Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar;29(3):184.e1-184.e9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtct.2022.11.028. Epub 2022 Dec 25.

Haploidentical Versus Matched Unrelated Donor Transplants Using Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide for Lymphomas

Affiliations

Haploidentical Versus Matched Unrelated Donor Transplants Using Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide for Lymphomas

Alberto Mussetti et al. Transplant Cell Ther. 2023 Mar.

Abstract

When using post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis for lymphoma patients, it is currently unknown whether a matched unrelated donor (MUD) or a haploidentical related donor is preferable if both are available. In this study we wanted to test whether using a haploidentical donor has the same results of a MUD. A total of 2140 adults (34% Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, 66% European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry) aged ≥18 years who received their first haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (haplo-HCT) or MUD-HCT (8/8 match at HLA-loci A, B, C, and DRB1) for lymphoma using PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis from 2010 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The majority of both MUD and haploidentical HCTs received reduced intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning (74% and 77%, respectively) and used a peripheral blood stem cell graft (91% and 60%, respectively) and a 3-drug GVHD prophylaxis (PTCy + calcineurin inhibitor + MMF in 54% and 90%, respectively). Haploidentical HCT has less favorable results versus MUD cohort in terms of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR= = 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-2.27; P < .001), progression-free survival (HR=1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79; P = .008), nonrelapse mortality (HR = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.21-3.07; P = .006), platelet engraftment (HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.80; P < .001), acute grade 2-4 GVHD incidence (HR = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.28-2.14; P < .001), and chronic GVHD (HR = 1.79; 95% CI, 1.30-2.48, P < .001). No significant differences were observed in terms of relapse and neutrophil engraftment. Adjusting for propensity score yielded similar results. Whenever MUD is available in a timely manner, it should be preferred over a haploidentical donor when using PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis for patients with lymphoma.

Keywords: Haploidentical donor; Lymphoma; Matched unrelated donor; Post-transplant cyclophosphamide.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests

We declare no other competing interests for the execution of this study

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Kaplan-Meier estimates and cumulative incidence. (A) Overall survival: 2-year OS was 63% (95% CI 61–66%) and 73% (95%CI 67–79%) in the haploidentical and matched unrelated groups, P=0.007. (B) Progression free survival: 2-year PFS was 53% (95% CI 50–55%) and 63% (95%CI 57–69%) in the haploidentical and matched unrelated groups, P=0.004. (C) Non-relapse mortality: 2-year NRM was 21% (95% CI 19–23%) and 15% (95%CI 10–19%) in the haploidentical and matched unrelated groups, P=0.024. (D) Relapse: 2-year risk of lymphoma relapse was 27% (95% CI 25–29%) and 22% (95%CI 17–27%) in the haploidentical and matched unrelated groups, P=0.21.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Forest plot showing the results of multivariate analysis of patients with lymphomas undergoing haploidentical donor versus matched unrelated donor allogeneic transplantation using post-transplant cyclophosphamide based graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis. HR to the right of 1.0 favor MUD for all outcomes except ANC and platelets. For ANC and platelets, HR to the left of 1.0 favor MUD.

References

    1. Luznik L, O’Donnell PV, Symons HJ, et al. HLA-haploidentical bone marrow transplantation for hematologic malignancies using nonmyeloablative conditioning and high-dose, posttransplantation cyclophosphamide. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2008; 14: 641–50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bashey A, Zhang M-J, McCurdy SR, et al. Mobilized Peripheral Blood Stem Cells Versus Unstimulated Bone Marrow As a Graft Source for T-Cell-Replete Haploidentical Donor Transplantation Using Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 3002–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Solomon SR, St. Martin A, Shah NN, et al. Myeloablative vs reduced intensity T-cell–replete haploidentical transplantation for hematologic malignancy. Blood Advances 2019; 3: 2836–44. - PMC - PubMed
    1. on behalf of the Japan Study Group for Cell Therapy and Transplantation (JSCT), Sugita J, Kagaya Y, et al. Myeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning in HLA-haploidentical peripheral blood stem cell transplantation using post-transplant cyclophosphamide. Bone Marrow Transplant 2019; 54: 432–41. - PubMed
    1. Ciurea SO, Zhang M-J, Bacigalupo AA, et al. Haploidentical transplant with posttransplant cyclophosphamide vs matched unrelated donor transplant for acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 2015; 126: 1033–40. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances