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

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.

Tacrolimus versus Cyclosporine after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Acquired Aplastic Anemia.

Combinations of cyclosporine (CSP) with methotrexate (MTX) have been widely used for immunosuppression after allogeneic transplantation for acquired aplastic anemia. We compared outcomes with tacrolimus (TAC)+MTX versus CSP+MTX after transplantation from HLA-identical siblings (SIB) or unrelated donors (URD) in a retrospective cohort of 949 patients with severe aplastic anemia. Study endpoints included hematopoietic recovery, graft failure, acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), chronic GVHD, and mortality. TAC+MTX was used more frequently in older patients and, in recent years, in both SIB and URD groups. In multivariate analysis, TAC+MTX was associated with a lower risk of mortality in URD recipients and with slightly earlier absolute neutrophil count recovery in SIB recipients. Other outcomes did not differ statistically between the 2 regimens. No firm conclusions were reached regarding the relative merits of TAC+MTX versus CSP+MTX after hematopoietic cell transplantation for acquired aplastic anemia. Prospective studies would be needed to determine whether the use of TAC+MTX is associated with lower risk of mortality in URD recipients with acquired aplastic anemia.

Increasing incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease in allogeneic transplantation: a report from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Although transplant practices have changed over the last decades, no information is available on trends in incidence and outcome of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) over time. This study used the central database of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) to describe time trends for cGVHD incidence, nonrelapse mortality, and risk factors for cGVHD. The 12-year period was divided into 3 intervals, 1995 to 1999, 2000 to 2003, and 2004 to 2007, and included 26,563 patients with acute leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndrome. Multivariate analysis showed an increased incidence of cGVHD in more recent years (odds ratio = 1.19, P < .0001), and this trend was still seen when adjusting for donor type, graft type, or conditioning intensity. In patients with cGVHD, nonrelapse mortality has decreased over time, but at 5 years there were no significant differences among different time periods. Risk factors for cGVHD were in line with previous studies. This is the first comprehensive characterization of the trends in cGVHD incidence and underscores the mounting need for addressing this major late complication of transplantation in future research.

Granulocyte and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors in allografts: uses, misuses, misconceptions, and future applications.

Despite more than 10 years experience using growth factors after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT), their state in this has not been elucidated. Most studies show that they accelerate myeloid recovery, regardless of whether they are instituted on day 0 or day 10 after transplant. However, this does not correlate with an improvement in the outcome. One disadvantage is that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis is associated with slower platelet engraftment due to an increase in platelet aggregation. There is also no agreement as regards the value of G-CSF given as prophylaxis after ASCT, the effects on graft-vs-host disease (GVHD), and the survival rate. A large retrospective study from Europe showed that patients with acute leukemia who received bone marrow from HLA-identical siblings and were treated with G-CSF ran a higher risk of acute and chronic GVHD and transplant-related mortality, while the survival and the leukemia-free survival rates were reduced. In contrast, a meta-analysis of 18 small studies showed no evidence of an increase in acute and chronic GVHD, using G-CSF as prophylaxis after ASCT. Two studies from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research showed contradictory data. When G-CSF is given to the recipient as prophylaxis, the levels of soluble interleukin-2 receptor-alpha increase, which aggravates GVHD. When it is given to the donor, G-CSF polarizes T cells to produce T-helper cell-2 cytokines, which reduce GVHD after transplantation. G-CSF has no effect on relapse. Available findings suggest that there is no indication to use G-CSF as prophylaxis after ASCT.