Transplant outcomes using older matched sibling donors compared with young alternative donors: a CIBMTR analysis
- PMID: 40048743
- PMCID: PMC12274812
- DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2024014858
Transplant outcomes using older matched sibling donors compared with young alternative donors: a CIBMTR analysis
Abstract
Whether older HLA-matched sibling donors (MSD) are preferred over younger alternative donors for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) with posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis is unclear. We compared outcomes in allo-HCT recipients ≥50 years old after HCT from an older MSD (≥50 years) with recipients of younger (≤35 years) HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD), haploidentical related donor (haplo), and HLA-mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD), grouped based on PTCy or calcineurin-inhibitor (CNI) based GVHD prophylaxis, that were reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research between 2014 and 2021. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Among 14 662 HCT recipients, 3746 received PTCy- and 10 916 CNI-based prophylaxis. In patients receiving PTCy-based HCT, the adjusted 5-year OS was similar between MSD and other donor types: 44% after MSD versus 52% after MUD (multivariable hazard ratio [HR]: 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.41; P = .09), 45% after haplo donor (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.18; P = 1.00), and 46% after MMUD (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.21; P = 1.00). Compared with MSD, use of MUD associated with improved disease-free survival (DFS) with PTCy-based (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.40; P = .048) and CNI-based (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15; P < .01) prophylaxis. Haplo donor use associated with worse OS compared with MUD use with PTCy (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33; P = .04). Older MSDs result in similar OS compared with younger alternative donors; however, use of a younger MUD associated with improved DFS in older-aged recipients.
© 2025 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict-of-interest disclosure: J.N.S. reports research funding through an American Society of Hematology scholar award and a Kuni Foundation Imagination award; and an advisory role with Regal and Sanofi. B.C.S. reports consulting for Hansa Biopharma. H.C. reports consulting for Sanofi, Incyte, Actinium, Ironwood, REGiMMUNE, and AbbVie, and research funding from Incyte and GlaxoSmithKline. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests.
Figures



Comment in
-
In search of the perfect donor: youth must be served.Blood Adv. 2025 Jul 22;9(14):3540-3542. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2025016207. Blood Adv. 2025. PMID: 40638130 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Kanate AS, Majhail NS, Savani BN, et al. Indications for hematopoietic cell transplantation and immune effector cell therapy: guidelines from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2020;26(7):1247–1256. - PubMed
-
- Ayuk F, Balduzzi A. In: The EBMT Handbook: Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapies. 7th ed. Carreras E, Dufour C, Mohty M, Kröger N, editors. Springer; 2019. Donor selection for adults and pediatrics; pp. 111–119. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials