Melphalan-Based Conditioning with Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation: Donor Effect

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5272320/v1

Download PDF

Article

Melphalan-Based Conditioning with Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation: Donor Effect

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5272320/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Fludarabine and melphalan (FM) conditioning offers effective disease control with an acceptable toxicity profile. Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has improved transplant outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed patients receiving FM-based transplants with PTCy at City of Hope. Of 248 patients included, 89 (35.9%) received hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) from a matched related/unrelated donor (MRD/MUD), 118 (47.6%) from a haploidentical (HID) donor, and 49 (19.8%) from a mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD). There were no differences in acute and chronic GVHD based on donor type. The 2-year overall survival (OS) for patients receiving HID, MMUD, and MRD/MUD was 58%, 55%, and 70%; disease-free survival (DFS) was 52%, 48%, and 66%; and graft-versus-host/relapse-free survival (GRFS) were 48%, 40%, and 59%, respectively. OS, DFS, and GRFS were similar regardless of donor type on multivariable analysis. However, donor age ≥ 35 years was associated with lower OS and GRFS and higher 2-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) on multivariable analysis across all patients, regardless of donor type. FM with PTCy appears to produce similar outcomes between MRD/MUD, MMUD, and HID when adjusting for donors < 35 years, and donor age seems to be the most important factor when selecting a donor with this regimen.

PTCy

Fludarabine

Melphalan

GVHD

allogeneic transplant

Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) has significantly increased accessibility to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for older and less medically fit patients with hematologic malignancies.^1,2 A retrospective analysis by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIMBTR) demonstrated that fludarabine/melphalan (FM) offers superior disease control compared to fludarabine/busulfan (FB), albeit with higher non-relapse mortality (NRM). This increased NRM may be driven in part by higher rates of acute and chronic graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) associated with FM.³ FM conditioning leads to higher acute GVHD, and when combined with T-cell replete transplants, results in higher chronic GVHD than FB.

Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) has improved HCT outcomes across different HLA disparities, including haploidentical (HID) and mismatched unrelated donors (MMUD), thus increasing HCT accessibility, particularly for patients from ethnic and racial minorities without a readily available matched donor.^4–7 Recently, in a phase 3 randomized control trial, PTCy combined with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil improved 1-year GVHD/relapse-free survival (GRFS) compared to tacrolimus and methotrexate in matched donor RIC HCT.⁸ However, most registry data comparing FM and FB involve patients receiving “conventional GVHD prophylaxis” with calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) based therapy; thus, no data is available that exclusively examines HCT outcomes using FM with the potentially new standard of care, PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis.

The outcomes of patients undergoing HCT with PTCy using HID have previously been reported to be inferior to those using matched unrelated donors (MUD), particularly with RIC, although detailed information on causes of death were sparse due to the limitations of registry data.⁹ Additionally, there is limited data comparing HID and MMUD using PTCy as GVHD prophylaxis. In a preliminary report from CIBMTR, no difference in outcomes was observed between HID and MMUD, but the small sample size and short follow-up period limits interpretation of these results. ⁵ Herein, we report a large single-center experience utilizing FM followed by PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis. This study describes the outcomes of this RIC and GVHD prophylaxis combination across different donor types.

Study design, participants, and procedures

Adult patients who underwent peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) HCT with FM followed by PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis for a hematologic disorder at COH between January 2015-December 2021 were included in this retrospective analysis. Pediatric patients and those not receiving HCT at COH were excluded from the analysis. All donor types were allowed. Detailed patient demographics and HCT information was obtained through retrospective chart review. The COH Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Patients with an MRD/MUD or MMUD received fludarabine 25 mg/m² on days − 8 to -4 (total 125 mg/m²) and melphalan 100 mg/m² or 140 mg/m² (if ≤ 60 years old) on day − 3. Patients with a HID received melphalan on day − 6, fludarabine 40 mg/m² (total 160 mg/m²) on days − 5 to -2, and TBI 200 cGy on day − 1. Post-transplant cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg was given on days + 3 and + 4. Tacrolimus, or sirolimus in patients unable to receive tacrolimus, was started on day + 5 and dose-adjusted to maintain trough level of 5–10,¹⁰ and was converted to oral on discharge (in the case of tacrolimus), and slowly tapered over 6 months starting on day + 90 in the absence of GVHD. Mycophenolate mofetil was given at 15 mg/kg (capped at 1 g) three times daily starting on day + 5 and was stopped on day + 35 in the absence of GVHD.

Non-emergent use of corticosteroids for emesis control or transfusion reactions were prohibited until day 5, but use of systemic steroids and other immunosuppressants like tocilizumab was allowed based on individual patient risk factors suggesting a poor prognosis and the patient’s overall clinical status as per the discretion of the treating physician. Hematologic support using formulary granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) 5 µg/kg/day was initiated on day 5 and was administered daily until absolute neutrophil count (ANC) reached ≥ 1.5 x 10⁹/L for 3 consecutive days as per institutional standards. Infection prophylaxis against bacterial, viral, and fungal (including Pneumocystis jiroveci) pathogens were initiated per institutional practice and in accordance with the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) guidelines for post-HCT infection prevention.¹¹ Weekly cytomegalovirus (CMV) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing was performed to monitor for detectable levels requiring preemptive therapy. Letermovir was given for CMV prophylaxis to CMV seropositive patients upon FDA approval in November of 2017.

Study outcomes and statistical analyses

Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, which was defined as time HCT to death. Patients who remained alive were censored at their date of last follow-up. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), defined as time from allogeneic HCT to disease relapse or death. Patients alive without evidence of disease at study cutoff were censored at their date of last follow-up. Other secondary endpoints include non-relapse mortality (NRM), defined as death without prior relapse of their disease post-HCT, cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), grades II-IV and III-IV acute GVHD per the consensus criteria,¹² moderate/severe chronic GVHD as per NIH criteria,¹³ graft-vs-host disease/relapse-free survival (GRFS), defined as time from allogeneic HCT to grades II-IV acute GVHD or moderate/severe chronic GVHD, disease relapse or death, and neutrophil and platelet engraftment.

Baseline patient demographic, disease, and transplant characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics and were compared using the log-rank test. Kaplan-Meier Curves and log-rank tests were used to calculate and compare OS and DFS, respectively. CIR and NRM and GVHD were calculated and compared via a competing-risk analysis and Gray’s test, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses (UVA and MVA) were performed using the multivariable Cox regression model for OS and DFS, and multivariable Fine and Gray regression model for the other variables. The primary aim was to evaluate the effect of donor types on HCT outcomes. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). All tests were 2 sided at a significance level of 0.05.

Patient, Disease, and Transplant Characteristics

A total of 248 patients were included in this study. Their baseline characteristics are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. Median recipient age was 63 years (range, 20–82), and 63.7% of the patients were male. Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was ≤ 80% in more than third of patients. Almost half of the patients (47.6%) had a HCT comorbidity index of ≥ 3. The most common diagnoses among the patients were acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (n = 90), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (n = 39), myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) (n = 58), and lymphoma (n = 40). The median donor age was 32 years (range, 11–65). Donors were MRD/MUD in 32.7%, HID in 47.6% and MMUD in 19.8% of cases.

Engraftment and GVHD

The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 18 days (range, 18–19), and the median time to platelet engraftment was 32 days (range, 30–34). Multivariate analysis (MVA) revealed no significant difference in neutrophil engraftment by day 28 based on donor type. However, recipients of MRD/MUD showed a higher rate of platelet engraftment by day 35 (P = 0.020) compared to those receiving grafts from HID and MMUD (Supplementary Table 2). There were no significant differences in engraftment rates based on patient age or donor age.

The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD by day 100 was 39.5% (95% CI, 33.4–45.6), and grade III-IV acute GVHD was 14.5% (95% CI, 10.5–19.2). The 1-year cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was 27.4% (95% CI, 22.0-33.1) for all patients. MVA revealed no significant differences in the incidence of acute or chronic GVHD based on donor type.

OS, DFS, and GRFS

With a median follow-up for surviving patients of 24.4 months (range, 3.3–81.2), the 2-year OS, DFS, and GRFS for all patients were 60.4% (95% CI, 53.7–66.5), 55.5% (95% CI, 48.9–61.6), and 49.2% (95% CI, 43.2–56.0), respectively. The adjusted 2-year OS were 58% for HID, 55% for MMUD, and 70% for MRD/MUD (P = 0.13), the adjusted 2-year DFS rates were 52% for HID, 48% for MMUD, and 66% for MRD/MUD (P = 0.084), and the GRFS rates were 48% for HID, 40% for MMUD, and 59% for MRD/MUD (P = 0.088) (Fig. 1A-C).

Lower HCT comorbidity index, low/intermediate DRI, and HCT during the recent era (2018–2021) were all associated with improved OS on MVA. Additionally, a low/intermediate DRI was linked to improved DFS and GRFS. Importantly, MVA revealed no significant differences in OS, DFS, and GRFS based on donor type, indicating that outcomes were comparable across MRD/MUD, MMUD, and HID when adjusting for other factors.

CIR and NRM

The 2-year CIR and NRM for all patients were 17.2% (95% CI, 13.0-22.8) and 27.7% (95% CI, 22.5–34.0), respectively. A high or very-high disease risk index (DRI) was significantly associated with a higher CIR (P < 0.001). NRM was notably lower in patients with KPS of ≥ 90% (P = 0.049). There was no significant difference in NRM based on the HCT comorbidity index. On MVA donor type had no impact on CIR or NRM (Fig. 2A-B). Table 1 summarizes the causes of death across the entire cohort and by donor type group. Overall, 62.7% of patients died from NRM, while 37.3% succumbed to disease relapse.

Table 1

Causes of death
Cause of Death	Matched (N = 28)	MMUD (N = 25)	Haplo (N = 57)	Total (N = 110)	p value
CRS	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.8%)	1 (0.9%)	0.93
GVHD	5 (17.9%)	6 (24%)	9 (15.8%)	20 (18.2%)
Infection	6 (21.4%)	8 (32%)	20 (35.1%)	34 (30.9%)
Organ dysfunction	3 (10.7%)	2 (8%)	7 (12.3%)	12 (10.9%)
Relapse	14 (50%)	9 (36%)	18 (31.6%)	41 (37.3%)
Unknown	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.8%)	1 (0.9%)
VOD	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.8%)	1 (0.9%)

Impact of Donor Type and Age on Outcomes

Figure 3A and 3B show improvement in OS and NRM in patients with donors < 35 years of age, regardless of whether a HID and MMUD was utilized. Donor age ≥ 35 years was associated with inferior OS (P = 0.015) and GRFS (P = 0.043) (Supplementary Table 2). While matched donors showed improved OS, DFS, and GRFS on UVA, these differences were not significant on MVA. When comparing baseline characteristics, there were significantly more matched donors in the younger donor cohort (< 35 years) (P = 0.021, Supplementary Table 3).

Moreover, NRM was lower in patients with donors < 35 years on both UVA (P = 0.008) and MVA (P = 0.028) However, there was no significant difference in NRM based on donor type on MVA. Similarly, MVA showed no differences in CIR based on donor type (P = 0.89) or age (P = 0.75). There were also no significant differences in the incidence of grade II-IV and grade III-IV acute GVHD, or in any chronic GVHD and extensive chronic GVHD, based on donor type or donor age.

We report our experience with FM conditioning combined with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis, demonstrating encouraging disease control and survival outcomes, with acceptable GVHD and NRM. The BMT CTN 1703 demonstrated a clear advantage in 1-year GRFS using PTCy for GVHD prophylaxis across various RIC regimens. However, it remains unclear how each conditioning regimen specifically interacts with PTCy, but further analyses are ongoing. To our knowledge, this is the first report exclusively investigating FM with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis using a PBSC graft source.

Previous studies have explored the use of HID and PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis. Earlier studies predominately utilized bone marrow (BM) as the graft source, and validated the use of PTCy with non-myeloablative (NMA) conditioning regimen, achieving acceptable survival rates and incidences of GVHD and graft failure.^7,14 However, relapse rates were high, 51% within the first year, indicating the need for more effective conditioning regimens with haplo-based transplants. Subsequent studies have evaluated PTCy with a PB graft source and myeloablative conditioning (MAC),¹⁵ RIC,⁸ and NMA conditioning regimens.¹⁶ The BMT CTN 1703 trial reported a 1-year CIR of 20.8% with PTCy, higher than what we observed in our study. This may be due to the exclusive use of FM in our study, which provides excellent disease control.³ Eastburg et al. conducted the only retrospective case series of 38 patients that investigated FM, a commonly utilized RIC regimen, with HID and PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis. They reported a high NRM of 34%¹⁷. The relatively high NRM might be due to a significant number of patients with active disease at the time of transplant, as this has been shown to be a predictor of increased NRM with AML.¹⁸ Additionally, TBI was not used in this study, which presumably can help eliminate pre-existing alloreactive T cells involved in rejection and cytokine release syndrome.¹⁹ Solh et al conducted a prospective phase 2 study enrolling 25 patients utilizing a HID with FM-conditioning and a PBSC graft and PTCy, showing similar outcomes to a contemporaneous cohort treated with NMA-based haplo-HCT with PTCy in terms of 2-year OS and DFS.²⁰ Our study includes a larger sample size and multiple donor types, allowing for a better description of differences across HLA disparities. We show that the regimen can be effective irrespective of the degree of HLA-matching after adjusting for donor age. Donor age < 35 appears to be the most significant factor predictive of OS and GRFS by reducing NRM. Additionally, we observed that OS improved over time in the recent era, likely reflecting improved experience and a learning curve with this regimen.

Limitations of our study include its retrospective nature, single-center analysis, and relatively small sample size, particularly for the MMUD cohort. Additionally, certain factors that could impact outcomes, such as the presence of donor-specific antibodies, use of cryopreserved versus fresh cells, and donor availability, were not incorporated into this analysis. Despite these limitations, our results are significant as they show that FM combined with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis and a PBSC graft source can lead to promising disease and GVHD control and survival with acceptable NRM, regardless of donor source. This is particularly significant for patients who are racially and ethnically diverse, with lower probability of finding matched donor in the registry.⁵ Future studies are needed to confirm that these findings can be reproduced in a prospective and multicenter trial properly powered to detect equal outcomes between a MMUD and HID with this regimen, and to study interventions aimed at reducing NRM.

To conclude, FM with PTCy was associated with promising disease control and acceptable NRM. After adjusting for donor age, there was no significant difference in OS and GRFS based on donor type (i.e., HID vs. MMUD vs. MRD/MUD). Donors < 35 years old were the strongest predictor of improved outcomes and appear to be the most important factor to consider when selecting a donor for FM with PTCy and a PBSC source.

ALL: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia

AML: Acute myeloid leukemia

ANC: Absolute neutrophil count

ASTCT: American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy

CIBMTR: Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research

CMV: Cytomegalovirus

CNI: Calcineurin inhibitor

COH: City of Hope

DFS: Disease-free survival

FB: Fludarabine/busulfan

FM: Fludarabine and melphalan

G-CSF: Granulocyte colony stimulating factor

GRFS: Graft-vs-host disease/relapse-free survival

GVHD: Graft-vs-host disease

HCT: Hematopoietic cell transplantation

HID: Haploidentical donor

KPS: Karnofsky performance status

MDS/MPN: Myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasm

MMUD: Mismatched unrelated donor

MRD: Matched related donor

MUD: Matched unrelated donor
MVA: Multivariate analysis

NRM: Non-relapse mortality

OS: Overall survival

PBSC: Peripheral blood stem cell

PCR: polymerase chain reaction

PTCy: Post-transplant cyclophosphamide

RIC: Reduced-intensity conditioning

UVA: Univariate analysis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

None

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

PK - Ascentage: Ad board, Daiichi Sankyo: Consulting/Ad Board; BMS: Consulting/Ad Board; Novartis: Consulting/Ad Board; Speakers Bureaul, Travel; Takeda: Ad Board, Speakers Bureau

KS - Autolous: consultancy

IA - Takeda, Adaptive, Syndax, Wugen: consultancy

AA - KiTE and SeaGen: Consultancy

VP - Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria; Rigel: Consultancy, Honoraria

MMA - Tscan: Consultancy; NexImmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; CareDx: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Tr1X: Consultancy

The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

PBK: Collected and analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript.

TO: Collected and analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript.

DY: Analyzed the data and edited the manuscript.

SM: Edited the manuscript.

YS: Edited the manuscript.

AB: Edited the manuscript.

VA: Edited the manuscript.

HP: Edited the manuscript.

BJB: Edited the manuscript.

IA: Edited the manuscript.

SA: Edited the manuscript.

SO: Edited the manuscript.

KSS: Edited the manuscript.

IA: Edited the manuscript.

HA: Edited the manuscript.

AS: Edited the manuscript.

AA: Edited the manuscript.

PSB: Edited the manuscript.

VP: Edited the manuscript.

FMS: Edited the manuscript.

EPS: Edited the manuscript.

AS: Edited the manuscript.

GM: Edited the manuscript.

SJF: Edited the manuscript.
RN: Edited the manuscript.
MMA: Conceived the study, collected and analyzed the data, wrote the manuscript

Ponce DM, Sauter C, Devlin S, et al. A novel reduced-intensity conditioning regimen induces a high incidence of sustained donor-derived neutrophil and platelet engraftment after double-unit cord blood transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. May 2013;19(5):799-803. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.02.007
Al Malki MM, Nathwani N, Yang D, et al. Melphalan-Based Reduced-Intensity Conditioning is Associated with Favorable Disease Control and Acceptable Toxicities in Patients Older Than 70 with Hematologic Malignancies Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. Sep 2018;24(9):1828-1835. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.04.029
Zhou Z, Nath R, Cerny J, et al. Reduced intensity conditioning for acute myeloid leukemia using melphalan- vs busulfan-based regimens: a CIBMTR report. Blood Adv. Jul 14 2020;4(13):3180-3190. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001266
Al Malki MM, Tsai NC, Palmer J, et al. Posttransplant cyclophosphamide as GVHD prophylaxis for peripheral blood stem cell HLA-mismatched unrelated donor transplant. Blood Adv. Jun 22 2021;5(12):2650-2659. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004192
Shaw BE, Jimenez-Jimenez AM, Burns LJ, et al. National Marrow Donor Program-Sponsored Multicenter, Phase II Trial of HLA-Mismatched Unrelated Donor Bone Marrow Transplantation Using Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol. Jun 20 2021;39(18):1971-1982. doi:10.1200/jco.20.03502
Battipaglia G, Labopin M, Kröger N, et al. Posttransplant cyclophosphamide vs antithymocyte globulin in HLA-mismatched unrelated donor transplantation. Blood. 2019;134(11):892-899. doi:10.1182/blood.2019000487
Luznik L, O'Donnell PV, Symons HJ, et al. HLA-Haploidentical Bone Marrow Transplantation for Hematologic Malignancies Using Nonmyeloablative Conditioning and High-Dose, Posttransplantation Cyclophosphamide. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. 2008/06/01/ 2008;14(6):641-650. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.03.005
Bolaños-Meade J, Hamadani M, Wu J, et al. Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide-Based Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis. N Engl J Med. Jun 22 2023;388(25):2338-2348. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2215943
Gooptu M, Romee R, St Martin A, et al. HLA-haploidentical vs matched unrelated donor transplants with posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based prophylaxis. Blood. Jul 22 2021;138(3):273-282. doi:10.1182/blood.2021011281
Yao JM, Yang D, Clark MC, et al. Tacrolimus initial steady state level in post-transplant cyclophosphamide-based GvHD prophylaxis regimens. Bone Marrow Transplant. Feb 2022;57(2):232-242. doi:10.1038/s41409-021-01528-y
Tomblyn M, Chiller T, Einsele H, et al. Guidelines for preventing infectious complications among hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients: a global perspective. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. Oct 2009;15(10):1143-238. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.06.019
Przepiorka D, Weisdorf D, Martin P, et al. 1994 Consensus Conference on Acute GVHD Grading. Bone Marrow Transplant. Jun 1995;15(6):825-8.
Jagasia MH, Greinix HT, Arora M, et al. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: I. The 2014 Diagnosis and Staging Working Group report. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. Mar 2015;21(3):389-401.e1. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.12.001
O'Donnell PV, Luznik L, Jones RJ, et al. Nonmyeloablative bone marrow transplantation from partially HLA-mismatched related donors using posttransplantation cyclophosphamide. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2002;8(7):377-86. doi:10.1053/bbmt.2002.v8.pm12171484
Solomon SR, Sizemore CA, Sanacore M, et al. Haploidentical transplantation using T cell replete peripheral blood stem cells and myeloablative conditioning in patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies who lack conventional donors is well tolerated and produces excellent relapse-free survival: results of a prospective phase II trial. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. Dec 2012;18(12):1859-66. doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.06.019
Bhamidipati PK, DiPersio JF, Stokerl-Goldstein K, et al. Haploidentical transplantation using G-CSF-mobilized T-cell replete PBSCs and post-transplantation CY after non-myeloablative conditioning is safe and is associated with favorable outcomes. Bone Marrow Transplant. Aug 2014;49(8):1124-6. doi:10.1038/bmt.2014.108
Eastburg L, Russler-Germain DA, DiPersio JF, et al. Increased early mortality after fludarabine and melphalan conditioning with peripheral blood grafts in haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide. Leuk Lymphoma. Jan 2022;63(1):222-226. doi:10.1080/10428194.2021.1978087
Araki D, Wood BL, Othus M, et al. Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Time to Move Toward a Minimal Residual Disease–Based Definition of Complete Remission? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016;34(4):329-336. doi:10.1200/jco.2015.63.3826
Panigrahi S, Morecki S, Yacovlev E, Gelfand Y, Kassir J, Slavin S. A novel approach for prevention of lethal GVHD by selective elimination of alloreactive donor lymphocytes prior to stem cell transplantation. Experimental Hematology. 2004;32(8):756-764. doi:10.1016/j.exphem.2004.04.009
Solh MM, Hinojosa G, Laporte J, et al. A Phase II Trial of Melphalan Based Reduced-Intensity Conditioning for Transplantation of T-Replete HLA-Haploidentical Peripheral Blood Stem Cells with Posttransplant Cyclophosphamide in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies. Adv Hematol. 2021;2021:8868142. doi:10.1155/2021/8868142

Supplemental Table 3 is not included with this version

Yes

FMPTCysupplementaltables9.3.24.docx
Supplemental Table 1
FMPTCysupptable2.docx

Download PDF

Review #1 received at journal
07 Nov, 2024
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
17 Oct, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
16 Oct, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
16 Oct, 2024
First submitted to journal
15 Oct, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
15 Oct, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Melphalan-Based Conditioning with Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation: Donor Effect

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

INTRODUCTION

METHODS

Study design, participants, and procedures

Study outcomes and statistical analyses

RESULTS

Patient, Disease, and Transplant Characteristics

Engraftment and GVHD

OS, DFS, and GRFS

CIR and NRM

Impact of Donor Type and Age on Outcomes

DISCUSSION

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Supplementary Table 3

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1