Comparable outcomes among unmanipulated haploidentical, matched unrelated, and matched sibling donors in BU-based myeloa
- PDF / 1,037,290 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 42 Downloads / 146 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Comparable outcomes among unmanipulated haploidentical, matched unrelated, and matched sibling donors in BU-based myeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for intermediate and adverse risk acute myeloid leukemia in complete remission: a single-center study Yue Lu 1 & Yan-Li Zhao 1 & Jian-Ping Zhang 1 & Min Xiong 1 & Xing-Yu Cao 1 & De-Yan Liu 1 & Rui-Juan Sun 1 & Zhi-Jie Wei 1 & Jia-Rui Zhou 1 & Dao-Pei Lu 1 Received: 24 August 2020 / Accepted: 17 November 2020 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract There are a limited number of studies comparing outcomes of busulfan (BU)-based myeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation using unmanipulated haploidentical donors (HIDs), HLA-matched unrelated donors (MUDs), and HLAmatched sibling related donors (MSDs) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with complete remission (CR) status. With this background, we compared outcomes among 377 cases of CR following consecutive HID-HSCT for AML (CR) to 86 MUD and 92 MSD-HSCT cases. All patients received BU-based myeloablative conditioning and an unmanipulated graft within the same period. The median patient age was 23 years (range 1.1 to 65 years), and 230 patients (41.4%) were under age18. Among the 555 patients, 432 (77.8%) were of intermediate cytogenetic risk and 123 (22.2%) were of adverse risk. A total of 113 patients (20.5%) had FLT3-ITD+ AML, 425 patients (76.6%) were in first complete remission (CR1) post-transplant, and 130 (23.4%) patients were in second CR (CR2). GVHD prophylaxis included mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cyclosporine-A (CSA) with short-term methotrexate (MTX) for HID, and MUD-HSCT. MMF is not used for MSD-HSCT. The median survival follow-up time was 42 months (range 18–91 months). The 3-year leukemia-free survival (LFS) among the HID, MUD, and MSD cohorts was 73.8% ± 4.8%, 66.4% ± 8.5%, 74.5% ± 2.4%, respectively (P = 0.637). Three-year overall survival (OS) was 74.9% ± 2.4%, 81.8% ± 4.3%, and 77.5% ± 4.5% among the HID, MUD, and MSD cohorts, respectively (P = 0.322). There were no difference among the relapse rate among the HID, MUD, and MSD donor cohorts (14.3% ± 4.0% vs 20.3% ± 6.4% vs 14.5% ± 2.2, respectively; P = 0.851) or the non-relapse mortality (NRM) (12.3% ± 3.5% vs 9.5% ± 3.2% vs 14.0% ± 1.8%, respectively; P = 0.441). Multivariate analyses showed that MRD-positive pre-HSCT was the only risk factor associated with a lower OS and LFS and higher risk of relapse among all 555 patients. Compared with the use of a MUD or MSD, an HID for HSCT had similar outcomes among AML patients with CR states who underwent an allo-HSCT with BU-based myeloablative conditioning. MFCMRD-positive pre-HSCT was an independent negative factor impact on outcomes for AML patients in CR. We conclude that for AML patients who do not have a MSD or if an urgent transplant is required, HSCT from an HID is a valid option. Keywords Haploidentical donor . Matched unrelated donor . Matched sibling donor . BU-based myeloablative . Allogeneic hematopoietic stem
Data Loading...
