-Author name in bold denotes the presenting author
-Asterisk * with author name denotes a Non-ASH member
Clinically Relevant Abstract denotes an abstract that is clinically relevant.

PhD Trainee denotes that this is a recommended PHD Trainee Session.

Ticketed Session denotes that this is a ticketed session.

3562 Similar Transplant Outcomes for Haplo and MUD Allo-Hcts in AML Patients Achieving CR2: A Study Analyzing 4030 Allo-HCT Recipients from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Program: Oral and Poster Abstracts
Session: 732. Allogeneic Transplantation: Disease Response and Comparative Treatment Studies: Poster II
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
Research, Acute Myeloid Malignancies, AML, Adult, Clinical Research, Diseases, Registries, Myeloid Malignancies, Study Population, Human
Sunday, December 8, 2024, 6:00 PM-8:00 PM

Yishan Ye, MD1*, Myriam Labopin2*, Ibrahim Yakoub-Agha, MD, PhD3*, Gerard Socie4, Didier Blaise, MD5*, Tobias Gedde-Dahl, MD6*, Igor Wolfgang Blau, MD, PhD7*, Anna Maria Raiola8*, Jennifer Byrne, FRCP FRCPath PhD9*, Etienne Daguindau, MD10*, Hélène Labussière-Wallet, MD11*, Anne Huynh, MD12*, Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD13, Arnon Nagler, MD14, Eolia Brissot15, Lin Li16*, Yi Luo17, Jimin Shi1*, Mohamad Mohty, MD, PhD18, He Huang19* and Fabio Ciceri20*

1Bone Marrow Transplantation Center of The First Affiliated Hospital Liangzhu Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
2EBMT Statistical Unit, Sorbonne University, Saint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, INSERM UMRs 938, Paris, France
3Lille University Hospital, Lille, France
4Hematology Transplantation, Paris, France
5Programme de Transplantation & Thérapie Cellulaire, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille, Marseille, France
6Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
7Medizinische Klinik m. S. Hämatologie , Onkologie und Tumorimmunologie, Berlin, Germany, Berlin, Germany
8IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy, Genova, Italy
9Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, GBR
10Department of Clinical Hematology, Hopital Jean Minjoz, Service d'Onco-hématologie, Besançon, France
11Hôpital Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France
12Hematology Department, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse - Oncopole, Toulouse, France
13American University of Beirut Dept. of Medicine, Beirut, Lebanon
14Division of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
15Hematology Department, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Service d'Hématologie et Thérapie Cellulaire, Paris, France, Paris, France
16The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
17Bone Marrow Transplantation Center of The First Affiliated Hospital & Liangzhu Laboratory, Bone Marrow Transplantation, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Universit, Hangzhou, China
18Sorbonne University, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, and INSERM UMRs938, Paris, France
19Bone Marrow Transplantation Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
20Unit of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

Background

Only a minority of relapsing patients will achieve a second complete remission (CR2) and proceed to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT). Donor preference for these patients remains unclear especially with the recent surge of haploidentical (HAPLO) HCTs. In a European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) global multi-center, registry-based analysis, we compared the outcomes following allo-HCT from either HAPLO, matched sibling donors (MSD), or 10/10 matched unrelated donors (MUD).

Methods

Data from 4030 adult acute myeloid leukemia patients receiving a first allo-HCT in CR2 from 297 EBMT centers between 2010 and 2022 were analyzed. Transplants from mismatched UD (<10/10), umbilical cord blood, or grafts with ex-vivo manipulation were excluded. Univariate analyses and Cox regression models were used.

Results

Results from 1271 MSD, 1804 MUD, and 955 HAPLO HCTs were analyzed. For the entire cohort, median age was 53 years (range: 18-75). 94% of the patients were diagnosed with de novo AML. A higher proportion of patients with ELN2022 favorable- risk cytogenetics received an allo-HCT from MSD (23%) than from either MUD (20%) or HAPLO (19%) donors. Percentages of positive measurable residual disease (MRD) prior to transplant were comparable among the three cohorts. Peripheral blood was the major graft source (88%) and reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) was used for approximately half (51%) of the entire cohort. 84% of patients in the HAPLO group received post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis. Engraftment rates were higher in the MSD (99%) and MUD (99%) than in the HAPLO (95%) group. Original disease was the major cause of death for the three cohorts.

On univariate analysis, HAPLO HCT was associated with a lower 2-year relapse incidence (RI) (MSD 30.8%, MUD 28.7%, HAPLO 20%) but a higher non-relapse mortality (NRM) (MSD 17.1%, MUD 15.3%, HAPLO 25.7%). The 180-day cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was higher in HAPLO (26.4%) than in MSD (20.5%) or MUD (22.5%) recipients, respectively. Interestingly, the 2-year cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was higher in the MSD (19.8%) than in MUD (15.6%) or HAPLO (13%) recipients, respectively.

On multivariate analysis, HAPLO (hazard ratio [HR]=1.69, 95% CI 1.25-2.29; p<0.001) and MUD (HR=1.54, 95% CI 1.22-1.95; p<0.001) were associated with higher risk of grade II-IV acute GVHD compared to MSD. There was no significant difference among HAPLO, MSD and MUD allo-HCTs in incidence of overall and extensive chronic GVHD. NRM was higher for HAPLO (HR=1.92, 95% CI 1.36-2.7; p<0.001) and MUD (HR=1.45, 95% CI 1.11-1.89; p=0.006) recipients compared to MSD HCTs. Concerning survival outcomes, HAPLO (HR=1.32, 95% CI 1.04-1.67; p=0.02) and MUD groups (HR=1.22, 95% CI 1.02-1.44; p=0.03) were associated with worse overall survival (OS) compared to MSD, while no significant difference in leukemia-free survival (LFS) or GVHD-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS) was observed between the three cohorts. Importantly, there was no significant difference between HAPLO and MUD recipients with respect to RI, major transplant complications and survival outcomes.

Older patient age i.e., above 50 years was associated with a higher NRM. Older donor age (per 10 years) was associated with a higher NRM and a worse OS, LFS and GRFS. Patients with AML and adverse- or intermediate-risk cytogenetics were associated with higher RI and worse OS, LFS and GRFS compared to those with favorable cytogenetics. Notably, RIC was associated with higher RI (HR=1.3, 95% CI 1.11-1.52; p=0.001), which led to poorer OS, LFS and GRFS compared to myeloablative conditioning.

Conclusions

For AML patients in CR2, HAPLO HCTs resulted in comparable outcomes compared to MUD allo-HCTs while MSD remained the best option, mainly due to lower NRM.

Disclosures: Yakoub-Agha: Janssen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support. Bazarbachi: Jansen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Caribou: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Biologix: Research Funding. Mohty: Takeda: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Stemline Menarini: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive: Honoraria; MaaT Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

*signifies non-member of ASH