On Behalf of the SFGM-TC: Retrospective Comparison of Reduced and Higher Intensity Conditioning for High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome Treated With Allogeneic Stem-Cell Transplantation

Current challenges in conditioning regimens for MDS transplantation

Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is a very heterogeneous clonal disorder. Patients with "higher-risk" MDS, defined by specific recurrent genetic abnormalities, have a poor prognosis because of a high risk of progression to secondary acute myeloid leukemia with low chemosensitivity. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remains the only treatment that offers durable disease control because the donor immune system allows graft-versus-MDS effects. In terms of preparation steps before transplantation, targeting the malignant clone by increasing the conditioning regimen intensity is still a matter of intense debate. MDS is mainly diagnosed in older patients, and high toxicity related to common myeloablative conditioning regimens has been reported. Efforts to include new drugs in the conditioning regimen to achieve the best malignant clone control without increasing toxicity have been made over the past 20 years. We summarized these retrospective and prospective studies and evaluated the limitations of the available evidence to delineate the ideal conditioning regimen.

Outcome after allogeneic stem cell transplantation with haploidentical versus HLA-matched donors in patients with higher-risk MDS

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remains the best curative option for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. The presence of monosomal karyotype and/or complex karyotype abnormalities predicts inferior survival after allo-SCT in MDS patients. Haploidentical allo-SCT has been increasingly used in acute leukemia (AL) and has similar results as using HLA-matched donors, but data on higher-risk MDS is sparse. We compared outcomes in 266 patients with higher-risk MDS after HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD, n = 79), HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD, n = 139) and HLA haploidentical donor (HID, n = 48) from 2010 to 2019. Median donor age differed between the three groups (p < 0.001). The overall survival was significantly different between the three groups with a better OS observed in the MUD group (p = 0.014). This observation could be explained by a higher progression-free survival with MUD (p = 0.014). The cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 acute GvHD was significantly higher in the HID group (p = 0.051). However, in multivariable analysis, patients transplanted using an HID had comparable mortality to patients transplanted using a MUD (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 0.58 [0.32-1.07]; p = 0.080) and a MSD ([sHR]: 0.56 [0.28-1.11]; p = 0.094). MUD do not remain a significant positive predictor of survival, suggesting that beyond the donor-recipient HLA matching, the donor age might impact recipient outcome.

Fludarabine plus reduced-intensity busulfan versus fludarabine plus myeloablative busulfan in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) offers a possible cure for patients with relapsed and refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) through potentially beneficial graft versus lymphoma effects. However, allogeneic HCT is associated with high nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Fludarabine with reduced-intensity busulfan (Flu/Bu2) and myeloablative busulfan (Flu/Bu4) are commonly used in conditioning regimens for allogeneic HCT; however, data on their use in patients with NHL is limited. We investigated the effect of busulfan dose on outcomes by comparing Flu/Bu2 and Flu/Bu4 in patients with NHL who underwent allogeneic HCT. Our study included 415 adult patients with NHL who received Flu/Bu2 (315 patients) or Flu/Bu4 (100 patients) between January 2008 and December 2019. All patients were enrolled in the Transplant Registry Unified Management Program 2 of the Japanese Data Center for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. The primary endpoint was the 5-year overall survival (OS). To minimize potential confounding factors that may influence outcomes, we performed propensity score matching. The 5-year OS was 50.6% (95% confidence interval (CI), 39.4%-60.8%) and 32.2% (95% CI, 22.4-42.4%) in the Flu/Bu2 and Flu/Bu4 groups, respectively (p = 0.006). The hazard ratio comparing the two groups was 2.13 (95% CI, 1.30-3.50; p = 0.003). Both groups had a similar 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (38.2% vs 41.3%; p = 0.581), and the Flu/Bu4 group had a higher cumulative incidence of 5-year NRM (15.7% vs 31.9%; p = 0.043). In this study, Flu/Bu4 was associated with worse OS compared with Flu/Bu2 because of high NRM in patients with NHL.