These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Who Is a Better Donor for Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Young HLA-Mismatched Haploidentical Relative or an Older Fully HLA-Matched Sibling or Unrelated Donor?
    Author: Karam E, Laporte J, Solomon SR, Morris LE, Zhang X, Holland HK, Bashey A, Solh MM.
    Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant; 2019 Oct; 25(10):2054-2060. PubMed ID: 31173900.
    Abstract:
    T cell replete HLA-mismatched haploidentical transplantation (HIDT) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide is increasingly becoming an acceptable treatment approach for patients lacking timely access to a suitably matched related donor transplant (MRDT) or matched unrelated donor transplant (MUDT). Multiple recent registry and single-center studies have shown comparable overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates among HIDT, MRDT, and MUDT with a significantly lower risk of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) among HIDT recipients. Candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) often have access to multiple donor sources, and a relevant question is whether outcomes can be improved with a younger HLA-mismatched haploidentical donor (≤35 years) rather than an older matched related donor (≥35 years) or matched unrelated donor (≥35 years). We analyzed 406 consecutive allogenic HSCT recipients, with a median age of 54 years (range, 19 to 77), after a MRDT with a donor age of ≥35 years (n = 222), MUDT with a donor age of ≥35 years (n = 91), and HIDT with a donor age of ≤35 years (n = 93). Median follow-up time for survivors was 51.5 months. Compared with MRDT and MUDT, HIDT recipients had a similar median age at time of HSCT, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index, disease risk index distribution, and donor recipient sex matching. The survival estimates and relapse incidence at 3 years post-HSCT were OS (64% for MRDT, 54% for MUDT, and 62% for HIDT), DFS (55% for MRDT, 44% for MUDT, and 58% for HIDT), Transplant related mortality (TRM) (19% for MRDT, 16% for MUDT, and 18% for HIDT), and relapse (26% for MRDT, 37% for MUDT, and 24% for HIDT). HIDT recipients had better 3-year relapse rates compared with MUDT recipients (24% versus 37%, P= .048), with similar DFS and OS in a univariate analysis. MRDT recipients had a better relapse rate (26% versus 37%, P = .042) compared with MUDT recipients. Recipients of HIDT also had significantly lower rates of moderate to severe chronic GVHD compared with MRDT and MUDT recipients (P = .01). Multivariable analysis showed no effect of donor on OS, DFS, relapse, and TRM. Recipients of HIDT from a young donor ≤35 years had similar OS, lower rates of chronic GVHD, and better chronic GVHD-free, relapse-free survival compared with patients undergoing transplantation with an MRD or a MUD donor ≥35 years. This study suggests that given a situation where a choice between a young haploidentical relative and an older matched unrelated donor is to be made, one can achieve similar survival with a haploidentical donor and significantly lower rates of chronic GVHD.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]