Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33794963›Full record

ArticleJournal of hematology & oncology2021

Outcome of haploidentical versus matched sibling donors in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Arnon Nagler, Myriam Labopin, Mohamed Houhou, Mahmoud Aljurf, Ashrafsadat Mousavi, Rose-Marie Hamladji, Mohsen Al Zahrani, Sergey Bondarenko, Mutlu Arat, Emanuele Angelucci and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hematology & oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 14 institutions in 9 countries.

Arnon NaglerHematology Division, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, 52621, Tel Hashomer, Israel. arnon.nagler@sheba.health.gov.il.ORCID 0000-0002-0763-1265
Myriam LabopinEBMT Paris Study Office, Department of Haematology, Saint Antoine Hospital, INSERM UMR 938, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Mohamed HouhouALWP of the EBMT Paris office, Paris, France.
Mahmoud AljurfKing Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ashrafsadat MousaviShariati Hospital, Hematology-Oncology and BMT Research, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Rose-Marie HamladjiService Hématologie Greffe de Moëlle, Centre Pierre Et Marie Curie, Alger, Algeria.
Mohsen Al ZahraniKing Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Sergey BondarenkoRaisa Gorbacheva Memorial Institute of Children Oncology Hematology and Transplantation, First Pavlov State Medical University, Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Mutlu AratHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Unit, Sisli Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Emanuele AngelucciHematology and Transplant Center, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Yener KocMedicana International, Istanbul, Turkey.
Zafer GülbasBone Marrow Transplantation Department, Anadolu Medical Center Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey.
Simona SicaFondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Jean Henri BourhisDepartment of Hematology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France.
Jonathan CanaaniHematology Division, Sheba Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Eolia BrissotHematology Department, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Service d'Hématologie et Thérapie Cellulaire, Paris, France.
Sebastian GiebelDepartment of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Hematology-Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice Branch, Gliwice, Poland.
Mohamad MohtyDepartment of Haematology, Saint Antoine Hospital, INSERM UMR 938, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Inserm · FRSorbonne Université · FRCentre de Recherche Nucléaire d’Alger · DZFirst Pavlov State Medical University of St. Petersburg · RUInstitut Gustave Roussy · FRIstanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital · TRKing Abdulaziz Medical City · SAKing Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre · SAOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITShariati Hospital · IRSheba Medical Center · ILTel Aviv University · ILThe Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology · PLUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-T-cell depleted haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HaploSCT) is being increasingly used in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) with improving patient outcomes. We have recently reported that outcomes of adult patients (pts) with ALL in complete remission (CR) receiving HaploSCT are comparable to unrelated donor transplants. We now compared HaploSCT and matched sibling donor (MSD) transplants in pts with ALL.

aimTo assess transplantation outcomes of HaploSCT and MSD transplants in pts with ALL in CR.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed adult patients (≥ 18 years) with ALL who underwent their first allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) in first or second CR between 2012 and 2018, either from a T cell replete Haplo or MSD donor, and whose data were reported to the Acute Leukemia Working Party (ALWP) of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Multivariate analysis (MVA) adjusting for differences between the groups was performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Propensity score matching was also performed to reduce confounding effects.

resultsThe analysis comprised 2304 patients: HaploSCT-413; MSD-1891. Median follow-up was 25 months. Median age was 37 (range 18-75) and 38 (18-76) years in HaploSCT and MSD, respectively. HaploSCT patients were transplanted more recently than those transplanted from MSD (2016 vs 2015, p < 0.0001). A higher rate of HaploSCT was in CR2 (33.4% vs 16.7%, p < 0.0001), respectively, and fewer received myeloablative conditioning (68% vs 83.2%, p < 0.0001). Cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity was lower in HaploSCT patients (22% vs 28%, p = 0.01) and donors (27.1% vs 33%, p < 0.02), and a higher proportion of the HaploSCTs were performed using a bone marrow (BM) graft (46.2% vs 18.6%, p < 0.0001). The 2 groups did not differ with regard to gender, Karnofsky performance status score, ALL phenotype, Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) positivity and pre-alloSCT measurable residual disease (MRD). Graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was mainly post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) based (92.7%) in the HaploSCT setting, while it was mostly pharmacologic in the setting of MSD (18.7% received ATG). Cumulative incidence of engraftment at day 60 was higher in MSD transplants compared to HaploSCT (98.7% vs 96.3%, p = 0.001), respectively. Day 180 incidence of acute (a) GVHD II-IV and III-IV was higher in HaploSCT vs. MSD: 36.3% vs 28.9% (p = 0.002 and 15.2% vs 10.5% (p = 0.005), respectively. Conversely, the 2-year chronic (c) GVHD and extensive cGVHD were 32% vs 38.8% (p = 0.009) and 11.9% vs 19.5% (p = 0.001) in HaploSCT vs MSD, respectively. Main causes of death were leukemia (31.8% vs 45%), infection (33.1% vs 19.7%) and GVHD (16.6% vs 19.7%) for HaploSCT and MSD, respectively. Two-year relapse incidence (RI), non-relapse mortality (NRM), leukemia-free survival (LFS), overall survival (OS) and GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) were 26% vs 31.6%, 22.9% vs 13%, 51% vs 55.4%, 58.8% vs 67.4% and 40.6% vs 39% for HaploSCT and MSD, respectively. In the MVA, RI was significantly lower in HaploSCT in comparison with MSD, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66 (95% CI 0.52-0.83, p = 0.004), while NRM was significantly higher, HR = 1.9 (95% CI 1.43-2.53, p < 0.0001). aGVHD grade II-IV and grade III-IV were higher in HaploSCT than in MSD HR = 1.53 (95% CI 1.23-1.9, p = 0.0002) and HR = 1.54 (95% CI 1.1-2.15, p = 0.011), respectively. Extensive cGVHD was lower in HaploSCT compared with MSD, HR = 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.88, p = 0.007), while total cGVHD did not differ significantly, HR = 0.94 (95% CI 0.74-1.18, p = 0.58). LFS, OS and GRFS did not differ significantly between the 2 transplant groups, HR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.81-1.14, p = 0.66); HR = 1.18 (95% CI 0.96-1.43, p = 0.11) and HR = 0.93 (95% CI 0.79-1.09, p = 0.37), respectively. These results were confirmed in a matched-pair analysis.

conclusionsOutcomes of adult patients with ALL in CR receiving alloSCT from haploidentical donors are not significantly different from those receiving transplants from MSD in terms of LFS, OS and GRFS.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedEuropeHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrecursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-LymphomaRetrospective StudiesSiblingsSurvival AnalysisTissue DonorsTransplantation ConditioningTransplantation, HaploidenticalTreatment OutcomeAcute lymphoblastic leukemiaAllogeneic stem cell transplantationDonorHaploidenticalSibling

Identifiers

PMID33794963
PMCPMC8017786
OpenAlexW3147565893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.