Lower relapse incidence with haploidentical versus matched sibling or unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation for core-binding factor AML patients in CR2: A study from the Global Committee and the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
- PMID: 38654658
- DOI: 10.1002/ajh.27342
Lower relapse incidence with haploidentical versus matched sibling or unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation for core-binding factor AML patients in CR2: A study from the Global Committee and the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Abstract
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is recommended for core-binding factor mutated (CBF) AML patients achieving second complete remission (CR2). However, approximately 20% of patients may relapse after transplant and donor preference remains unclear. We compared in this EBMT global multicenter registry-based analysis the allo-HCT outcomes using either haploidentical (Haplo), matched siblings donors (MSD), or 10/10 matched unrelated donors (MUD). Data from 865 de novo adult CBF AML patients in CR2 receiving allo-HCT in 227 EBMT centers from 2010 to 2022 were analyzed, in which 329 MSD, 374 MUD, and 162 Haplo-HCTs were included. For the entire cohort, 503 (58%) patients were inv(16)/CBFB-MYH11 and 362 patients (42%) were t(8;21)/RUNX1-RUNX1T1 AML. On multivariate analysis, Haplo-HCT was associated with a lower Relapse Incidence (RI) compared to either MSD (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.97; p < .05) or MUD (HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33-0.99, p < .05). No significant difference was observed among the 3 types of donors on LFS, OS and GRFS. CBF-AML with t(8;21) was associated with both higher RI (HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.3-2.47; p < .01) and higher NRM (HR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.1-2.27; p < .01) than CBF-AML with inv(16), which led to worse LFS, OS and GRFS. To conclude, for CBF-AML patients in CR2, Haplo-HCTs were associated with a lower RI compared to MSD and MUD allo-HCTs. There was no difference on LFS, OS or GRFS. CBF AML patients with inv(16) had a better progonosis than those with t(8;21) after allo-HCT in CR2.
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Al‐Harbi S, Aljurf M, Mohty M, Almohareb F, Ahmed SOA. An update on the molecular pathogenesis and potential therapeutic targeting of AML with t(8;21)(q22;q22.1);RUNX1‐RUNX1T1. Blood Adv. 2020;4(1):229‐238.
-
- Itzykson R, Duployez N, Fasan A, et al. Clonal interference of signaling mutations worsens prognosis in core‐binding factor acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2018;132(2):187‐196.
-
- Gorin NC, Labopin M, Frassoni F, et al. Identical outcome after autologous or allogeneic genoidentical hematopoietic stem‐cell transplantation in first remission of acute myelocytic leukemia carrying inversion 16 or t(8;21): a retrospective study from the European cooperative Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(19):3183‐3188.
-
- Wang Y, Wu DP, Liu QF, et al. In adults with t(8;21)AML, posttransplant RUNX1/RUNX1T1‐based MRD monitoring, rather than c‐KIT mutations, allows further risk stratification. Blood. 2014;124(12):1880‐1886.
-
- Zhu HH, Zhang XH, Qin YZ, et al. MRD‐directed risk stratification treatment may improve outcomes of t(8;21) AML in the first complete remission: results from the AML05 multicenter trial. Blood. 2013;121(20):4056‐4062.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
