Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide and Tacrolimus for Graft-versus-Host Disease Prevention after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation from HLA-Matched Donors Has More Advantages Than Limitations

This study compared the efficacy of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and tacrolimus (Tac) versus other regimens in 272 adults undergoing peripheral blood (PB) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) from HLA-matched donors. Of these 272 patients, 95 (34.9%) received PTCy/Tac. The times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were longer in the PTCy/Tac group (20 days versus 16 days for neutrophils and 19 days versus 12 days for platelets). The day +30 cumulative incidence (CuI) of bacterial bloodstream infection was higher in the PTCy/Tac group (43.2% versus 13.0%; P < .001). The CuIs of grade II-IV and grade III-IV acute GVHD (aGVHD) at day +180 were 14.7% and 4.2%, and the CuI of moderate/severe cGVHD at 2 years was 2.4% in the PTCy/Tac group and 41.8% (hazard ratio [HR], .29; P < .001), 15.8%, (HR, .24; P = .007), and 47.0% (HR, .05; P < .001), respectively, in the no-PTCy group. The duration of immunosuppression was shorter in patients receiving PTCy/Tac (6.2 months versus 9.0 months; P < .001). PTCy/Tac patients had higher OS (2 years: 74.3% versus 60.9%; HR, .54; P = .012), lower NRM (2 years: 8.6% versus 15.8%; HR, .54; P = .11), comparable CuI of relapse (2 years: 26.0% versus 24.4%; HR, 1.03; P = .89), and higher GRFS (2 years: 59.1% versus 16.7%; HR, .32; P < .001). Using PTCy/Tac in HLA-matched PB allo-HCT improved transplantation outcomes at out institution compared with previous prophylactic regimens, including a higher probability of survival despite more delayed engraftment and a higher rate of bacterial infection.

Meta-analysis of the results of haploidentical transplantation in the treatment of aplastic anemia

This meta-analysis was to evaluate the outcome of haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Haplo-HSCT) for aplastic anemia (AA) compared with matched related donor (MRD)-HSCT, matched unrelated donor (MUD)-HSCT, and immunosuppressive therapy (IST). Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases were searched for relevant studies from inception to 22 June 2022. Relative risk (RR) was used to indicate the effect indicator, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) being applied to express the effect size. A subgroup analysis based on the literature quality (low, fair, and high) was applied. Totally, 25 studies were included in this study, comprising 2252 patients. Our findings demonstrated no difference between Haplo-HSCT and MRD-HSCT in 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival (OS), failure-free survival (FFS), and engraftment. However, Haplo-HSCT had higher incidences of II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD), chronic GVHD (cGVHD), and cytomegalovirus infection. There were no differences in 3- and 5-year OS, 3-year FFS, platelet engraftment, graft failure (GF), II-IV grade of aGVHD, and complication between Haplo-HSCT and MUD-HSCT; however, Haplo-HSCT had a lower incidence of cGVHD. Compared with IST, Haplo-HSCT had a higher 3-year FFS and 3- and 6-month response rate. However, there were no differences in 3- and 5-year OS, and 12-month response rate between Haplo-HSCT and IST. This study suggests that Haplo-HSCT may be a realistic therapeutic option for AA, which may provide a reference for decision-making.

Allocation to Matched Related or Unrelated Donor Results in Similar Clinical Outcomes without Increased Risk of Failure to Proceed to Transplant among Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Retrospective Analysis from the Time of Transplant Approval

Clinical outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) from unrelated donors (URDs) approach those of matched related donor (MRD) transplants in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Yet, available data fail to account for differences in pretransplantation outcomes between these donor selection strategies. In this regard, URD allo-HSCT is associated with longer waiting times to transplantation, potentially resulting in higher probabilities of failure to reach transplant. We retrospectively analyzed 108 AML patients accepted for first allo-HSCT from the time of approval to proceed to transplant. Fifty-eight (54%) patients were initially allocated to MRD, while URD search was initiated in 50 (46%) patients. Time to transplant was longer in patients allocated to a URD when compared with patients assigned to an MRD (median 142 days versus 100 days; p < .001). Forty-three of 58 (74%) patients in the MRD group and 35 of 50 (70%) patients in the URD group underwent transplantation (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; p = .63). Advanced disease status at the time of allo-HSCT approval was the only predictor of failure to reach transplantation in the multivariate analysis (OR, 4.78; p = .001). Disease progression was the most common cause of failure to reach allo-HSCT (66.7%) in both the MRD and URD groups. With a median follow-up from transplantation of 14.5 (interquartile range, 5 to 29) months, the 2-year estimate of overall survival (OS) from allo-HSCT was 46% in the MRD group and 57% in the URD group (p = .54). There were no differences in OS according to donor type allocation in the multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 1.01; p = .83). When including patients from the time of transplant approval, 2-year OS was 39% in the MRD group versus 42% in the URD group. Our study suggests that allocation of AML patients to URDs may result in comparable clinical outcomes to MRD assignment without a significant increase in the risk of failure to reach transplant.

Recent developments in HLA-haploidentical transplantations

While allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantations have a curative potential, several patients with hematologic malignancies cannot avail themselves of this therapeutic option due to lack of matched donor availability. Although HLA-haploidentical transplantations were previously associated with poor outcomes, recent evidence with use of post transplantation cyclophosphamide indicate improved safety and efficacy. The following paper discusses the most recent developments in this area.