| Literature DB >> 26904123 |
Scott R Solomon1, Melhem Solh1, Lawrence E Morris1, H Kent Holland1, Asad Bashey1.
Abstract
Relapse is the main cause of treatment failure after nonmyeloablative haploidentical transplant (haplo-HSCT). In an attempt to reduce relapse, we have developed a myeloablative (MA) haplo-HSCT approach utilizing posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PT/Cy) and peripheral blood stem cells as the stem cell source. We summarize the results of two consecutive clinical trials, using a busulfan-based (n = 20) and a TBI-based MA preparative regimen (n = 30), and analyze a larger cohort of 64 patients receiving MA haplo-HSCT. All patients have engrafted with full donor chimerism and no late graft failures. Grade III-IV acute GVHD and moderate-severe chronic GVHD occurred in 23% and 30%, respectively. One-year NRM was 10%. Predicted three-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and relapse were 53%, 53%, and 26%, respectively, in all patients and 79%, 74%, and 9%, respectively, in patients with a low/intermediate disease risk index (DRI). In multivariate analysis, DRI was the most significant predictor of survival and relapse. Use of TBI (versus busulfan) had no significant impact on survival but was associated with significantly less BK virus-associated hemorrhagic cystitis. We contrast our results with other published reports of MA haplo-HSCT PT/Cy in the literature and attempt to define the comparative utility of MA haplo-HSCT to other methods of transplantation.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26904123 PMCID: PMC4745340 DOI: 10.1155/2016/9736564
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Hematol
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival, disease-free survival, and nonrelapse mortality and following TBI-based MA haplo-HSCT.
Figure 2Effect of disease risk index on (a) disease-free survival and (b) relapse following MA haplo-HSCT.
Predictors of transplant outcomes following MA haplo HSCT.
| OS | DFS | NRM | Relapse | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR |
| HR |
| HR |
| HR |
| |
| DRI (high versus low/int) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CMI (≥2 versus <2) |
|
|
|
|
|
| — | — |
| Age (<50 versus ≥50) |
|
|
|
|
|
| — | — |
The following variables were considered in Cox analysis: age, diagnosis, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), comorbidity index (CMI), revised Dana-Farber disease risk index (DRI), conditioning regimen (busulfan versus TBI), year of transplant, acute GVHD, and chronic GVHD. Variables were selected by 10% threshold. Acute and chronic GVHD were modeled as time-dependent variables.