Impact of busulfan versus treosulfan dose intensity in myelofibrosis undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation.

One key aspect of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is pretransplant conditioning, balancing risk for relapse versus non-relapse mortality. Conditioning regimens with different alkylators at different doses can influence outcome, but data are missing for myelofibrosis, a challenging cohort of patients usually presenting at older age and with comorbidities. We evaluated in a multicenter retrospective study the comparative efficacy and safety of busulfan versus treosulfan in combination with fludarabine for myelofibrosis patients undergoing HCT. This study included 1115 patients (busulfan, n = 902; treosulfan, n = 213) receiving first HCT between 2005 and 2021. Patients were generally balanced for key patient characteristics. Overall survival at 4 years was 62% for the busulfan group versus 58% for the treosulfan group (p = .22). Impact on outcome was dose-dependent. Overall survival was 65% (95% CI, 61%-69%) for reduced intensity busulfan versus 69% (95% CI, 54%-84%) for reduced intensity treosulfan, 53% (95% CI, 44%-63%) for higher intensity busulfan, and 55% (95% CI, 46%-63%) for higher intensity treosulfan. Incidence of relapse was similar across intensity groups. In multivariable analysis, the hazard for death (with reduced intensity busulfan as reference) was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.39-2.01) for reduced intensity treosulfan (p = .77), 1.42 (95% CI, 0.96-2.10) for higher intensity busulfan (0.08), and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.14-2.26) for higher intensity treosulfan (p = .006). In terms of non-relapse mortality, comparison was not significantly different, while the hazard ratio for higher intensity treosulfan was 1.48 (95% CI, 0.98-2.23; p = .06). Here, we showed comparable outcomes and improved survival in myelofibrosis undergoing HCT with reduced intensity busulfan or treosulfan.

Haploidentical transplantation in primary refractory/relapsed secondary vs de novo AML: from the ALWP/EBMT.

ABSTRACT: We compared the outcomes of haploidentical stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT) with posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) in 719 patients with primary refractory (PR) or first relapse (Rel) secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML; n = 129) vs those with de novo AML (n = 590), who received HSCT between 2010 and 2022. A higher percentage of patients with sAML vs de novo AML had PR disease (73.6% vs 58.6%; P = .002). In 81.4% of patients with sAML , the antecedent hematological disorder was myelodysplastic syndrome. Engraftment was 83.5% vs 88.4% in sAML and de novo AML, respectively (P = .13). In multivariate analysis, haplo-HSCT outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups: nonrelapse mortality hazard ratio (HR), 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.98; P = .083), relapse incidence HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.4.7.-1.00; P = .051). The HRs for leukemia-free survival, overall survival, and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free, and GVHD and relapse-free survival were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.76-1.28; P = .94), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.77-1.29; P = .97), and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.77-1.27; P = .94), respectively. We conclude that outcomes of haplo-HSCT with PTCy are not different for PR/Rel sAML in comparison with PR/Rel de novo AML, a finding of major clinical importance.

Influence of invasive aspergillosis during acute leukaemia treatment on survival after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a prospective study of the EBMT Infectious Diseases Working Party.

Background: Infections are the main reason for mortality during acute leukaemia treatment and invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a major concern. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) is a standard therapy and often is the only live-saving procedure in leukaemia patients. The profound immunodeficiency occurring after alloSCT led to high IA-associated mortality in the past. Therefore, patients with IA were historically considered transplant-ineligible. Recently, there has been improvement of anti-fungal management including novel anti-fungal agents. As a result, more leukaemia patients with IA are undergoing alloSCT. Outcome has not been prospectively assessed. Methods: We performed a prospective study in acute leukaemia patients undergoing alloSCT to analyse the impact of a prior history of probable or proven IA (pre-SCT IA). The primary endpoint was 1-year non-relapse mortality (NRM). Relapse free survival and overall survival were analysed as secondary endpoints. Findings: 1439 patients were included between 2016 and 2021. The incidence of probable or proven pre-SCT IA was 6.0% (n = 87). The cumulative incidence of 1-year NRM was 17.3% (95% CI 10.2-26.0) and 11.2% (9.6-13.0) for patients with and without pre-SCT IA. In multivariate analyses the hazard ratio (HR) for 1-year NRM was 2.1 (1.2-3.6; p = 0.009) for patients with pre-SCT IA. One-year relapse-free survival was inferior in patients with pre-SCT IA (59.4% [48.3-68.9] vs. 70.4 [67.9-72.8]; multivariate HR 1.5 [1.1-2.1]; p = 0.02). Consequently, 1-year overall survival was lower in patients with pre-SCT IA: (68.8% [57.8-77.4] vs. 79.0% [76.7-81.1]; multivariate HR 1.7 [1.1-2.5]; p = 0.01). Interpretation: Pre-SCT IA remains to be significantly associated with impaired alloSCT outcome. On the other hand, more than two thirds of patients with pre-SCT IA were alive at one year after alloSCT. IA is not anymore an absolute contraindication for alloSCT because the majority of patients with IA who undergo alloSCT benefit from this procedure. Funding: There was no external funding source for this study.