Allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation using haploidentical grandchildren donors and post-transplant cyclophosphamide-based graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: High-dose post-transplant cyclophosphamide allows safe and effective use of allografts from haploidentical relatives (siblings, parents and children) in patients undergoing allogeneic blood or marrow transplant (alloBMT). More recently, second- and third-degree relatives have also been shown to be safe allograft donors. An increasing number of older patients undergoing alloBMT have been receiving allografts from haploidentical donors. However, older patients are more likely to have older siblings and children, and older donor age is associated with worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: In the current study, we report the safety and utility of grandchildren as haploidentical donors and compared with children as donors in patients undergoing alloBMT. METHODS: We compared characteristics and outcomes of alloBMT patients aged 55 years and older with children older than 30 years as donors (C group; n = 276) and those with grandchildren as donors (GC group; n = 40). Because many important baseline characteristics predict outcomes after alloBMT, we performed propensity score matched analysis based on recipient age, alloBMT year, disease, graft source and haematopoietic cell transplantation comorbidity index (HCT-CI). RESULTS: The median age of recipients was 67 years (range 55-79) in the C group and 73 years (range 57-78) in the GC group. More than 70% of recipients in the GC group were older than 70 years, compared with 27% in the C group. The median donor age was 37 years (range 31-52) in the C group and 20 years (range 14-34) in the GC group. More patients in the GC group had HCT-CI scores ≥3 than in the C group (32.5% vs. 23%, p = 0.27). Two-year overall survival did not differ between the two groups (GC 62% vs. C 60%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.75, p = 0.90) despite recipients of allografts from grandchildren being older. The 2-year RFS was 55% in the C group compared with 50% in the GC group (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.62-1.77, p = 0.85). Non-relapse mortality subdistribution [SD] (SDHR 1.36, 95% 0.70-2.63, p = 0.36), relapse (SDHR 0.72, 95% CI 0.33-1.58, p = 0.42) or relapse-free survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.62-1.77, p = 0.85). Propensity score matching analysis showed no significant differences in 2-year overall survival (GC 64% vs. C 53%; HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42-1.42, p = 0.40), non-relapse mortality (SDHR 1.26, 95% 0.66-2.41, p = 0.48), relapse (SDHR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21-1.52, p = 0.26) or relapse-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.57-1.54, p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that outcomes of alloBMT patients with grandchild donors are similar to those with child donors, despite recipients' older age and higher comorbidities in the GC group. Grandchildren should be considered when selecting a donor for older alloBMT recipients.