aGvHD, cGvHD, GvHD Prophylaxis

Haploidentical transplantation versus unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Samantha Larkin , Sep 25, 2019 , Expert Opinion

The gold standard donor for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a matched sibling donor (MSD), but for most, the only available option is HSCT from a human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matched unrelated donor (MUD), and increasingly from a related haploidentical donor. Haploidentical donors are defined as being at least 50% HLA-identical to the recipient and are usually first-degree relatives. The introduction of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) to prevent graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) has greatly improved the outcome of haploidentical HSCT.¹

Leonardo Javier Arcuri from the Insitituto Nacional de Câncer, Centro de Transplante de Medula Óssea, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and colleagues performed a systematic review² to compare overall survival (OS), non-relapse mortality (NRM), GvHD (acute [aGvHD] and chronic [cGvHD]) and relapse rates in patients with hematological malignancies treated with either haploidentical HSCT with PTCy or standard unrelated donor (URD) HSCT. In their Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation publication (August 2019) they detail their searches of the PubMed and Cochrane databases for studies comparing haploidentical HSCT with PTCy against URD HSCT indexed between 1^st January 2008 and 1^st January 2019. The group screened 113 abstracts, before reviewing 46 full texts for eligibility. There were 20 observational studies remaining after eligibility checks, which totalled 1,783 haploidentical HSCT recipients and 6,077 URD HSCT recipients. One study was not included in the meta-analysis due to a lack of extractable data on standard deviations. Study characteristics and a summary of results are detailed in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

Results

OS: The study found no difference in overall survival between the two different donor HSCT treatments (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98 (95% CI, 0.88–1.08) and risk difference (RD) for death of 4 percentage points (pp) (95% CI, -8 to +1 pp).

Relapse: There was also no difference for relapse risk which was 2 pp higher (95% CI, -2 to +6 pp) in the haploidentical donor HSCT group and the hazard ratio was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95–1.19). This was also true when only patients with active or high-risk disease were analyzed.

NRM: In studies in which all haploidentical donor HSCTs used a PTCy approach, NRM was lower for haploidentical donor transplantation by 6 pp (95% CI, -10 to -3) and had a HR of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72–1.00).

GvHD: In terms of aGvHD, both grade II-IV and grade III-IV were lower in the haploidentical HSCT groups (grade II-IV: RD, -12 pp [95% CI, -17 to -7 pp]; HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.47–0.82] and grade III-IV: RD, -9 pp [95% CI, -13 to -5 pp]; HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.48–0.92]).

The RD of cGvHD was 12 pp lower in the haploidentical donor HSCT group (95% CI, -20 to -4 pp). However, the team reported a high heterogeneity (Ι² = 86%) and found that this was associated with the use of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) and the proportional difference between the two donor groups (31% of participants in the haploidentical donor HSCT group received PBSCs vs 85% in the URD HSCT group). Meta-regression analysis found an association of PBSC transplantation with cGvHD in the haploidentical donor HSCT groups (cGvHD was 3.7 pp lower in the haploidentical donor HSCT group for each 10-pp PBSC proportion difference [p < 0.001; R² = 70%]).

Discussion

The meta-analysis found that there is no difference in OS between the two donor types. The team also reported no evidence of higher relapse rates in the haploidentical donor HSCT group, and this finding was upheld even when analying only high-risk disease studies.

However, the incidence rates of all forms of GvHD and NRM are lower with haploidentical donor HSCT compared to URD HSCT. The team point out that this could be partially explained by the use of PTCy-based GvHD prophylaxis for haploidentical donor HSCT as well as the lower use of PBSCs in this group.

The finding that haploidentical donor HSCT is comparable with URD HSCT in terms of OS and relapse rate, while showing lower rates of NRM and GvHD, encouraged the authors to recommend performing haploidentical donor HSCT with PTCy in patients who are being treated in experienced centers, and cannot wait 2–3 months for identification of an URD. This would allow speeding up of the donor identification process, especially for patients with hematologic malignancy with a high risk of relapse.

Arcuri and colleagues highlight some limitations of their study, such as incomplete data extraction from included studies, all of the studies included were retrospective, outcomes of studies were sometimes reported as cumulative incidence with no confidence intervals, and HRs either reported with inadequate reference categories or not reported at all. They also note that they were unable to find any randomized controlled trials comparing these donor transplantations.

Table 1: Study Characteristics

Study	Multi center	Disease	Number			% PBSC		% MAC		GVHD Prophylaxis, %		Age, year		Active or High-risk Disease, %
										Haplo	URD
			Haplo	URD	% MMURD	Haplo	URD	Haplo	URD	PTCy	PTCy or in vivo TCD	Haplo	URD	Haplo	URD
Burroughs et al, 2008 (3)	Yes	Hodgkin Lymphoma	28	24	25	0	100	0	0	100	0	32	28	43	38
Di Stasi et al, 2014 (4)	No	AML/MDS	19	26	0	5	62	0	0	100	100	55	62	0	0
Di Stasi et al, 2014 (4)	No	AML/MDS	13	82	0	0	51	0	0	100	100	52	62	100	100
Raiola et al, 2014 (5)	No	Malignant	92	43	0	0	40	77	72	100	100	45	42	58	42
Raiola et al, 2014 (5)	No	Malignant	92	43	100	0	35	77	72	100	100	45	47	58	56
Ciurea et al, 2015 (6)	Yes	AML	88	737	0	13	89	0	0	100	39	78% >50	95%>50	16	22
Ciurea et al, 2015 (6)	Yes	AML	104	1245	0	18	81	100	100	100	23	42% >50	43%>50	34	25
Garciaz et al, 2015 (7)	Yes	NHL	26	28	12	50	100	0	0	100	100	53	61	43	29
Baker et al, 2016 (8)	No	Malignant	54	59	39	56	68	0		100	91	50.5	57	44	51
Bashey et al, 2016 (9)	No	Malignant	116	178	0	45	82	40	51	100	28	51	53	40	31
Blaise et al, 2016 (10)	No	Malignant	31	63	0	87	95	0	0	100	100	62	64	39	30
Gaballa et al, 2016 (11)	No	Malignant and non malignant	60	46	100	3	17	0	0	100	100	45	51	38	40
Kanate et al, 2016 (12)	Yes	Lymphoma	185	241	0	13	91	0	0	100	100	55	55	6	18
Kanate et al, 2016 (12)	Yes	Lymphoma	185	491	0	13	94	0	0	100	0	55	55	6	11
Rashidi et al, 2016 (13)	No	AML	52	88	0	100	100	44	44	100	0	54	63	42	41
How et al, 2017(14)	No	Refractory AML	24	43	19	100	98	67	79	100	24	54	55	100	100
Martinez et al, 2017 (15)	Yes	Hodgkin Lymphoma	98	273	0	39	88	10	31	100	74	31	32	15	16
McCurdy et al, 2017 (16)	No	Malignant	372	120	0	0	0	0	100	100	100	55	50	19	29
Bashey et al, 2018 (17)	No	Malignant	33	57	4	48	79	6	30	100	4	66	65	17	24
Brissot et al, 2018 (18)	Yes	AML, relapsed/ refractory	199	1111	0	53	94	54	42	100	78	52	52	100	100
Brissot et al, 2018 (18)	Yes	AML, relapsed/ refractory	199	383	100	53	92	54	38	100	88	52	52	100	100
Devillier et al, 2018 (19)	No	AML	33	30	10	94	97	0	17	100	97	64% >65	50%>65	24	7
Dulery et al, 2018 (20)	Yes	Refractory malignant	27	29	24	78	100	78	79	100	100	42	63	100	100
Lorentino et al, 2018 (21)	Yes	AML, adverse karyotype	48	433	0	62	81	53	49	100	76	49	53	100	100
Lorentino et al, 2018 (21)	Yes	AML, adverse karyotype	48	123	100	62	83	53	54	100	86	49	51	100	100
Pagliardini et al, 2018 (22)	No	Malignant	81	81	0	73	96	17	28	100	100	50	50	32	25
MMURD indicates mismatched unrelated donor; TCD, T cell depletion; MAC, myeloablative conditioning; AML, acute myelogenous leukemia; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Table 2: Summary of pooled results

Outcome	Risk Difference (95% CI) in percentage points (pp)*	Number of published studies (number of actual comparisons)	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	Number of published studies (number of actual comparisons)
OS	-4 (-8 to +1)	11 (15)	0.98 (0.88–1.08)	11 (15)
Relapse	+2 (-2 to +6)	12 (16)	1.06 (0.95–1.19)	10 (13)
NRM	-6 (-10 to -3)	10 (14)	0.85 (0.72–1.00)	10 (13)
aGVHD grade II-IV^†	-12 (-17 to -7)	10 (14)	0.52 (0.47–0.82)	7 (9)
aGVHD grade III-IV^†	-9 (-13 to -5)	10 (13)	0.48 (0.32–0.72)	6 (8)
cGVHD, all^†	-12 (-20 to -4)	12 (16)	0.25 (0.17–0.38)	3 (4)
cGVHD, moderate^†	-5 (-14 to +4)	4 (5)	0.55 (0.31–0.99)	5 (5)
* For Risk Difference, negative values favor haploidentical donor HSCT and positive values favour URD HSCT ^† High heterogeneity Statistically significant results in bold

References

Bashey, A. et al. T-cell-replete HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic transplantation for hematologic malignancies using post-transplantation cyclophosphamide results in outcomes equivalent to those of contemporaneous HLA-matched related and unrelated donor transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Apr 1; 31(10):1310–1316. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.3523
Arcuri L. J. et al. Haploidentical transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide versus unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Aug 3: DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.07.028. [Epub ahead of print]
Burroughs L.M. et al. Comparison of outcomes of HLA-matched related, unrelated, or HLA-haploidentical related hematopoietic cell transplantation following nonmyeloablative conditioning for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Nov; 14(11):1279–1287 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.08.014
Di Stasi A. et al. Similar transplantation outcomes for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome patients with haploidentical versus 10/10 human leukocyte antigen–matched unrelated and related donors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014 Dec; 20(12):1975–1981 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.08.013
Raiola A.M. et al. Unmanipulated haploidentical transplants compared with other alternative donors and matched sibling grafts. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct; 20(10): 1573–1579 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.05.029
Ciurea S.O. et al. Haploidentical transplant with posttransplant cyclophosphamide vs matched unrelated donor transplant for acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2015 Aug 20; 126(8):1033–1040 DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-04-639831
Garciaz S. et al. Familial haploidentical challenging unrelated donor Allo-SCT in advanced non-Hodgkin lymphomas when matched related donor is not available. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015 Jun; 50(6):865–7 DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2015.22
Baker M. et al. Comparative outcomes after haploidentical or unrelated donor bone marrow or blood stem cell transplantation in adult patients with hematological malignancies. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016 Nov; 22(11):2047–2055 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.08.003
Bashey A. et al. Comparison of outcomes of hematopoietic cell transplants from t-replete haploidentical donors using post-transplantation cyclophosphamide with 10 of 10 HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1 allele-matched unrelated donors and HLA-identical sibling donors: a multivariable analysis including disease risk index. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016 Jan; 22(1):125–33 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.09.002
Blaise D. et al. Haploidentical T cell-replete transplantation with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide for patients in or above the sixth decade of age compared with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from an human leukocyte antigen-matched related or unrelated donor. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016 Jan; 22(1):119–124 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.08.029
Gaballa S. et al. Results of a 2-arm, phase 2 clinical trial using post-transplantation cyclophosphamide for the prevention of graft-versus-host disease in haploidentical donor and mismatched unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cancer. 2016 Nov 15; 122(21):3316-3326 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30180
Kanate A.S. et al. Reduced-intensity transplantation for lymphomas using haploidentical related donors vs HLA-matched unrelated donors. Blood. 2016 Feb 18; 127(7):938-947 DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-09-671834
Rashidi A. et al. Post-transplant high-dose cyclophosphamide after HLA-matched vs haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation for AML. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016 Dec; 51(12):1561–1564 DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2016.217
How J. et al. T cell-replete peripheral blood haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide results in outcomes similar to transplantation from traditionally matched donors in active disease acute myeloid leukemia. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017 Apr; 23(4):648–653 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.01.068
Martinez C. et al. Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide-based haploidentical transplantation as alternative to matched sibling or unrelated donor transplantation for Hodgkin lymphoma: a registry study of the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 20; 35(30):3425–3432 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.6869
McCurdy S.R. et al. Comparable composite endpoints after HLA-matched and HLA-haploidentical transplantation with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide. Haematologica. 2017 Feb; 102(2):391–400 DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2016.144139
Bashey Z.A. et al. Comparison of outcomes following transplantation with T-replete HLA-haploidentical donors using post-transplant cyclophosphamide to matched related and unrelated donors for patients with AML and MDS aged 60 years or older. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018 Jun; 53(6):756–763 DOI: 10.1038/s41409-018-0126-4
Brissot E. et al. Haploidentical versus unrelated allogeneic stem cell transplantation for relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia: a report on 1578 patients from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the EBMT. Haematologica. 2019 Mar; 104(3):524–532 DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2017.187450
Devillier R. et al. HLA-matched sibling versus unrelated versus haploidentical related donor allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients aged over 60 years with acute myeloid leukemia: a single-center donor comparison. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 Jul; 24(7):1449–1454 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.02.002
Duléry R. et al. Sequential conditioning with thiotepa in T cell-replete hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of refractory hematologic malignancies: comparison with matched related, haplo-mismatched, and unrelated donors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 May; 24(5):1013–1021 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.01.005
Lorentino F. et al. Comparable outcomes of haploidentical, 10/10 and 9/10 unrelated donor transplantation in adverse karyotype AML in first complete remission. Am J Hematol. 2018 Oct; 93(10):1236–1244 DOI: 10.1002/ajh.25231
Pagliardini T. et al. Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide-based haploidentical versus Atg-based unrelated donor allogeneic stem cell transplantation for patients younger than 60 years with hematological malignancies: a single-center experience of 209 patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 Jul; 54(7):1067–1076 DOI: 10.1038/s41409-018-0387-y

Download this article:

You can now download this article in Adobe PDF^® format.

Download as PDF

Was this article informative? Thank you for your feedback!