Search

Purpose To compare a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen (RIC) with a myeloablative conditioning regimen (MAC) before allogeneic transplantation in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) within a randomized trial. Patients and Methods Within the European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, we conducted a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial that compared a busulfan-based RIC with MAC in patients with MDS or secondary acute myeloid leukemia. A total of 129 patients were enrolled from 18 centers. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio and were stratified according to donor, age, and blast count. Results Engraftment was comparable between both groups. The CI of acute graft-versus-host disease II to IV was 32.3% after RIC and 37.5% after MAC ( P = .35). The CI of chronic graft-versus-host disease was 61.6% after RIC and 64.7% after MAC ( P = .76). The CI of nonrelapse mortality after 1 year was 17% (95% CI, 8% to 26%) after RIC and 25% (95% CI, 15% to 36%) after MAC ( P = .29). The CI of relapse at 2 years was 17% (95% CI, 8% to 26%) after RIC and 15% (95% CI, 6% to 24%) after MAC ( P = .6), which resulted in a 2-year relapse-free survival and overall survival of 62% (95% CI, 50% to 74%) and 76% (95% CI, 66% to 87%), respectively, after RIC, and 58% (95% CI, 46% to 71%) and 63% (95% CI, 51% to 75%), respectively, after MAC ( P = .58 and P = .08, respectively). Conclusion This prospective, randomized trial of the European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation provides evidence that RIC resulted in at least a 2-year relapse-free survival and overall survival similar to MAC in patients with MDS or secondary acute myeloid leukemia.

Purpose: We investigated the effect of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serostatus on the overall outcome of allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT)., Patients and Methods: The study included 11,364 patients who underwent allogeneic peripheral-blood or bone marrow transplantation for acute leukemia between 1997 and 2012. We analyzed the impact of donor and recipient EBV serologic status on overall survival, relapse-free survival, relapse incidence, nonrelapse mortality, and incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after allo-HSCT., Results: Patients receiving grafts from EBV-seropositive donors had the same overall survival as patients who received grafts from EBV-seronegative donors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.12; P = .23). Seropositive donors also had no influence on relapse-free survival (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.11; P = 0.31), relapse incidence (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.12; P = .58), and nonrelapse mortality (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.17; P = .37). However, in univariate analysis, recipients receiving grafts from seropositive donors had a higher risk of chronic GVHD than those with seronegative donors (40.8% v 31.0%, respectively; P < .001; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.56). When adjusting for confounders, higher risk was identified for both acute and chronic GVHD. In seronegative patients with seropositive donors, the HR for chronic GVHD was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.59; P = .039). In seropositive patients with seropositive donors, the HR was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.45; P = .016) for acute GVHD and 1.43 (95% CI, 1.23 to 1.67; P < .001) for chronic GVHD. Seropositive patients with seronegative donors did not have an increased risk of GVHD., Conclusion: Our data suggest that donor EBV status significantly influences development of acute and chronic GVHD after allo-HSCT., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To evaluate the role of a second allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT2) given for relapsed acute leukemia (AL) after related or unrelated first hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT1) and to analyze the role of donor change for HSCT2 in both settings., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective registry study on 179 HSCT2s given for relapse after HSCT1 from matched related donors (n = 75) or unrelated donors (n = 104), using identical or alternative donors for HSCT2. Separate analyses were performed according to donor at HSCT1., Results: Independent of donor, 74% of patients achieved complete remission after HSCT2, and half of these patients experienced relapse again. Overall survival (OS) at 2 years was 25% ± 4% (39% ± 7% after related HSCT2; 19% ± 4% after unrelated HSCT2). Long-term survivors were observed even after two unrelated HSCT2s. Multivariate analysis for OS from HSCT2 confirmed established risk factors (remission duration after HSCT1: hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 1.61 to 3.46; P < .001; stage at HSCT2: HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83; P = .006). Outcome of HSCT2 was better after related HSCT1 than after unrelated HSCT1 (2-year OS: 37% ± 6% v 16% ± 4%, respectively; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.98; P = .042, multivariate Cox regression). After both related and unrelated HSCT1, selecting a new donor for HSCT2 did not result in a relevant improvement in OS compared with HSCT2 from the original donor; however, donor change was not detrimental either., Conclusion: After relapse from allogeneic HSCT1, HSCT2 can induce 2-year OS in approximately 25% of patients. Unrelated HSCT2 is feasible after related and unrelated HSCT1. Donor change for HSCT2 is a valid option. However, a clear advantage in terms of OS could not be demonstrated.