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

•Waiting time to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was longer in acute myelogenous leukemia patients allocated to an unrelated donor when compared with patients assigned to a matched related donor.•Despite the delay associated to unrelated donor allocation, a similar proportion of p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Biology of blood and marrow transplantation 2019-01, Vol.25 (1), p.183-190
Hauptverfasser: Rodríguez-Arbolí, Eduardo, Márquez-Malaver, Francisco José, Rodríguez-Torres, Nancy, Caballero-Velázquez, Teresa, Escamilla-Gómez, Virginia, Calderón-Cabrera, Cristina, Falantes-González, José Francisco, Solé-Rodríguez, María, García-Ramírez, Patricia, Moya-Arnao, María, Carreras, Enric, Espigado-Tocino, Ildefonso, Pérez-Simón, José Antonio
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Waiting time to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was longer in acute myelogenous leukemia patients allocated to an unrelated donor when compared with patients assigned to a matched related donor.•Despite the delay associated to unrelated donor allocation, a similar proportion of patients failed to reach allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in both groups.•Transplantation outcomes were comparable among donor allocation groups.•No significant differences in clinical outcomes from the time of transplant approval were observed. 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
ISSN:1083-8791
1523-6536
DOI:10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.08.019