CLINICAL TRIAL, PHASE II
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Results of a 2-arm, phase 2 clinical trial using post-transplantation cyclophosphamide for the prevention of graft-versus-host disease in haploidentical donor and mismatched unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Cancer 2016 November 16
BACKGROUND: High-dose, post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) to prevent graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) has improved outcomes in haploidentical (HAPLO) stem cell transplantation (SCT). However, it remains unclear whether this strategy is effective in SCT from 1-antigen human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-mismatched unrelated donors (9/10 MUD) and how the outcomes of these patients compare with those of haploidentical transplantation recipients.

METHODS: A parallel, 2-arm, nonrandomized phase 2 clinical trial was conducted of melphalan-based reduced-intensity conditioning with PTCy, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil to prevent GVHD in patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies who underwent HAPLO (n = 60) or 9/10 MUD (n = 46) SCT.

RESULTS: The 1-year overall and progression-free survival rates were 70% and 60%, respectively, in the HAPLO arm and 60% and 47%, respectively, in the 9/10 MUD arm. The day +100 cumulative incidence of grade II to IV acute GVHD and grade III to IV acute GVHD was 28% and 3%, respectively, in the HAPLO arm and 33% and 13%, respectively, in the 9/10 MUD arm. The 2-year cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was 24% in the HAPLO arm and 19% in the 9/10 MUD arm. The 1-year cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality was 21% in the HAPLO arm and 31% in the 9/10 MUD arm, and the 1-year relapse rate was 19% in the HAPLO arm and 25% in the 9/10 MUD arm.

CONCLUSIONS: Although this was a nonrandomized study and could not serve as a direct comparison between the 2 groups, the authors conclude that PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis is effective for both HAPLO and 9/10 MUD SCTs. Prospective randomized trials will be required to compare the efficacies of alternative donor options for patients lacking HLA-matched donors. Cancer 2016;122:3316-3326. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app