Search

Background: Non-T-cell depleted haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HaploSCT) is being increasingly used in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) with improving patient outcomes. We have recently reported that outcomes of adult patients (pts) with ALL in complete remission (CR) receiving HaploSCT are comparable to unrelated donor transplants. We now compared HaploSCT and matched sibling donor (MSD) transplants in pts with ALL., Aim: To assess transplantation outcomes of HaploSCT and MSD transplants in pts with ALL in CR., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adult patients (≥ 18 years) with ALL who underwent their first allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) in first or second CR between 2012 and 2018, either from a T cell replete Haplo or MSD donor, and whose data were reported to the Acute Leukemia Working Party (ALWP) of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Multivariate analysis (MVA) adjusting for differences between the groups was performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Propensity score matching was also performed to reduce confounding effects., Results: The analysis comprised 2304 patients: HaploSCT-413; MSD-1891. Median follow-up was 25 months. Median age was 37 (range 18-75) and 38 (18-76) years in HaploSCT and MSD, respectively. HaploSCT patients were transplanted more recently than those transplanted from MSD (2016 vs 2015, p < 0.0001). A higher rate of HaploSCT was in CR2 (33.4% vs 16.7%, p < 0.0001), respectively, and fewer received myeloablative conditioning (68% vs 83.2%, p < 0.0001). Cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity was lower in HaploSCT patients (22% vs 28%, p = 0.01) and donors (27.1% vs 33%, p < 0.02), and a higher proportion of the HaploSCTs were performed using a bone marrow (BM) graft (46.2% vs 18.6%, p < 0.0001). The 2 groups did not differ with regard to gender, Karnofsky performance status score, ALL phenotype, Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) positivity and pre-alloSCT measurable residual disease (MRD). Graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was mainly post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) based (92.7%) in the HaploSCT setting, while it was mostly pharmacologic in the setting of MSD (18.7% received ATG). Cumulative incidence of engraftment at day 60 was higher in MSD transplants compared to HaploSCT (98.7% vs 96.3%, p = 0.001), respectively. Day 180 incidence of acute (a) GVHD II-IV and III-IV was higher in HaploSCT vs. MSD: 36.3% vs 28.9% (p = 0.002 and 15.2% vs 10.5% (p = 0.005), respectively. Conversely, the 2-year chronic (c) GVHD and extensive cGVHD were 32% vs 38.8% (p = 0.009) and 11.9% vs 19.5% (p = 0.001) in HaploSCT vs MSD, respectively. Main causes of death were leukemia (31.8% vs 45%), infection (33.1% vs 19.7%) and GVHD (16.6% vs 19.7%) for HaploSCT and MSD, respectively. Two-year relapse incidence (RI), non-relapse mortality (NRM), leukemia-free survival (LFS), overall survival (OS) and GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) were 26% vs 31.6%, 22.9% vs 13%, 51% vs 55.4%, 58.8% vs 67.4% and 40.6% vs 39% for HaploSCT and MSD, respectively. In the MVA, RI was significantly lower in HaploSCT in comparison with MSD, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66 (95% CI 0.52-0.83, p = 0.004), while NRM was significantly higher, HR = 1.9 (95% CI 1.43-2.53, p < 0.0001). aGVHD grade II-IV and grade III-IV were higher in HaploSCT than in MSD HR = 1.53 (95% CI 1.23-1.9, p = 0.0002) and HR = 1.54 (95% CI 1.1-2.15, p = 0.011), respectively. Extensive cGVHD was lower in HaploSCT compared with MSD, HR = 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.88, p = 0.007), while total cGVHD did not differ significantly, HR = 0.94 (95% CI 0.74-1.18, p = 0.58). LFS, OS and GRFS did not differ significantly between the 2 transplant groups, HR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.81-1.14, p = 0.66); HR = 1.18 (95% CI 0.96-1.43, p = 0.11) and HR = 0.93 (95% CI 0.79-1.09, p = 0.37), respectively. These results were confirmed in a matched-pair analysis., Conclusions: Outcomes of adult patients with ALL in CR receiving alloSCT from haploidentical donors are not significantly different from those receiving transplants from MSD in terms of LFS, OS and GRFS.

This analysis included 56 myelofibrosis (MF) patients transplanted from family mismatched donor between 2009 and 2015 enrolled in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation database. The median age was 57years (range, 38 to 72); 75% had primary MF and 25% had secondary MF. JAK2 V617F was mutated in 61%. Donors were HLA mismatched at 2 or more loci. Stem cells were sourced from bone marrow in 66% and peripheral blood in 34%. The median CD34 + cell dose was 4.8 × 10 6 /kg (range, 1.7 to 22.9; n = 43). Conditioning was predominantly myeloablative in 70% and reduced intensity in the remainder. Regimens were heterogeneous with thiotepa, busulfan, fludarabine, and post-transplant cyclophosphamide used in 59%. The incidence of neutrophil engraftment by 28days was 82% (range, 70% to 93%), at a median of 21days (range, 19 to 23). At 2years the cumulative incidence of primary graft failure was 9% (95% CI 1% to 16%) and secondary graft failure was 13% (95% CI 4% to 22%). The cumulative incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grades II to IV and III to IV was 28% (95% CI 16% to 40%) and 9% (95% CI 2% to 17%) at 100days. The cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD at 1 year was 45% (95% CI 32% to 58%), but the cumulative incidence of death without chronic GVHD by 1 year was 20% (95% CI 10% to 31%). With a median follow-up of 32 months, the 1- and 2-year overall survival was 61% (95% CI 48% to 74%) and 56% (95% CI 41% to 70%), respectively. The 1- and 2- year progression-free survival was 58% (95% CI 45% to 71%) and 43% (95% CI 28% to 58%), respectively, with a 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse of 19% (95% CI 7% to 31%). The 2-year nonrelapse mortality was 38% (95% CI 24% to 51%). This retrospective study of MF allo-SCT using family mismatched donors demonstrated feasibility of the approach, timely neutrophil engraftment in over 80% of cases, and acceptable overall and progression-free survival rates with relapse rates not dissimilar to the unrelated donor setting. However, strategies to minimize the risk of graft failure and the relatively high nonrelapse mortality need to be used, ideally in a multicenter prospective fashion., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)