Impact of second-degree related donor on the outcomes of T cell-replete haploidentical transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide.

Donor selection may contribute to improve clinical outcomes of T cell-replete haploidentical stem cell transplantation (Haplo-SCT) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy). Impact of second-degree related donor (SRD) was not fully elucidated in this platform. We retrospectively compared the outcome of patients receiving Haplo-SCT either from a SRD (n = 31) or a first-degree related donor (FRD, n = 957). Median time to neutrophil and platelet recovery did not differ between a SRD and a FRD transplant (p = 0.599 and 0.587). Cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute graft-versus host disease (GVHD) and moderate-severe chronic GVHD was 13% and 19% after SRD vs 24% (p = 0.126) and 13% (p = 0.395) after FRD transplant. One-year cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 19% for SRD and 20% for FRD (p = 0.435) cohort. The 3-year probability of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 42% vs 55% (p = 0.273) and 49% vs 35% (p = 0.280) after SRD and FRD transplant, respectively. After propensity score adjustment or matched pair analysis, the outcome of patients receiving Haplo-SCT from a SRD or a FRD did not differ in terms of NRM, OS, PFS, acute and chronic GVHD. Our results suggest that a SRD is a viable option for Haplo-SCT with PT-Cy when a FRD is not available.

Haploidentical transplantation is associated with better overall survival when compared to single cord blood transplantation: an EBMT-Eurocord study of acute leukemia patients conditioned with thiotepa, busulfan, and fludarabine.

BACKGROUND: Thiotepa-busulfan-fludarabine (TBF) is a widely used conditioning regimen in single umbilical cord blood transplantation (SUCBT). More recently, it was introduced in the setting of non-T cell depleted haploidentical stem cell transplantation (NTD-Haplo). Whether TBF based conditioning provides additional benefit in transplantation from a particular alternative donor type remains to be established. METHODS: This was a retrospective study based on an international European registry. We compared outcomes of de-novo acute myeloid leukemia patients in complete remission receiving NTD-Haplo (n = 186) vs. SUCBT (n = 147) following myeloablative conditioning (MAC) with TBF. Median follow-up was 23 months. Treatment groups resembled in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: SUCBT was associated with delayed engraftment and higher graft failure. In multivariate analysis no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) (HR = 1.03, p = 0.92 or HR = 1.86, p = 0.21) and relapse incidence (HR = 0.8, p = 0.65). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was significantly higher in SUCBT as compared to NTD-Haplo (HR = 2.63, p = 0.001); moreover, SUCBT did worse in terms of overall survival (HR = 2.18, p = 0.002), leukemia-free survival (HR = 1.94, p = 0.007), and GvHD relapse-free survival (HR = 2.38, p = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that TBF-MAC might allow for a potent graft-versus-leukemia, regardless of the alternative donor type. Furthermore, in patients receiving TBF-MAC, survival with NTD-Haplo may be better compared to SUCBT due to decreased NRM.