1
|
Stelljes M, Middeke JM, Bug G, Wagner-Drouet EM, Müller LP, Schmid C, Krause SW, Bethge W, Jost E, Platzbecker U, Klein SA, Schubert J, Niederland J, Kaufmann M, Schäfer-Eckart K, Schaich M, Baldauf H, Stölzel F, Petzold C, Röllig C, Alakel N, Steffen B, Hauptrock B, Schliemann C, Sockel K, Lang F, Kriege O, Schaffrath J, Reicherts C, Berdel WE, Serve H, Ehninger G, Schmidt AH, Bornhäuser M, Mikesch JH, Schetelig J. Remission induction versus immediate allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for patients with relapsed or poor responsive acute myeloid leukaemia (ASAP): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Haematol 2024; 11:e324-e335. [PMID: 38583455 DOI: 10.1016/s2352-3026(24)00065-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Revised: 02/16/2024] [Accepted: 02/16/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Whether high-dose cytarabine-based salvage chemotherapy, administered to induce complete remission in patients with poor responsive or relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia scheduled for allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) after intensive conditioning confers a survival advantage, is unclear. METHODS To test salvage chemotherapy before allogeneic HSCT, patients aged between 18 and 75 years with non-favourable-risk acute myeloid leukaemia not in complete remission after first induction or untreated first relapse were randomly assigned 1:1 to remission induction with high-dose cytarabine (3 g/m2 intravenously, 1 g/m2 intravenously for patients >60 years or with a substantial comorbidity) twice daily on days 1-3 plus mitoxantrone (10 mg/m2 intravenously) on days 3-5 or immediate allogeneic HSCT for the disease control group. Block randomisation with variable block lengths was used and patients were stratified by age, acute myeloid leukaemia risk, and disease status. The study was open label. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as complete remission on day 56 after allogeneic HSCT, with the aim to show non-inferiority for disease control compared with remission induction with a non-inferiority-margin of 5% and one-sided type 1 error of 2·5%. The primary endpoint was analysed in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in the per-protocol population. The trial is completed and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02461537. FINDINGS 281 patients were enrolled between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 12, 2022. Of 140 patients randomly assigned to disease control, 135 (96%) proceeded to allogeneic HSCT, 97 (69%) after watchful waiting only. Of 141 patients randomly assigned to remission induction, 134 (95%) received salvage chemotherapy and 128 (91%) patients subsequently proceeded to allogeneic HSCT. In the ITT population, treatment success was observed in 116 (83%) of 140 patients in the disease control group versus 112 (79%) of 141 patients with remission induction (test for non-inferiority, p=0·036). Among per-protocol treated patients, treatment success was observed in 116 (84%) of 138 patients with disease control versus 109 (81%) of 134 patients in the remission induction group (test for non-inferiority, p=0·047). The difference in treatment success between disease control and remission induction was estimated as 3·4% (95% CI -5·8 to 12·6) for the ITT population and 2·7% (-6·3 to 11·8) for the per-protocol population. Fewer patients with disease control compared with remission induction had non-haematological adverse events grade 3 or worse (30 [21%] of 140 patients vs 86 [61%] of 141 patients, χ2 test p<0·0001). Between randomisation and the start of conditioning, with disease control two patients died from progressive acute myeloid leukaemia and zero from treatment-related complications, and with remission induction two patients died from progressive acute myeloid leukaemia and two from treatment-related complications. Between randomisation and allogeneic HSCT, patients with disease control spent a median of 27 days less in hospital than those with remission induction, ie, the median time in hospital was 15 days (range 7-64) versus 42 days (27-121, U test p<0·0001), respectively. INTERPRETATION Non-inferiority of disease control could not be shown at the 2·5% significance level. The rate of treatment success was also not statistically better for patients with remission induction. Watchful waiting and immediate transplantation could be an alternative for fit patients with poor response or relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia who have a stem cell donor available. More randomised controlled intention-to-transplant trials are needed to define the optimal treatment before transplantation for patients with active acute myeloid leukaemia. FUNDING DKMS and the Gert and Susanna Mayer Stiftung Foundation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Gesine Bug
- Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | | | - Lutz P Müller
- University Hospital, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany
| | - Christoph Schmid
- Faculty of Medicine, Augsburg University Hospital, Augsburg, Germany
| | | | | | - Edgar Jost
- University Hospital Aachen & Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Düsseldorf, Aachen, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Judith Niederland
- Helios Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Klinik für Hämatologie und Zelltherapie, Berlin, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | - Friedrich Stölzel
- University Hospital TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | | | | | - Nael Alakel
- University Hospital TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Björn Steffen
- Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | | | | | - Katja Sockel
- University Hospital TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Fabian Lang
- Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | | | - Judith Schaffrath
- University Hospital, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany
| | | | | | - Hubert Serve
- Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Gerhard Ehninger
- University Hospital TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Cellex Cell Professionals, Cologne, Germany
| | | | - Martin Bornhäuser
- University Hospital TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases, Dresden, Germany
| | | | - Johannes Schetelig
- University Hospital TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany; DKMS gemeinnützige GmbH, Tübingen und Dresden, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Xuan L, Dai M, Jiang E, Wang Y, Huang F, Fan Z, Xu N, Nie D, Liang X, Chen H, Ye J, Shi P, Liu H, Jin H, Lin R, Yan C, Zhang Y, Sun J, Han M, Liu Q. The effect of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, decitabine, and busulfan-cyclophosphamide versus busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning on relapse in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol 2023; 10:e178-e190. [PMID: 36702138 DOI: 10.1016/s2352-3026(22)00375-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2022] [Revised: 11/08/2022] [Accepted: 11/25/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Relapse remains high in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome-refractory anaemia with excess blasts (RAEB) or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). We aimed to investigate whether granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and decitabine plus busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning reduced relapse compared with busulfan-cyclophosphamide in this population. METHODS We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at six hospitals in China. Eligible patients (aged 14-65 years) had myelodysplastic syndrome-RAEB or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and HSCT comorbidity index of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive G-CSF, decitabine, and busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning or busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks (block size four) with no stratification and was implemented through an interactive web-based response system, which was independent of study site staff and investigators. G-CSF, decitabine, and busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning comprised G-CSF 5 μg/kg daily subcutaneously (days -17 to -10), decitabine 20 mg/m2 daily intravenously (days -14 to -10), busulfan 3·2 mg/kg daily intravenously (days -7 to -4), and cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg daily intravenously (days -3 and -2). Busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning comprised the same dose and duration of busulfan and cyclophosphamide. The primary endpoint was 2 year cumulative incidence of relapse. All efficacy and safety endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02744742; the trial is complete. FINDINGS Between April 18, 2016, and Sept 30, 2019, 297 patients were screened for eligibility, 202 of whom were randomly assigned to G-CSF, decitabine, and busulfan-cyclophosphamide (n=101) or busulfan-cyclophosphamide (n=101) conditioning. 123 (61%) participants were male and 79 (31%) were female. Median follow-up was 32·4 months (IQR 10·0-43·0). The 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 10·9% (95% CI 5·8-17·9) in the G-CSF, decitabine, and busulfan-cyclophosphamide group and 24·8% (16·8-33·5) in the busulfan-cyclophosphamide group (hazard ratio 0·39 [95% CI 0·19-0·79]; p=0·011). Within 100 days after transplantation, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the G-CSF, decitabine, and busulfan-cyclophosphamide group and the busulfan-cyclophosphamide group were infections (34 [34%] and 32 [32%]), acute graft-versus-host disease (30 [30%] and 30 [30%]), and gastrointestinal toxicity (28 [28%] and 29 [29%]). 11 (11%) patients in the G-CSF, decitabine, and busulfan-cyclophosphamide group and 13 (13%) in the busulfan-cyclophosphamide group died of adverse events. There were no treatment related deaths. INTERPRETATION Our results suggest that G-CSF, decitabine, and busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning is a better choice than busulfan-cyclophosphamide conditioning for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome-RAEB or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome undergoing allogeneic HSCT. This conditioning could be a suitable therapuetic option for this patient population. FUNDING None. TRANSLATION For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Xuan
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Min Dai
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Erlie Jiang
- Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Center, Institute of Hematology and Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Tianjin, China
| | - Yu Wang
- Department of Hematology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Fen Huang
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhiping Fan
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Na Xu
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Danian Nie
- Department of Hematology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xinquan Liang
- Department of Hematology, the First People's Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, China
| | - Hong Chen
- Department of Hematology, Liuzhou Worker's Hospital, Liuzhou, China
| | - Jieyu Ye
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Pengcheng Shi
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Hui Liu
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Hua Jin
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ren Lin
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Chenhua Yan
- Department of Hematology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yu Zhang
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jing Sun
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Mingzhe Han
- Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Center, Institute of Hematology and Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Tianjin, China
| | - Qifa Liu
- Department of Hematology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhang Y, Liu C, Zhang R, Shi Y, Li X, Yu J, Wan D, Xie X. Impact of treatments before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Leuk Res 2023; 124:106997. [PMID: 36502583 DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2022.106997] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2022] [Revised: 11/04/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The study aimed to evaluate pre-allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) treatment, compare the endpoints related to disease management between pre-HSCT cytoreduction patients and upfront transplantation patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). METHODS A total of 90 higher-risk MDS patients administered allo-HSCT in the Hematology Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University were retrospectively analyzed, which included 28 patients with upfront transplantation and 62 patients with pre-transplant cytoreduction, including 30 patients received hypomethylating agents (HMA) and 32 patients received hypomethylating agents and induction chemotherapy (HMA+IC). Difference between the two groups regarding hematopoietic reconstruction, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), relapse rate, non-relapse death (NRM), overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) was compared. RESULTS No significant differences in OS, DFS and NRM were found between the upfront transplantation and pre-transplant cytoreduction groups, and cumulative cGVHD occurrence and relapse rates were 35.7 % and 14.5 % (P = 0.029), and 10.7 % and 12.9 % (p = 0.535), respectively. Survival rates were significantly higher in the upfront transplantation and HMA+IC groups compared with the HMA group (3-year OS: 67.9 %, 68.8 %, 43.3 %, P = 0.039; 3-year RFS: 64.3 %, 62.5 %, 43.3 %, P = 0.107; 3-year NRM: 25.0 %, 21.9 %, 50.0 %, P = 0.025). Compared with the upfront transplantation group, overall response to cytoreductive therapy (OR) and non-response to cytoreductive therapy (NR), 3-year OS were 67.9 %, 73.0 % and 32.0 % (P < 0.001), 3-year RFS were 64.3 %, 73.0 % and 24.0 % (P < 0.001) and 3-year NRM were 25.0 %, 21.6 %, and 56.0 %, respectively (P < 0.001). Upfront transplantation (n = 11) had better OS and RFS compared with the cytoreductive group (n = 10) in patients with ≥ 10 % bone marrow blast cells before transplantation (3-year OS: 63.64 %, 22.22 %, p = 0.010; 3-year DFS: 63.64 %, 20.00 %, p = 0.012, respectively). CONCLUSION The pre-transplant treatment regimen was an independent prognostic factor of OS and NRM. If the donor is suitable, upfront transplantation may provide longer survival in higher-risk MDS patients, which, however, may also increase the incidence of cGVHD. Even in patients with bone marrow blast cells ≥ 10 % before transplantation, upfront transplantation was not worse than transplantation after cytoreductive therapy. While waiting for a transplant, HMA+IC therapy may be a good pre-transplant treatment option.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yupei Zhang
- Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China
| | - Chao Liu
- Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China
| | - Ran Zhang
- Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China
| | - Yajie Shi
- Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China
| | - Xue Li
- Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China
| | - Jifeng Yu
- Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China
| | - Dingming Wan
- Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China
| | - Xinsheng Xie
- Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Prognostic impact of Auer rods for cytoreductive chemotherapy and myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation in adult patients with myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2. Ann Hematol 2022; 101:1611-1615. [PMID: 35235026 DOI: 10.1007/s00277-022-04808-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2022] [Accepted: 02/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/01/2022]
|
5
|
Zhang XH, Chen J, Han MZ, Huang H, Jiang EL, Jiang M, Lai YR, Liu DH, Liu QF, Liu T, Ren HY, Song YP, Sun ZM, Tang XW, Wang JM, Wu DP, Xu LP, Zhang X, Zhou DB, Huang XJ. The consensus from The Chinese Society of Hematology on indications, conditioning regimens and donor selection for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: 2021 update. J Hematol Oncol 2021; 14:145. [PMID: 34526099 PMCID: PMC8441240 DOI: 10.1186/s13045-021-01159-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 139] [Impact Index Per Article: 46.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2021] [Accepted: 08/30/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
The consensus recommendations in 2018 from The Chinese Society of Hematology (CSH) on indications, conditioning regimens and donor selection for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) facilitated the standardization of clinical practices of allo-HSCT in China and progressive integration with the world. There have been new developments since the initial publication. To integrate recent developments and further improve the consensus, a panel of experts from the CSH recently updated the consensus recommendations, which are summarized as follows: (1) there is a new algorithm for selecting appropriate donors for allo-HSCT candidates. Haploidentical donors (HIDs) are the preferred donor choice over matched sibling donors (MSDs) for patients with high-risk leukemia or elderly patients with young offspring donors in experienced centers. This replaces the previous algorithm for donor selection, which favored MSDs over HIDs. (2) Patients with refractory/relapsed lymphoblastic malignancies are now encouraged to undergo salvage treatment with novel immunotherapies prior to HSCT. (3) The consensus has been updated to reflect additional evidence for the application of allo-HSCT in specific groups of patients with hematological malignancies (intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML), favorable-risk AML with positive minimal residual disease, and standard-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia). (4) The consensus has been updated to reflect additional evidence for the application of HSCT in patients with nonmalignant diseases, such as severe aplastic anemia and inherited diseases. (5) The consensus has been updated to reflect additional evidence for the administration of anti-thymocyte globulin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide in HID-HSCT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiao-hui Zhang
- Peking University People’s Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing, China
| | - Jing Chen
- Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Ming-Zhe Han
- Institute of Hematology and Blood Disease Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Tianjin, China
| | - He Huang
- First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Er-lie Jiang
- Institute of Hematology and Blood Disease Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Tianjin, China
| | - Ming Jiang
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China
| | - Yong-rong Lai
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guilin, China
| | - Dai-hong Liu
- General Hospital of PLA (People’s Liberation Army of China), Beijing, China
| | - Qi-Fa Liu
- Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ting Liu
- West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Han-yun Ren
- Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yong-Ping Song
- Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Zi-min Sun
- The First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
| | - Xiao-wen Tang
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Suzhou, China
| | - Jian-min Wang
- Changhai Hospital of Shanghai, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - De-pei Wu
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Suzhou, China
| | - Lan-ping Xu
- Peking University People’s Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing, China
| | - Xi Zhang
- Xinqiao Hospital, Army Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Dao-bin Zhou
- Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Xiao-jun Huang
- Peking University People’s Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing, China
- Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sun YQ, Xu LP, Liu KY, Zhang XH, Yan CH, Jin J, Huang XJ, Wang Y. Pre-transplantation cytoreduction does not benefit advanced myelodysplastic syndrome patients after myeloablative transplantation with grafts from family donors. Cancer Commun (Lond) 2021; 41:333-344. [PMID: 33566460 PMCID: PMC8045915 DOI: 10.1002/cac2.12140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2020] [Accepted: 01/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of pre-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) cytoreduction with either induction chemotherapy (IC) or hypomethylating agents (HMAs) in treating advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) remains debatable. We aimed to evaluate pre-HSCT strategies by comparing the endpoints related to disease control between advanced MDS patients with pre-HSCT cytoreduction and those with best supportive care. METHODS We described 228 consecutive advanced MDS patients who received HSCT from a haploidentical donor (HID, n = 162) or matched related donor (MSD, n = 66) with uniform myeloablative conditioning regimens between January 2015 and December 2018. Of these 228 patients, 131 (57.5%) were treated exclusively with pre-HSCT best supportive care (BSC), 49 (22.5%) were given HMA, and 48 (21.1%) received both IC and HMA. Propensity score-matching analysis, multivariate analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed to elucidate the impact of pre-HSCT strategies on transplant outcomes. RESULTS The 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were 78.2% and 70.0% for the BSC and cytoreduction cohorts (P = 0.189) and were 78.2%, 66.7%, and 73.2% for the BSC, HMA, and HMA+IC groups, respectively (P = 0.269). A propensity score-matching analysis confirmed that the 3-year RFS rates were 81.9%, 87.5%, and 66.9% for BSC, cytoreduction complete remission (CR), and cytoreduction non-CR groups, respectively (P = 0.051). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that pre-HSCT cytoreduction, older patient age, monosomal karyotype, and interval between diagnosis and HSCT were poor prognostic factors for RFS. In the subgroup analyses, BSC was associated with longer RFS compared to cytoreduction among the younger patients, those with international prognostic scoring system intermediate-2/high risk at diagnosis, and those with intermediate/poor cytogenetics. CONCLUSIONS Different pre-HSCT therapies did not yield discrepant post-HSCT outcomes. No benefit in terms of post-HSCT outcomes were correlated with pre-HSCT cytoreduction in advanced MDS even for cytoreduction CR patients. Early referral to HSCT is essential for advanced MDS patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Qian Sun
- Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, 100044, P. R. China
| | - Lan-Ping Xu
- Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, 100044, P. R. China
| | - Kai-Yan Liu
- Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, 100044, P. R. China
| | - Xiao-Hui Zhang
- Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, 100044, P. R. China
| | - Chen-Hua Yan
- Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, 100044, P. R. China
| | - Jian Jin
- Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, 100044, P. R. China
| | - Xiao-Jun Huang
- Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, 100044, P. R. China.,Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences, Beijing, 100871, P. R. China.,Collaborative Innovation Center of Hematology, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, P. R. China
| | - Yu Wang
- Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, National Clinical Research Center for Hematologic Disease, Beijing Key Laboratory of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Beijing, 100044, P. R. China.,Collaborative Innovation Center of Hematology, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, P. R. China
| |
Collapse
|