Busulfan/Fludarabine- or Treosulfan/Fludarabine-Based Conditioning Regimen in Patients with Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Given Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation — an EBMT Inborn Errors Working Party and Scetide Retrospective Analysis

PV and AL contributed equally Multiple studies from the EBMT registry and others have shown excellent survival rates after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (WAS) patients (Ozsahin et al, Blood 2008). The importance of myeloid engraftment for full disease correction has also been demonstrated (Moratto et al, Blood 2011). However, the vast majority of HSCTs in these studies were performed with (oral) busulfan/cyclophosphamide-based conditioning and in the early 2000 years or before. In 2005, the inborn errors working party (IEWP) of EBMT and ESID first recommended busulfan/fludarabine (BuFlu) or treosulfan/fludarabine (TreoFlu) based conditioning for primary immunodeficiencies such as WAS, with some centers deciding to add thiotepa (TT) to the conditioning. We performed a retrospective analysis via the EBMT and SCETIDE registries of WAS patients transplanted between 01/01/20006 and 12/31/2016 with these two regimens. The primary objective was to compare the overall (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) after HSCT with either BuFlu±TT or TreoFlu±TT conditioning. Secondary objectives included the influence of either conditioning regimen on acute and chronic GVHD, the degree of donor chimerism, incidence of secondary procedures after HSCT (2nd HSCT, stem cell boost, DLI, gene therapy or splenectomy) and rates of disease-specific complications after HSCT. At the time of this interim analysis, 174 patients were included, 92 (53%) with BuFlu±TT and 82 (47%) with TreoFlu±TT conditioning with a median age of 1.57 years (range 0.21-29.96) at HSCT and a median follow-up of 32.9 months (range 1.5-128.9). The donor was an HLA-matched sibling (MSD) in 30, a matched related donor (MRD) in 5, a matched unrelated donor (MUD, 9/10 or 10/10) in 105, a mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD, 5 years had a worse OS as compared to those 5 years or younger at HSCT (74.9% vs. 90.8%; log-rank test p=0.005). The type of donor had no influence on OS: 96.4% for MSD/MFD, 86.8% for M