镰状细胞病同种异体匹配相关供体造血细胞移植方案的比较

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Daniel Prior, Jingchen Liang, Yanhong Deng, Niketa Shah, Aron Flagg, Lakshmanan Krishnamurti
{"title":"镰状细胞病同种异体匹配相关供体造血细胞移植方案的比较","authors":"Daniel Prior, Jingchen Liang, Yanhong Deng, Niketa Shah, Aron Flagg, Lakshmanan Krishnamurti","doi":"10.1016/j.jtct.2025.05.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prior analyses have reported on the impact of different donor types and conditioning regimen intensities on outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), and demonstrated superior outcomes using an HLA-matched related donor (MRD). However, the impact of conditioning regimen intensity on outcomes remains unclear, with conflicting findings across studies. In addition, the lack of data on comparative outcomes of different approaches to conditioning and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis for allogeneic HCT for SCD remains a gap in the field. We compared outcomes for SCD patients who have received HLA-matched related donor (MRD) HCT for SCD using different HCT regimens. We examined de-identified records of MRD HCT for SCD on patients transplanted between 1991 and 2022 in the United States and submitted to the CIBMTR. We compared the most common transplant regimens in the registry, which included TBI 300/400 cGy + sirolimus + anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG)/alemtuzumab described by Hsieh et al; Busulfan/Fludarabine + CNI/methotrexate (MTX) + ATG/alemtuzumab as described by Krishnamurti et al.; Fludarabine/Melphalan + CNI/MTX + ATG/alemtuzumab as described by King et al.; and Busulfan/Cyclophosphamide (CY) + CNI /MTX/prednisone + ATG/alemtuzumab as described by Walters et al. For pediatric MRD HCT, EFS rates were highest with the Krishnamurti et al. (3-year EFS 94%, 95% CI 88, 100) and lowest with the Hsieh et al. regimen (3-year EFS 57%, 95% CI 25, 100, p<0.001). Rates of chronic GVHD were lowest in the Hsieh et al. cohort (3-year rate 0%) and highest in the King et al. cohort (3-year rate 20.4%, 95% CI 13.2, 28.8, p=0.040). For adult MRD HCT, EFS rates were similar between the Hsieh et al. and Krishnamurti et al. regimens, while cGVHD was significantly lower in the Hsieh et al. cohort. These real-world data have the potential to inform shared decision-making in MRD HCT for SCD. Pediatric patients had the highest EFS rates using myeloablative conditioning regimens, while non-myeloablative conditioning resulted in the lowest EFS rates. Adult patients had similar event-free survival using myeloablative and non-myeloablative conditioning regimens, with less GVHD following non-myeloablative regimens.</p>","PeriodicalId":23283,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation and Cellular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Regimens Used for Allogeneic Matched Related Donor Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Sickle Cell Disease.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Prior, Jingchen Liang, Yanhong Deng, Niketa Shah, Aron Flagg, Lakshmanan Krishnamurti\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jtct.2025.05.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Prior analyses have reported on the impact of different donor types and conditioning regimen intensities on outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), and demonstrated superior outcomes using an HLA-matched related donor (MRD). However, the impact of conditioning regimen intensity on outcomes remains unclear, with conflicting findings across studies. In addition, the lack of data on comparative outcomes of different approaches to conditioning and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis for allogeneic HCT for SCD remains a gap in the field. We compared outcomes for SCD patients who have received HLA-matched related donor (MRD) HCT for SCD using different HCT regimens. We examined de-identified records of MRD HCT for SCD on patients transplanted between 1991 and 2022 in the United States and submitted to the CIBMTR. We compared the most common transplant regimens in the registry, which included TBI 300/400 cGy + sirolimus + anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG)/alemtuzumab described by Hsieh et al; Busulfan/Fludarabine + CNI/methotrexate (MTX) + ATG/alemtuzumab as described by Krishnamurti et al.; Fludarabine/Melphalan + CNI/MTX + ATG/alemtuzumab as described by King et al.; and Busulfan/Cyclophosphamide (CY) + CNI /MTX/prednisone + ATG/alemtuzumab as described by Walters et al. For pediatric MRD HCT, EFS rates were highest with the Krishnamurti et al. (3-year EFS 94%, 95% CI 88, 100) and lowest with the Hsieh et al. regimen (3-year EFS 57%, 95% CI 25, 100, p<0.001). Rates of chronic GVHD were lowest in the Hsieh et al. cohort (3-year rate 0%) and highest in the King et al. cohort (3-year rate 20.4%, 95% CI 13.2, 28.8, p=0.040). For adult MRD HCT, EFS rates were similar between the Hsieh et al. and Krishnamurti et al. regimens, while cGVHD was significantly lower in the Hsieh et al. cohort. These real-world data have the potential to inform shared decision-making in MRD HCT for SCD. Pediatric patients had the highest EFS rates using myeloablative conditioning regimens, while non-myeloablative conditioning resulted in the lowest EFS rates. Adult patients had similar event-free survival using myeloablative and non-myeloablative conditioning regimens, with less GVHD following non-myeloablative regimens.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transplantation and Cellular Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"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.2025.05.004\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation and Cellular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtct.2025.05.004","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

摘要

背景:先前的分析报道了不同供体类型和调节方案强度对镰状细胞病(SCD)患者接受造血细胞移植(HCT)的结果的影响,并证明使用hla匹配的相关供体(MRD)的结果更好。然而,调理方案强度对结果的影响尚不清楚,研究结果相互矛盾。此外,对于同种异体HCT对SCD的调节和移植物抗宿主病(GVHD)预防的不同方法的比较结果的数据缺乏仍然是该领域的一个空白。目的:比较接受hla匹配相关供体(MRD) HCT治疗SCD患者使用不同HCT方案的结果。研究设计:我们检查了1991年至2022年间在美国移植的SCD患者的MRD HCT去识别记录,并提交给CIBMTR。我们比较了注册表中最常见的移植方案,包括TBI 300/400 cGy + 西罗莫司 + 抗胸腺细胞球蛋白(ATG)/阿仑单抗(Hsieh et al. 2014);布苏凡/氟达拉滨 + CNI/甲氨蝶呤(MTX) + ATG/阿仑单抗(Krishnamurti et al. 2019);氟达拉滨/美法兰 + CNI/MTX + ATG/阿仑单抗(King et al. 2015);和Busulfan/Cyclophosphamide (CY) + CNI /MTX/泼尼松 + ATG/阿仑单抗(Walters et al. 1996)。结果:对于儿童MRD HCT, Krishnamurti等人的EFS发生率最高(3年EFS为94%,95% CI为88,100),Hsieh等人的EFS发生率最低(3年EFS为57%,95% CI为25,100)。结论:这些真实数据有可能为SCD MRD HCT的共同决策提供信息。使用清髓调节方案的儿科患者有最高的EFS发生率,而非清髓调节导致最低的EFS发生率。成人患者使用清髓和非清髓治疗方案的无事件生存率相似,非清髓治疗方案的GVHD发生率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Regimens Used for Allogeneic Matched Related Donor Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Sickle Cell Disease.

Prior analyses have reported on the impact of different donor types and conditioning regimen intensities on outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), and demonstrated superior outcomes using an HLA-matched related donor (MRD). However, the impact of conditioning regimen intensity on outcomes remains unclear, with conflicting findings across studies. In addition, the lack of data on comparative outcomes of different approaches to conditioning and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis for allogeneic HCT for SCD remains a gap in the field. We compared outcomes for SCD patients who have received HLA-matched related donor (MRD) HCT for SCD using different HCT regimens. We examined de-identified records of MRD HCT for SCD on patients transplanted between 1991 and 2022 in the United States and submitted to the CIBMTR. We compared the most common transplant regimens in the registry, which included TBI 300/400 cGy + sirolimus + anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG)/alemtuzumab described by Hsieh et al; Busulfan/Fludarabine + CNI/methotrexate (MTX) + ATG/alemtuzumab as described by Krishnamurti et al.; Fludarabine/Melphalan + CNI/MTX + ATG/alemtuzumab as described by King et al.; and Busulfan/Cyclophosphamide (CY) + CNI /MTX/prednisone + ATG/alemtuzumab as described by Walters et al. For pediatric MRD HCT, EFS rates were highest with the Krishnamurti et al. (3-year EFS 94%, 95% CI 88, 100) and lowest with the Hsieh et al. regimen (3-year EFS 57%, 95% CI 25, 100, p<0.001). Rates of chronic GVHD were lowest in the Hsieh et al. cohort (3-year rate 0%) and highest in the King et al. cohort (3-year rate 20.4%, 95% CI 13.2, 28.8, p=0.040). For adult MRD HCT, EFS rates were similar between the Hsieh et al. and Krishnamurti et al. regimens, while cGVHD was significantly lower in the Hsieh et al. cohort. These real-world data have the potential to inform shared decision-making in MRD HCT for SCD. Pediatric patients had the highest EFS rates using myeloablative conditioning regimens, while non-myeloablative conditioning resulted in the lowest EFS rates. Adult patients had similar event-free survival using myeloablative and non-myeloablative conditioning regimens, with less GVHD following non-myeloablative regimens.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信