Biologically Randomized Comparison of Haploidentical Versus Human Leukocyte Antigen-Matched Related Donor Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Michael R Grunwald, Wei Sha, Jiaxian He, Srinivasa Sanikommu, Jonathan M Gerber, Jing Ai, Thomas G Knight, Omotayo Fasan, Victoria Boseman, Whitney Kaizen, Aleksander Chojecki, Brittany K Ragon, James Symanowski, Belinda Avalos, Edward Copelan, Nilanjan Ghosh
{"title":"Biologically Randomized Comparison of Haploidentical Versus Human Leukocyte Antigen-Matched Related Donor Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.","authors":"Michael R Grunwald, Wei Sha, Jiaxian He, Srinivasa Sanikommu, Jonathan M Gerber, Jing Ai, Thomas G Knight, Omotayo Fasan, Victoria Boseman, Whitney Kaizen, Aleksander Chojecki, Brittany K Ragon, James Symanowski, Belinda Avalos, Edward Copelan, Nilanjan Ghosh","doi":"10.1016/j.jtct.2024.09.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using haploidentical donors for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) broadens transplant accessibility to a growing number of patients with hematologic disorders. Moreover, haploidentical HCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has become widespread practice due to accumulating evidence demonstrating favorable rates of survival and graft-versus-host disease (GvHD). Most studies comparing outcomes by donor sources have been confounded by variability in conditioning regimens, graft type (peripheral blood [PB] or bone marrow), and post-transplant GvHD prophylaxis (PTCy or non-PTCy), making it difficult to define the effect of donor source on outcomes. Levine Cancer Institute started a transplant and cellular therapy program in 2014, with both haploidentical and matched related donor (MRD) transplants initially performed using a uniform reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen, PB grafts, and PTCy-based GvHD prophylaxis. This retrospective observational study was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes associated with RIC haploidentical HCT and MRD HCT in patients receiving identical conditioning regimens, graft types, and supportive care. Our transplant database was queried to evaluate demographic characteristics, clinical features, and outcomes of RIC HCT for consecutive patients with hematologic malignancies who received haploidentical or MRD grafts between March 2014 and December 2017. An MRD was the preferred donor source; when unavailable, a haploidentical donor was used. Sixty-seven patients underwent haploidentical HCT and 25 MRD HCT. Overall, characteristics of transplant recipients were similar for the haploidentical and MRD groups; however, haploidentical donors were younger than MRDs (median 36 yr versus 57 yr, P < .0001). Results of univariable analysis showed similar overall survival (OS) for haploidentical and MRD HCT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.15; P = .669). One-year, 1-yr, and 5-yr OS were 80.2%, 54.7%, and 41.2% for haploidentical HCT and 76.0%, 55.7%, and 51.1% for MRD HCT, respectively. With a median follow-up of 81.90 months, results of multivariable analysis revealed that donor source (haploidentical versus MRD) was not significantly associated with OS (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.87; P = .933), relapse-free survival (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.35; P = .337), cumulative incidence of relapse (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.70; P = .579), or non-relapse mortality (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.40 to 3.14; P = .827). Cumulative incidences of acute GvHD (aGvHD) and chronic GvHD (cGvHD) were not significantly different for haploidentical and MRD HCT (grades II to IV aGvHD: HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.72 to 4.37; P = .210; grades III to IV aGvHD: HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 0.34 to 23.63; P = .335; cGvHD: HR, 1.00; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.76; P = .995). With care that was homogenous in terms of conditioning regimens, graft type, GvHD prophylaxis, and supportive care, 92 patients who were biologically randomized to either haploidentical HCT or MRD HCT after RIC with PTCy had comparable outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23283,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation and Cellular Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation and Cellular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtct.2024.09.021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using haploidentical donors for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) broadens transplant accessibility to a growing number of patients with hematologic disorders. Moreover, haploidentical HCT with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has become widespread practice due to accumulating evidence demonstrating favorable rates of survival and graft-versus-host disease (GvHD). Most studies comparing outcomes by donor sources have been confounded by variability in conditioning regimens, graft type (peripheral blood [PB] or bone marrow), and post-transplant GvHD prophylaxis (PTCy or non-PTCy), making it difficult to define the effect of donor source on outcomes. Levine Cancer Institute started a transplant and cellular therapy program in 2014, with both haploidentical and matched related donor (MRD) transplants initially performed using a uniform reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen, PB grafts, and PTCy-based GvHD prophylaxis. This retrospective observational study was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes associated with RIC haploidentical HCT and MRD HCT in patients receiving identical conditioning regimens, graft types, and supportive care. Our transplant database was queried to evaluate demographic characteristics, clinical features, and outcomes of RIC HCT for consecutive patients with hematologic malignancies who received haploidentical or MRD grafts between March 2014 and December 2017. An MRD was the preferred donor source; when unavailable, a haploidentical donor was used. Sixty-seven patients underwent haploidentical HCT and 25 MRD HCT. Overall, characteristics of transplant recipients were similar for the haploidentical and MRD groups; however, haploidentical donors were younger than MRDs (median 36 yr versus 57 yr, P < .0001). Results of univariable analysis showed similar overall survival (OS) for haploidentical and MRD HCT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.15; P = .669). One-year, 1-yr, and 5-yr OS were 80.2%, 54.7%, and 41.2% for haploidentical HCT and 76.0%, 55.7%, and 51.1% for MRD HCT, respectively. With a median follow-up of 81.90 months, results of multivariable analysis revealed that donor source (haploidentical versus MRD) was not significantly associated with OS (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.87; P = .933), relapse-free survival (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.35; P = .337), cumulative incidence of relapse (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.70; P = .579), or non-relapse mortality (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.40 to 3.14; P = .827). Cumulative incidences of acute GvHD (aGvHD) and chronic GvHD (cGvHD) were not significantly different for haploidentical and MRD HCT (grades II to IV aGvHD: HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.72 to 4.37; P = .210; grades III to IV aGvHD: HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 0.34 to 23.63; P = .335; cGvHD: HR, 1.00; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.76; P = .995). With care that was homogenous in terms of conditioning regimens, graft type, GvHD prophylaxis, and supportive care, 92 patients who were biologically randomized to either haploidentical HCT or MRD HCT after RIC with PTCy had comparable outcomes.

单倍体与 HLA 匹配的亲缘供体降低强度调理造血细胞移植的生物学随机比较。
背景:使用单倍体供体进行异基因造血细胞移植(HCT)扩大了移植的可及性,使越来越多的血液病患者可以接受移植。此外,由于越来越多的证据表明单倍体造血干细胞移植后环磷酰胺(PTCy)的存活率和移植物抗宿主病(GvHD)的发生率较高,因此单倍体造血干细胞移植已成为一种普遍的治疗方法。大多数比较不同供体来源治疗效果的研究都受到调理方案、移植物类型(外周血或骨髓)和移植后抗宿主病预防措施(PTCy 或非 PTCy)差异的影响,因此很难界定供体来源对治疗效果的影响。莱文癌症研究所(Levine Cancer Institute)于2014年启动了一项移植和细胞治疗项目,最初采用统一的降低强度调理(RIC)方案、外周血移植和基于PTCy的GvHD预防措施进行单倍体和配对亲缘供体(MRD)移植:这项回顾性观察研究旨在比较RIC单倍体造血干细胞移植和MRD造血干细胞移植对接受相同调理方案、移植物类型和支持治疗的患者的临床效果:对我们的移植数据库进行了查询,以评估2014年3月至2017年12月期间接受单倍体或MRD移植物的连续血液恶性肿瘤患者的人口统计学特征、临床特征和RIC HCT的结果。MRD是首选的供体来源;如果无法获得,则使用单倍体供体:67名患者接受了单倍体造血干细胞移植,25名患者接受了MRD造血干细胞移植。总体而言,单倍体组和 MRD 组移植受者的特征相似;但单倍体供者比 MRD 供者年轻(中位年龄为 36 岁对 57 岁,P 结论:单倍体组和 MRD 组移植受者的特征相似,但单倍体供者比 MRD 供者年轻(中位年龄为 36 岁对 57 岁,P 结论):在调理方案、移植类型、GvHD预防和支持治疗等方面相同的情况下,92名在PTCy进行RIC后生物随机接受单倍体HCT或MRD HCT的患者的治疗效果相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
15.60%
发文量
1061
审稿时长
51 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信