational study using registry data from patients transplanted between 2011 and 2018 at 111 centers in the US, contributing to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).
Patients who received PTCy/calcineurin inhibitor prophylaxis without mycophenolate mofetil, were transplanted in the third complete remission or relapse, had AML transformed from MDS, or received CD341-selected peripheral blood grafts following in vivo T-cell depletion were excluded.
Patient characteristics by conditioning regimen are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Patient characteristics*
ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CMV, cytomegalovirus; haplo, haploidentical; MDS, myelodysplastic syndromes; MUD, matched unrelated donor; TBI, total body irradiation. |
||||
Characteristic |
Reduced-intensity conditioning |
Myeloablative conditioning |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Haplo donor |
MUD |
Haplo donor |
MUD |
|
Median age, years (range) |
62 (18–81) |
65 (20–80) |
45 (18–75) |
50 (18–71) |
White, % |
72 |
95 |
69 |
88 |
Female, % |
41 |
44 |
44 |
47 |
Performance score |
|
|
|
|
90–100 |
53 |
59 |
56 |
59 |
≤80 |
45 |
39 |
42 |
38 |
Not reported |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Comorbidity score ≥3, % |
50 |
54 |
45 |
48 |
Positive CMV serostatus, % |
69 |
63 |
70 |
58 |
Disease |
|
|
|
|
AML |
60 |
60 |
55 |
48 |
ALL |
18 |
16 |
32 |
28 |
MDS |
23 |
24 |
13 |
24 |
Disease risk |
|
|
|
|
Low/intermediate |
79 |
80 |
76 |
79 |
High/very high |
18 |
19 |
20 |
20 |
Not reported |
3 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
TBI conditioning regimen, % |
94 |
47 |
50 |
34 |
Graft type |
|
|
|
|
Bone marrow |
44 |
16 |
26 |
12 |
Peripheral blood |
56 |
84 |
74 |
88 |
Transplant period |
|
|
|
|
2011–2014 |
21 |
13 |
19 |
7 |
2015–2018 |
79 |
87 |
81 |
93 |
For patients who received RIC, hematopoietic recovery, including both neutrophil and platelet recovery rates, was lower for haplo HSCT vs MUD HSCT. The incidence of graft failure at 2 years was higher for haplo HSCT compared with MUD HSCT (11% vs 3%; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the incidence of Grade 2–4 acute GvHD and non-relapse mortality risk were both lower in patients receiving MUD HSCT (Table 2). As such, disease-free and overall survival rates were higher for this donor type. The incidence of chronic GvHD and relapse risk did not differ significantly between donor types.
Table 2. Multivariate analysis for posttransplant outcomes in patients receiving reduced-intensity conditioning*
CI, confidence interval; GvHD, graft-versus-host disease; haplo, haploidentical; HR, hazard ratio; MUD, matched unrelated donor. *Data from Gooptu, et al.1 |
|||
Outcome |
Number of events/evaluable |
HR (95% CI) |
p value |
---|---|---|---|
Grade 2–4 acute GvHD |
|
|
|
Haplo |
389/1,171 |
1.00 |
|
MUD |
49/180 |
0.70 (0.52–0.95) |
0.022 |
Grade 3–4 acute GvHD |
|
|
|
Haplo |
118/1,167 |
1.00 |
|
MUD |
8/179 |
0.41 (0.20–0.85) |
0.016 |
Non-relapse morality |
|
|
|
Haplo |
205/1,205 |
1.00 |
|
MUD |
18/187 |
0.33 (0.19–0.57) |
<0.0001 |
Disease-free survival |
|
|
|
Haplo |
171/1,205 |
1.00 |
|
MUD |
90/187 |
0.74 (0.60–0.93) |
0.008 |
Overall survival |
|
|
|
Haplo |
568/1,211 |
1.00 |
|
MUD |
65/187 |
0.65 (0.50–0.84) |
0.001 |
Furthermore:
Finally, when comparing mortality, 47% (568/1,211) of patients receiving haplo HSCT died compared with 35% (65/187) of patients receiving MUD HSCT (Table 3). Disease reoccurrence was the most common cause, although this accounted for fewer deaths after haplo HSCT compared with MUD HSCT (55% vs 71%, respectively; p = 0.02).
Table 3. Causes of deaths by donor type for patients who received reduced-intensity conditioning*
GvHD, graft-versus-host disease; haplo, haploidentical; MUD, matched unrelated donor. |
||
Cause of death, % |
Haplo |
MUD |
---|---|---|
Disease reoccurrence |
55 |
71 |
Graft failure |
2 |
— |
GvHD |
7 |
2 |
Infections |
15 |
6 |
Interstitial pneumonitis |
3 |
2 |
Organ failure |
8 |
14 |
Malignancy excluding primary diagnosis |
2 |
0 |
Other causes |
3 |
3 |
When comparing the same outcomes for MAC, neutrophil recovery rates did not differ by donor type; however, platelet recovery rates were significantly lower following haplo HSCT compared with MUD (87% vs 93%, p < 0.001). The incidence of graft failure after 1 year did not differ by donor type. Unlike RIC, the incidence of Grade 2–4 acute GvHD was similar between donor types; however, incidences of Grade 3–4 acute GvHD (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14–1.00; p = 0.05) and chronic GvHD were lower for MUD HSCT (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43–1.01; p = 0.053). No differences in relapse risk, non-relapse mortality, or disease-free and overall survival were observed.
Additionally:
Overall, 33% (275/825) of haplo HSCT recipients died compared with 27% (48/176) of MUD HSCT recipients. No significant differences in the causes of death were observed between donor types, with recurrent disease the most common cause, as for RIC (Table 4).
Table 4. Causes of death by donor type for patients who received myeloablative conditioning*
GvHD, graft-versus-host disease; haplo, haploidentical; MUD, matched unrelated donor. |
||
Cause of death, % |
Haplo |
MUD |
---|---|---|
Disease reoccurrence |
50 |
47 |
Graft failure |
3 |
2 |
GvHD |
9 |
10 |
Infections |
12 |
10 |
Interstitial pneumonitis |
7 |
2 |
Organ failure |
11 |
13 |
Other causes |
7 |
8 |
The majority of MUD HSCTs were carried out between 2016 and 2018, with survival outcomes consistent with the overall time period for both RIC and MAC regimens. Within the RIC group, recipients of MUD HSCT had a lower risk of non-relapse mortality (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15–0.73, p = 0.006) and, by extension, higher disease-free (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50–0.94; p = 0.018) and overall survival (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39–0.84, p = 0.004) rates than haplo HSCT recipients. However, within the MAC arm, non-relapse mortality risk, disease-free surivial, and overall survival were comparable between donor types. The incidence of Grade 3–4 acute GvHD was lower for MUD HSCT compared with haplo HSCT in both the RIC (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15–0.97, p = 0.04) and MAC (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.10–1.07, p = 0.06) setting.
In a recent journal club held at the International Academy for Clinical Hematology, Mary Eapen and Arnon Nagler discussed the impact of these registry data.2 The key point was the need for randomized studies comparing donor types, to eliminate registry study bias and variance in transplant numbers that occur over a large data collection period. Additionally, Eapen highlighted a lack of data on the long-term effects of PTCy-based prophylaxis in this study, which included only a 2-year follow-up. The impact of socioeconomic status on access to MUD HSCT was considered, given the differences in outcomes depending on donor type. Notably, there is a higher incidence of GvHD in African Americans, along with a higher mortality rate associated with transplantation. As socioeconomic status is known to be a barrier to transplantation, it is therefore important to reduce the disparity in access to MUD HSCT and expand donor pools, especially for minority groups.
Registry data from this study support the preferred use of MUD HSCT, particularly in patients who received RIC. In these patients, a higher incidence of graft failure and acute GvHD was noted, which translated into lower disease-free and overall survival following haplo HSCT. In patients treated with MAC, while posttransplant survival differences were reduced with PTCy, there remained a higher incidence of Grade 3–4 acute GvHD. As access to HSCT, independent of donor type, provides survival benefits for patients with hematologic malignances, haplo HSCT should still be offered if a MUD donor is not available.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content