Haploidentical transplant with posttransplant cyclophosphamide vs matched unrelated donor transplant for acute myeloid leukemia

Stefan O. Ciurea(The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center), Mei-Jie Zhang(Medical College of Wisconsin), Andrea A. Bacigalupo(Ospedale Policlinico San Martino), Asad Bashey(Northside Hospital), Frederick R. Appelbaum(Fred Hutch Cancer Center), Omar S. Aljitawi(University of Kansas Medical Center), Philippe Armand(Dana-Farber Cancer Institute), Joseph H. Antin(Dana-Farber Cancer Institute), Junfang Chen(Medical College of Wisconsin), Steven M. Devine(The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute), Daniel H. Fowler(National Cancer Institute), Leo Luznik(Johns Hopkins University), Ryotaro Nakamura(City of Hope), Paul V. O’Donnell(Fred Hutch Cancer Center), Miguel‐Angel Perales(Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), Sai Ravi Pingali(The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center), David Porter(University of Pennsylvania), Marcie R. Riches(Moffitt Cancer Center), Olle Ringdén(Karolinska Institutet), Vanderson Rocha(Churchill Hospital), Ravi Vij(Washington University in St. Louis), Daniel J. Weisdorf(University of Minnesota Medical Center), Richard E. Champlin(The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center), Mary M. Horowitz(Medical College of Wisconsin), Ephraim J. Fuchs(Johns Hopkins University), Mary Eapen(Medical College of Wisconsin)
Cited by 652

Abstract

We studied adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after haploidentical (n = 192) and 8/8 HLA-matched unrelated donor (n = 1982) transplantation. Haploidentical recipients received calcineurin inhibitor (CNI), mycophenolate, and posttransplant cyclophosphamide for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis; 104 patients received myeloablative and 88 received reduced intensity conditioning regimens. Matched unrelated donor transplant recipients received CNI with mycophenolate or methotrexate for GVHD prophylaxis; 1245 patients received myeloablative and 737 received reduced intensity conditioning regimens. In the myeloablative setting, day 30 neutrophil recovery was lower after haploidentical compared with matched unrelated donor transplants (90% vs 97%, P = .02). Corresponding rates after reduced intensity conditioning transplants were 93% and 96% (P = .25). In the myeloablative setting, 3-month acute grade 2-4 (16% vs 33%, P < .0001) and 3-year chronic GVHD (30% vs 53%, P < .0001) were lower after haploidentical compared with matched unrelated donor transplants. Similar differences were observed after reduced intensity conditioning transplants, 19% vs 28% (P = .05) and 34% vs 52% (P = .002). Among patients receiving myeloablative regimens, 3-year probabilities of overall survival were 45% (95% CI, 36-54) and 50% (95% CI, 47-53) after haploidentical and matched unrelated donor transplants (P = .38). Corresponding rates after reduced intensity conditioning transplants were 46% (95% CI, 35-56) and 44% (95% CI, 0.40-47) (P = .71). Although statistical power is limited, these data suggests that survival for patients with AML after haploidentical transplantation with posttransplant cyclophosphamide is comparable with matched unrelated donor transplantation.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis