Composite GRFS and CRFS Outcomes After Adult Alternative Donor HCT

dc.contributor.authorMehta, Rohtesh S.
dc.contributor.authorHoltan, Shernan G.
dc.contributor.authorWang, Tao
dc.contributor.authorHemmer, Michael T.
dc.contributor.authorSpellman, Stephen R.
dc.contributor.authorArora, Mukta
dc.contributor.authorCouriel, Daniel R.
dc.contributor.authorAlousi, Amin M.
dc.contributor.authorPidala, Joseph
dc.contributor.authorAbdel-Azim, Hisham
dc.contributor.authorAgrawal, Vaibhav
dc.contributor.authorAhmed, Ibrahim A.
dc.contributor.authorAl-Homsi, Samer
dc.contributor.authorAljurf, Mahmoud
dc.contributor.authorAntin, Joseph H.
dc.contributor.authorAskar, Medhat
dc.contributor.authorAuletta, Jeffery J.
dc.contributor.authorBhatt, Vijaya Raj
dc.contributor.authorChee, Lynette
dc.contributor.authorChhabra, Saurabh
dc.contributor.authorDaly, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorDeFilipp, Zachariah
dc.contributor.authorGajewski, James
dc.contributor.authorGale, Robert Peter
dc.contributor.authorGergis, Usama
dc.contributor.authorHematti, Peiman
dc.contributor.authorHildebrandt, Gerhard C.
dc.contributor.authorHogan, William J.
dc.contributor.authorInamoto, Yoshihiro
dc.contributor.authorMartino, Rodrigo
dc.contributor.authorMajhail, Navneet S.
dc.contributor.authorMarks, David I.
dc.contributor.authorNishihori, Taiga
dc.contributor.authorOlsson, Richard F.
dc.contributor.authorPawarode, Attaphol
dc.contributor.authorDiaz, Miguel Angel
dc.contributor.authorPrestidge, Tim
dc.contributor.authorRangarajan, Hemalatha G.
dc.contributor.authorRingden, Olle
dc.contributor.authorSaad, Ayman
dc.contributor.authorSavani, Bipin N.
dc.contributor.authorSchoemans, Hélène
dc.contributor.authorSeo, Sachiko
dc.contributor.authorSchultz, Kirk R.
dc.contributor.authorSolh, Melhem
dc.contributor.authorSpitzer, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorStorek, Jan
dc.contributor.authorTeshima, Takanori
dc.contributor.authorVerdonck, Leo F.
dc.contributor.authorWirk, Baldeep
dc.contributor.authorYared, Jean A.
dc.contributor.authorCahn, Jean-Yves
dc.contributor.authorWeisdorf, Daniel J.
dc.contributor.departmentMedicine, School of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-05T18:23:17Z
dc.date.available2023-01-05T18:23:17Z
dc.date.issued2020-06-20
dc.description.abstractPurpose: There is no consensus on the best choice of an alternative donor (umbilical cord blood [UCB], haploidentical, one-antigen mismatched [7/8]-bone marrow [BM], or 7/8-peripheral blood [PB]) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for patients lacking an HLA-matched related or unrelated donor. Methods: We report composite end points of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD)-free relapse-free survival (CRFS) in 2,198 patients who underwent UCB (n = 838), haploidentical (n = 159), 7/8-BM (n = 241), or 7/8-PB (n = 960) HCT. All groups were divided by myeloablative conditioning (MAC) intensity or reduced intensity conditioning (RIC), except haploidentical group in which most received RIC. To account for multiple testing, P < .0071 in multivariable analysis and P < .00025 in direct pairwise comparisons were considered statistically significant. Results: In multivariable analysis, haploidentical group had the best GRFS, CRFS, and overall survival (OS). In the direct pairwise comparison of other groups, among those who received MAC, there was no difference in GRFS or CRFS among UCB, 7/8-BM, and 7/8-PB with serotherapy (alemtuzumab or antithymocyte globulin) groups. In contrast, the 7/8-PB without serotherapy group had significantly inferior GRFS, higher cGVHD, and a trend toward worse CRFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.69; P = .002) than the 7/8-BM group and higher cGVHD and trend toward inferior CRFS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.63; P = .0006) than the UCB group. Among patients with RIC, all groups had significantly inferior GRFS and CRFS compared with the haploidentical group. Conclusion: Recognizing the limitations of a registry retrospective analysis and the possibility of center selection bias in choosing donors, our data support the use of UCB, 7/8-BM, or 7/8-PB (with serotherapy) grafts for patients undergoing MAC HCT and haploidentical grafts for patients undergoing RIC HCT. The haploidentical group had the best GRFS, CRFS, and OS of all groups.en_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.identifier.citationMehta RS, Holtan SG, Wang T, et al. Composite GRFS and CRFS Outcomes After Adult Alternative Donor HCT. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(18):2062-2076. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00396en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/30852
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Clinical Oncologyen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1200/JCO.19.00396en_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Clinical Oncologyen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourcePMCen_US
dc.subjectHematologic neoplasmsen_US
dc.subjectHematopoietic stem cell transplantationen_US
dc.subjectCord blood stem cell transplantationen_US
dc.titleComposite GRFS and CRFS Outcomes After Adult Alternative Donor HCTen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
ul.alternative.fulltexthttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7302955/en_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
JCO.19.00396.pdf
Size:
1003.04 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: