Abstract
Background
The combination of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) such as tacrolimus (TAC) or cyclosporine (CYSP) with methotrexate (MTX) or with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been commonly used for Graft-versus-Host Disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic transplantation (alloHCT), but there are limited data comparing efficacy of the two regimens.
Methods
We evaluated 1564 adult patients who underwent RIC alloHCT for acute myeloid and lymphoid leukemia (AML/ALL), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) from 2000 to 2013 using HLA-identical sibling (MRD) or unrelated donor (URD) peripheral blood graft and received CYSP or TAC with MTX or MMF for GVHD prophylaxis. Primary outcomes of the study were acute and chronic GVHD and overall survival (OS). The study divided the patient population into four cohorts based on regimen: MMF-TAC, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MTX-CYSP.
Results
In URD group, MMF-CYSP was associated with increased risk of grade II-IV acute GVHD (relative risk {RR} 1.78, P<0.001) and grade III-IV acute GVHD (RR 1.93, P=0.006) compared to MTX-TAC. In the URD group, use of MMF-TAC (versus MTX-TAC) lead to higher NRM. (HR 1.48, p=0.008). In either group, no there was no difference in chronic GVHD, disease-free survival (DFS) and OS between the GVHD prophylaxis regimens.
Conclusion
For RIC alloHCT using MRD, there are no differences in outcomes based on GVHD prophylaxis. However, with URD RIC alloHCT, MMF-CYSP was inferior to MTX-based regimens for acute GVHD prevention, but all the regimens were equivalent in terms of chronic GVHD and OS. Prospective studies, targeting URD recipients are needed to confirm these results.
Keywords: calcineurin inhibitor, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, Graft-versus-Host Disease prophylaxis, reduced intensity conditioning, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation
INTRODUCTION
Although the development of reduced intensity/non-myeloablative conditioning (RIC) has allowed patients who are ineligible for myeloablative conditioning (MAC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) to have access to this potentially curative therapy, non-relapse mortality (NRM) remains a significant obstacle to its success1. The tight association between graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and NRM has led to attempts to devise GVHD prevention strategies to decrease its incidence and severity2. For the past three decades, the regimen pioneered by the Seattle group combining a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) with methotrexate (MTX) has been the most widely adopted for GVHD prevention3. Cyclosporine (CYSP) in combination with a short course of MTX has been widely used since the late 1980s4,5. In more recent years, tacrolimus (TAC) has emerged as an alternative to CYSP for GVHD prophylaxis6. CYSP and TAC share a final common pathway of inhibition of interleukin (IL)-2-mediated T cell expansion and cytotoxicity7. Randomized trials have shown that post-transplantation TAC-MTX is associated with decreased acute GVHD (aGVHD) compared with CYSP-MTX in patients with a matched sibling donor (MRD)8 or matched unrelated donor (URD) in the myeloablative setting9. There are, however, several caveats with the use of MTX, mainly delayed hematopoietic engraftment, increased oral mucositis and gastrointestinal toxicity as well as pulmonary and renal toxicity2,10-12. In patients undergoing RIC alloHCT, reducing procedure-related toxicities may be of critical importance, as these patients usually have greater comorbidities1. Therefore, in order to reduce MTX-associated toxicities, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been investigated as a replacement for MTX in RIC regimens in recent years 13
Currently, at most transplant centers, GVHD prophylaxis is largely based on CNI (CYSP or TAC) in combination with short-course MTX or MMF14,15. There is, however, significant variability among centers in GVHD prophylaxis regimens used. In RIC alloHCT, MMF is widely used instead of MTX in combination with a calcineurin inhibitor for GVHD prophylaxis15, given the advantages of earlier engraftment and less mucositis. A recent Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) analysis16 demonstrated significantly worse overall survival (OS), NRM, and aGVHD and chronic GVHD (cGVHD) with MMF compared to MTX after RIC alloHCT from unrelated donors (URD). With the four regimens of MTX-CYSP, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC being used frequently as the current standard to prevent GVHD after RIC alloHCT, an important and unanswered question is whether one of them is superior to others in preventing GVHD. We aimed to describe and evaluate the comparative efficacy of the four commonly used regimens in a large cohort of patients using the CIBMTR database.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Data Sources
The CIBMTR is a combined research program of the Medical College of Wisconsin and the National Marrow Donor Program, which consists of a voluntary network of more than 450 transplantation centers worldwide that contribute detailed data on consecutive allogeneic and autologous transplantations to a centralized statistical center. Observational studies conducted by the CIBMTR are performed in compliance with all applicable federal regulations pertaining to the protection of human research participants. Protected health information issued in the performance of such research is collected and maintained in the CIBMTR’s capacity as a Public Health Authority under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule.
Patients
The study population included adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who underwent a first RIC alloHCT between 2000 and 2013 from an HLA-identical sibling or an 8/8- or 7/8-matched unrelated donor (HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1)17 and received a combination of CNI (CYSP or TAC) and either MTX or MMF for prophylaxis against GVHD. Haploidentical related donor and cord blood transplants were excluded. All patients received a peripheral blood graft. Patients receiving ex vivo T cell depletion and bone marrow grafts were excluded given their small numbers.
Study Endpoints
The primary objective of the study was to evaluate and compare the risks of aGVHD, cGVHD and overall mortality with each of the four GVHD prophylaxis regimens in RIC alloHCT patients receiving PB graft. The primary endpoints of the study, therefore, were grade II-IV and III-IV aGVHD, cGVHD and OS. OS was defined as the time from alloHCT to death from any cause or until last follow up. Death from any cause was considered an event. Surviving patients were censored at last follow-up. Secondary endpoints included absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery, platelet recovery, DFS, relapse and NRM. Patients were censored at subsequent transplant or date of last follow up. DFS was defined as time from alloHCT to either relapse/progression or death from any cause. Patients alive were censored at the time of relapse/progression or last follow-up, whichever came first. NRM was defined as death from any cause in continuous remission and was summarized by cumulative incidence estimate with relapse as competing risk. Relapse was defined as molecular, cytogenetic, or morphologic evidence of disease recurrence. Relapse was summarized by cumulative incidence estimate with NRM as the competing risk. For relapse and NRM, patients in continuous complete remission were censored at last follow-up. Acute GVHD and cGVHD were defined by the standard criteria18,19. For GVHD, death without the event was considered a competing risk. All patients received reduced intensity/non-myeloablative conditioning (RIC) which was defined as total-body irradiation (TBI) ≤5 Grays (single dose) or ≤8 Grays (fractionated), or busulfan ≤8 mg/kg (orally) or ≤6.4 mg/kg (intravenously) or melphalan less than 150 mg/m220.
Statistical Analysis
This is a retrospective cohort study describing and comparing outcomes after RIC alloHCT using MTX+CNI (TAC vs. CYSP) versus MMF+CNI (TAC vs. CYSP) as GVHD prophylaxis. To understand the impact of prophylaxis regimen on outcomes after alloHCT, the patient population was divided into four cohorts depending on CNI used and whether it was combined with MMF or MTX: MMF-TAC, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MTX-CYSP. Furthermore, two separate analyses were performed: one for the group with MRD and the other for the URD group.
The outcomes studied were acute (grade II-IV, grade III-IV) and chronic GVHD, OS, DFS, relapse, and NRM. Categorical variables were summarized as frequency counts and percentages and compared between GVHD prophylaxis cohorts using the Chi-Square test. Continuous variables were summarized as the median and range and compared using the Mann-Whitney test. Probabilities of OS and DFS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimator and compared between the cohorts using the log-rank test. Probabilities of NRM, relapse and cGVHD were calculated by cumulative incidence function accounting for competing risks. Comparisons of cumulative incidence across time cohorts were performed via Gray’s test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models for all the endpoints (aGVHD, cGVHD, OS, DFS, relapse, NRM, graft failure) were used to compare the treatment groups. The assumption of proportional hazards for each factor in the Cox model was tested using time-dependent covariates. There is no variable violating the proportional hazard assumption in this study. Stepwise selection was used to identify significant covariates that influenced outcomes to be included in the final model to get the adjusted treatment effects, the variables we considered in the variable selection included the patient-related [(age, sex, Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), race, Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI)], disease-related (disease, disease status at alloHCT), donor-related [donor age (URD only), donor/recipient sex match and cytomegalovirus (CMV) match] and transplantation-related [year of transplant, in vivo T cell depletion using anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and use of TBI in the conditioning] variables. Statistical significance of the main effects was tested with level 0.01 accounting for multiple comparisons across the endpoints. Potential interactions between the main effect (GVHD prophylaxis) and significant adjusting were tested and there are no significant interactions at level of 0.01. Adjusted survival curves and cumulative incidence curves were generated stratified on the treatment groups and weighted averages of covariate values using the pooled sample proportion as the weight function. These adjusted curves represent likelihood of outcomes in populations with similar prognostic factors. The following power analyses were conducted for the main outcome grade II-IV aGVHD, given the current patient and event number in each GVHD prophylaxis cohort of the two groups. For the MRD group, to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.5 in one of the 6 pair-wise comparisons among treatments with significance level 0.05, the power ranges from 27% to 53% with Bonferroni adjustment used to adjust the multiple comparison problem. On the other hand, for the URD group, to detect a hazard ratio of 1.5 in one of the 6 pair-wise comparisons among treatments with significance level 0.05, the power ranges from 51% to 90%.
RESULTS
Patient, Disease, and Transplantation Characteristics
In the MRD group (n=690), patient, disease, and transplantation characteristics showed important differences (Table 1A). The median age at alloHCT was as low as 53 years in MTX-CYSP and as high as 61 years in MMF-TAC cohort (P<0.001). A significantly lower proportion of MTX-CYSP cohort patients had KPS of <90% (19%), whereas TAC-based cohorts had higher proportions of patients with KPS <90% (45-52%) (P<0.001). Of the four diseases included in the study, AML was the most common alloHCT indication (48-69%) in the MRD cohorts, followed by MDS (24-45%) (P<0.001). Donor/recipient CMV serostatus proportions were heterogeneous; for example, 11% of MTX-CYSP patients were donor/recipient seronegative, compared to 19-25% in the other 3 cohorts (P<0.001). The combination of ATG with alkylator (busulfan [Bu], melphalan [Mel]), nucleoside analog (fludarabine; Flu), and/or TBI-based conditioning regimen was used in approximately a quarter of all four cohorts of MRD group. While in the 2000-2004 period, 43% of MTX-CYSP and 50% of MMF-CYSP patients received alloHCT, in the most recent 2009-2013 period, 17% and 29% of the respective CYSP cohorts had alloHCT. In contrast, 13% of MTX-TAC and 19% of MMF-TAC received alloHCT in 2000-2004, and in the 2009-2013 period, 57% and 56% patients in the respective TAC cohorts underwent alloHCT (P<0.001). The median follow-up of survivors ranged from 48 to 59 months in the MRD cohorts.
Table 1A.
Characteristics of adult patients receiving their first reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic transplant for AML, ALL, CML, MDS with a peripheral blood stem cell graft from a matched related donor and treated with TAC/CYSP + MTX/MMF ± ATG from 2000-2013.
| MTX-CYSP (%) |
MMF-CYSP (%) |
MTX-TAC (%) |
MMF-TAC (%) |
P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 220 | 110 | 296 | 64 | |
| Number of centers | 49 | 30 | 58 | 23 | |
| Patient-related | |||||
| Age at transplant, years, median (range) | 53 (20-71) | 58 (20-76) | 60 (19-77) | 61 (19-73) | <0.001 |
| Age at transplant, years | <0.001 | ||||
| 18-29 | 10 (5) | 3 (3) | 5 (2) | 4 (6) | |
| 30-39 | 34 (15) | 4 (4) | 14 (5) | 3 (5) | |
| 40-49 | 42 (19) | 13 (12) | 26 (9) | 3 (5) | |
| 50-64 | 108 (49) | 59 (54) | 184 (62) | 37 (58) | |
| 65+ | 26 (12) | 31 (28) | 67 (23) | 17 (27) | |
| Race | <0.001 | ||||
| Caucasian | 120 (54) | 94 (85) | 264 (89) | 57 (89) | |
| Non-Caucasian | 72 (33) | 9 (8) | 26 (9) | 7 (11) | |
| Sorror comorbidity index | <0.001 | ||||
| Prior to 2007 | 170 (77) | 68 (61) | 93 (31) | 21 (33) | |
| 0-1 | 25 (11) | 17 (15) | 87 (29) | 10 (16) | |
| 2+ | 20 (9) | 24 (22) | 113 (38) | 33 (52) | |
| KPS | <0.001 | ||||
| <90 | 43 (19) | 40 (36) | 154 (52) | 29 (45) | |
| ≧90 | 171 (78) | 69 (63) | 138 (47) | 35 (55) | |
| Disease-related | |||||
| Disease | <0.001 | ||||
| AML | 111 (50) | 55 (50) | 203 (69) | 31 (48) | |
| ALL | 15 (6) | 10 (9) | 8 (3) | 3 (5) | |
| CML | 43 (20) | 8 (7) | 11 (4) | 1 (2) | |
| MDS | 52 (24) | 37 (34) | 74 (25) | 29 (45) | |
| Disease status at transplant *** | <0.001 | ||||
| Early | 109 (50) | 62 (56) | 189 (64) | 37 (58) | |
| Intermediate | 64 (29) | 14 (13) | 40 (14) | 8 (13) | |
| Advanced | 44 (20) | 29 (26) | 57 (19) | 17 (27) | |
| Donor-related | |||||
| Donor-recipient gender match | 0.11 | ||||
| M/M | 70 (32) | 35 (32) | 92 (31) | 28 (44) | |
| M/F | 64 (29) | 25 (22) | 59 (20) | 10 (16) | |
| F/M | 42 (19) | 28 (25) | 85 (29) | 15 (23) | |
| F/F | 44 (20) | 23 (21) | 60 (20) | 11 (17) | |
| Donor-recipient CMV status | <0.001 | ||||
| +/+ | 138 (63) | 42 (38) | 124 (42) | 30 (47) | |
| +/− | 25 (11) | 13 (12) | 30 (10) | 5 (8) | |
| −/+ | 27 (12) | 27 (25) | 78 (26) | 15 (23) | |
| −/− | 24 (11) | 28 (25) | 56 (19) | 14 (22) | |
| Transplant-related | |||||
| Conditioning regimen & ATG | <0.001 | ||||
| Bu + Flu ± others | 69 (31) | 18 (16) | 149 (50) | 18 (28) | |
| Flu + Mel ± others | 72 (33) | 36 (33) | 69 (23) | 18 (28) | |
| TBI ± Cy ± Flu ± others | 26 (12) | 30 (27) | 17 (6) | 12 (19) | |
| ATG ± Bu ± Flu ± others | 50 (23) | 11 (10) | 60 (20) | 15 (23) | |
| ATG ± TBI ± others | 3 (1) | 15 (14) | 1 (<1) | 1 (2) | |
| Year of transplant | <0.001 | ||||
| 2000-2004 | 110 (50) | 47 (43) | 39 (13) | 12 (19) | |
| 2005-2008 | 73 (33) | 31 (28) | 88 (30) | 16 (25) | |
| 2009-2013 | 37 (17) | 32 (29) | 169 (57) | 36 (56) | |
| Follow-up of survivors, months, median (range) | 54 (2-138) | 59 (3-166) | 56 (3-154) | 48 (23-124) | |
Abbreviations: AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; TAC, tacrolimus; CYSP, cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; ATG, anti-thymocyte globulin; KPS, Karnofsky Performance Score; M, male; F, female; CMV, cytomegalovirus; Bu, busulfan; Flu, fludarabine; Mel, melphalan; Cy, cyclophosphamide; TBI, total body irradiation
In the URD group (n=874), pre-transplant variables were similar among the four cohorts, with some exceptions (Table 1B). AML (54-60%) and MDS (26-35%) were the two most common indications for alloHCT in the URD group (P=0.003). In the URD group, 70-85% patients in the four cohorts were fully-matched (8/8-) and 15-30% were matched at 7/8 loci with their donors (P=0.001). ATG was used in 41% of each of the two MMF cohorts, but at a higher frequency in the MTX cohorts (62% of MTX-CYSP and 54% of MTX-TAC cohorts) of the URD group (P<0.001). The median follow-up of survivors ranged from 49 to 61 months in the URD cohorts. In the earliest period of 2000-2004, 17% and 18% of MTX-CYSP and MMF-CYSP cohorts and 4% and 11% of MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC cohorts, respectively, received alloHCT (P<0.001). The proportions of alloHCT recipients in the most recent 2009-2014 were 28% and 38% in the CYSP cohorts and 58% and 43% in the TAC cohorts, respectively.
Table 1B.
Characteristics of adult patients receiving their first reduced intensity transplant from an unrelated donor for AML, ALL, CML, MDS from an unrelated donor with a peripheral blood stem cell graft and treated with CNI (CYSP/TAC) + MTX/MMF + ATG from 2000-2013.
| MTX-CYSP (%) |
MMF-CYSP (%) |
MTX-TAC (%) |
MMF-TAC (%) |
P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 71 | 153 | 432 | 218 | |
| Number of centers | 26 | 35 | 68 | 39 | |
| Patient-related | |||||
| Age at transplant, years | |||||
| Median (range) | 59 (23-74) | 62 (21-76) | 61 (18-76) | 60 (20-79) | 0.08 |
| Age at transplant, years | 0.16 | ||||
| 18-29 | 3 (4) | 9 (6) | 18 (4) | 8 (3) | |
| 30-39 | 4 (6) | 7 (5) | 23 (5) | 20 (9) | |
| 40-49 | 9 (13) | 12 (8) | 36 (8) | 23 (11) | |
| 50-64 | 40 (56) | 67 (44) | 226 (52) | 113 (52) | |
| 65+ | 15 (21) | 58 (38) | 131 (30) | 54 (25) | |
| Race | < 0.001 | ||||
| Caucasian | 60 (85) | 138 (90) | 410 (95) | 204 (93) | |
| Non-Caucasian | 6 (8) | 10 (7) | 21 (5) | 12 (6) | |
| Missing | 5 (7) | 5 (3) | 1 (<1) | 2 (<1) | |
| Sorror co-morbidity index | < 0.001 | ||||
| Prior to 2007 | 46 (65) | 75 (49) | 129 (30) | 98 (45) | |
| 0-1 | 14 (20) | 29 (19) | 108 (25) | 40 (18) | |
| 2+ | 10 (14) | 42 (27) | 188 (43) | 75 (34) | |
| Missing | 1 (1) | 7 (5) | 7 (2) | 5 (2) | |
| Karnofsky performance score at transplant | 0.07 | ||||
| <90 | 20 (28) | 56 (37) | 196 (45) | 100 (46) | |
| ≧90 | 47 (66) | 93 (61) | 223 (52) | 112 (51) | |
| Missing | 5 (6) | 4 (3) | 13 (3) | 6 (3) | |
| Disease-related | |||||
| Disease | 0.003 | ||||
| AML | 39 (55) | 92 (60) | 248 (57) | 120 (55) | |
| ALL | 3 (4) | 12 (8) | 9 (2) | 15 (7) | |
| CML | 9 (13) | 9 (6) | 23 (6) | 7 (3) | |
| MDS | 20 (28) | 40 (26) | 152 (35) | 76 (35) | |
| Disease status at transplant **** | 0.39 | ||||
| Early | 40 (56) | 95 (62) | 255 (59) | 125 (57) | |
| Intermediate | 9 (13) | 16 (10) | 71 (16) | 33 (14) | |
| Advanced | 19 (26) | 40 (26) | 97 (22) | 52 (24) | |
| Missing | 3 (4) | 2 (1) | 9 (2) | 10 (5) | |
| Donor-related | |||||
| Donor type | 0.001 | ||||
| Unrelated, 8/8-matched | 50 (70) | 120 (78) | 369 (85) | 163 (75) | |
| Unrelated, 7/8-matched | 21 (30) | 33 (22) | 63 (15) | 55 (25) | |
| Unrelated donor age at transplant, years | |||||
| Median (range) | 33 (20-60) | 32 (20-56) | 31 (18-61) | 33 (18-60) | 0.25 |
| Unrelated donor age at transplant, years | 0.27 | ||||
| 18-29 | 34 (49) | 75 (49) | 235 (54) | 106 (49) | |
| 30-49 | 25 (35) | 66 (43) | 152 (35) | 94 (43) | |
| 50-60 | 6 (8) | 8 (5) | 27 (6) | 9 (4) | |
| Missing | 6 (8) | 4 (3) | 18 (4) | 9 (4) | |
| Donor-recipient gender match | 0.06 | ||||
| M/M | 25 (35) | 56 (37) | 201 (47) | 83 (38) | |
| M/F | 25 (35) | 39 (25) | 121 (28) | 58 (27) | |
| F/M | 9 (13) | 32 (21) | 54 (13) | 35 (16) | |
| F/F | 12 (17) | 26 (17) | 56 (13) | 42 (19) | |
| Donor-recipient CMV status | 0.82 | ||||
| +/+ | 12 (17) | 42 (27) | 102 (24) | 50 (23) | |
| +/− | 6 (8) | 16 (10) | 43 (10) | 16 (7) | |
| −/+ | 30 (42) | 52 (34) | 175 (41) | 89 (41) | |
| −/− | 22 (31) | 38 (25) | 101 (23) | 57 (26) | |
| Missing | 1 (1) | 5 (3) | 12 (3) | 6 (3) | |
| Transplant-related | |||||
| Conditioning regimen &ATG | < 0.001 | ||||
| Bu + Flu ± others | 11 (15) | 13 (9) | 121 (28) | 30 (14) | |
| Flu + Mel ± others | 13 (18) | 20 (13) | 67 (16) | 48 (22) | |
| TBI ± Cy ± Flu ± others | 3 (4) | 57 (37) | 9 (2) | 49 (22) | |
| ATG ± Bu ± Flu ± others | 41 (58) | 52 (34) | 235 (54) | 88 (40) | |
| ATG ± TBI ± others | 3 (4) | 11 (7) | 0 (0) | 3 (1) | |
| Year of transplant | < 0.001 | ||||
| 2000-2004 | 12 (17) | 28 (18) | 17 (4) | 24 (11) | |
| 2005-2008 | 39 (55) | 67 (44) | 164 (38) | 100 (46) | |
| 2009-2013 | 20 (28) | 58 (38) | 251 (58) | 94 (43) | |
| Follow-up of survivors, months, median (range) | 60 (4-120) | 71 (16-191) | 48 (5-126) | 61 (12-146) | |
Abbreviations: AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; TAC, tacrolimus; CYSP, cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; ATG, anti-thymocyte globulin; KPS, Karnofsky Performance Score; M, male; F, female; CMV, cytomegalovirus; Bu, busulfan; Flu, fludarabine; Mel, melphalan; Cy, cyclophosphamide; TBI, total body irradiation
Acute GVHD
Univariate analysis demonstrated that in the MRD group, the cumulative incidences of grade II-IV aGVHD at day 100 post-transplant were 27% (95% CI 21-33%) in the MTX-CYSP cohort and 39% (95% CI 30-48%) in the MMF-CYSP cohort (Table 2A). In the MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC cohorts of the MRD group, however, the incidences were 21% (95% CI 17-26%) and 29% (95% CI 18-40%), respectively. Univariate analysis also showed that the cumulative incidences of grade III-IV aGVHD at day 100 were 8% (95% CI 5-12%), 18% (95% CI 12-26%), 8% (95% CI 5-11%) and 14% (95% CI 7-24%) in the MTX-CYSP, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC cohorts of MRD group, respectively (Table 2A). Multivariate analysis did not show any significant difference in the cumulative incidences of grade II-IV and grade III-IV aGVHD between the four cohorts in the MRD group (Table 3A, Figure 1A).
Table 2A.
Univariate analyses, matched related donors
| MTX-CYSP (N=220) |
MMF-CYSP (N=110) |
MTX-TAC (N=296) |
MMF-TAC (N=64) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | Prob, % (95% CI) | Prob, % (95% CI) | Prob, % (95% CI) | Prob, % (95% CI) | P-value |
| aGVHD II-IV | |||||
| 1 months | 14 (9-19) | 20 (13-28) | 7 (4-10) | 21 (12-32) | <0.001 |
| 2 months | 21 (15-26) | 33 (25-42) | 15 (11-20) | 24 (14-35) | 0.003 |
| 100-day | 27 (21-33) | 39 (30-48) | 21 (17-26) | 29 (18-40) | 0.01 |
| aGVHD III-IV | |||||
| 1 months | 2 (1-5) | 11 (6-18) | 2 (1-4) | 14 (7-24) | 0.02 |
| 2 months | 6 (3-9) | 16 (9-23) | 6 (4-9) | 14 (7-24) | 0.03 |
| 100-day | 8 (5-12) | 18 (12-26) | 8 (5-11) | 14 (7-24) | 0.04 |
| cGVHD | |||||
| 100-day | 6 (3-10) | 3 (1-7) | 2 (1-4) | 3 (0-9) | 0.24 |
| 6 months | 30 (24-37) | 26 (18-35) | 18 (13-22) | 18 (9-28) | 0.01 |
| 1-year | 49 (42-56) | 39 (29-49) | 34 (29-40) | 34 (23-46) | 0.01 |
| Overall Survival | |||||
| 100-day | 91 (87-94) | 87 (80-93) | 93 (90-96) | 83 (73-91) | 0.08 |
| 6 months | 80 (75-85) | 75 (67-83) | 78 (73-83) | 69 (57-79) | 0.31 |
| 1-year | 67 (61-74) | 57 (48-66) | 60 (54-66) | 55 (42-67) | 0.13 |
| 2-year | 59 (52-66) | 46 (37-56) | 48 (42-54) | 47 (35-59) | 0.05 |
| DFS | |||||
| 100-day | 82 (76-87) | 76 (67-83) | 76 (71-81) | 71 (60-82) | 0.22 |
| 6 months | 68 (61-74) | 61 (51-70) | 61 (55-66) | 54 (42-66) | 0.17 |
| 1-year | 57 (50-64) | 46 (37-56) | 50 (45-56) | 48 (35-60) | 0.22 |
| 2-year | 50 (43-57) | 41 (32-50) | 41 (36-47) | 44 (32-57) | 0.21 |
| Relapse | |||||
| 100-day | 10 (6-14) | 17 (10-24) | 21 (16-25) | 14 (7-24) | 0.005 |
| 6 months | 18 (13-23) | 26 (18-35) | 32 (27-38) | 32 (21-44) | <0.001 |
| 1-year | 24 (19-30) | 34 (25-43) | 37 (31-43) | 33 (22-46) | 0.007 |
| 2-year | 28 (22-35) | 36 (27-46) | 43 (37-48) | 33 (22-46) | 0.01 |
| NRM | |||||
| 100-day | 9 (5-13) | 7 (3-13) | 3 (2-6) | 14 (7-24) | 0.04 |
| 6 months | 15 (10-20) | 13 (7-20) | 7 (4-10) | 14 (7-24) | 0.02 |
| 1-year | 19 (14-24) | 20 (13-28) | 13 (9-17) | 19 (10-30) | 0.15 |
| 2-year | 21 (16-27) | 23 (15-32) | 16 (12-21) | 22 (13-33) | 0.29 |
| GRFS | |||||
| 100-day | 71 (64-77) | 61 (52-70) | 69 (63-74) | 64 (52-75) | 0.36 |
| 6 months | 39 (32-46) | 35 (26-44) | 42 (37-48) | 39 (27-51) | 0.53 |
| 1-year | 16 (11-22) | 16 (9-24) | 22 (18-27) | 23 (13-34) | 0.23 |
| 2-year | 13 (9-18) | 13 (7-20) | 15 (11-19) | 13 (6-22) | 0.94 |
| CRFS | |||||
| 100-day | 79 (73-84) | 75 (67-83) | 74 (69-79) | 70 (59-81) | 0.49 |
| 6 months | 56 (49-62) | 49 (39-58) | 53 (47-58) | 50 (37-62) | 0.67 |
| 1-year | 40 (33-47) | 30 (22-40) | 39 (34-45) | 40 (28-52) | 0.35 |
| 2-year | 35 (29-42) | 27 (19-36) | 31 (25-36) | 34 (23-46) | 0.52 |
| Neutrophil recovery | |||||
| 14 days | 36 (30-43) | 38 (29-47) | 35 (30-41) | 57 (45-69) | 0.02 |
| 28 days | 93 (89-96) | 91 (84-96) | 96 (94-98) | 98 (92-100) | 0.07 |
| Platelet recovery | |||||
| 14 days | 14 (9-19) | 29 (20-39) | 20 (15-25) | 22 (13-34) | 0.02 |
| 28 days | 78 (71-83) | 84 (75-91) | 82 (77-87) | 93 (85-98) | 0.01 |
Abbreviations: TAC, tacrolimus; CYSP, cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; Prob, probability; N, number; CI, confidence interval; aGVHD, acute graft-versus-host disease; cGVHD, chronic graft-versus-host disease; NRM, non-relapse mortality; DFS, disease-free survival; GRFS, GVHD- and relapse-free survival; CRFS, chronic GVHD- and relapse-free survival.
Table 3A.
Multivariate analyses in related donor RIC alloHCT
| N (%) | Est (95% CI) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade II-IV Acute GVHD | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.14 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 290 (43%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 109 (16%) | 1.6 (1.1, 2.4) | 0.02 |
| MTX-CYSP | 213 (32%) | 1.3 (0.9, 1.8) | 0.17 |
| MMF-TAC | 63 (9%) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.0) | 0.44 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | <0.001 | ||
| BU+FLU+/−others (reference) | 248 (37%) | 1.00 | |
| ATG+/−BU+/−FLU+/−others | 134 (20%) | 0.9 (0.4, 1.1) | 0.10 |
| FLU+LPAM+/−others | 193 (29%) | 1.7 (1.2, 2.4) | 0.001 |
| TBI+/−CY+/−FLU+/−others | 100 (15%) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.9) | 0.31 |
| Karnofsky performance score | 0.04 | ||
| <90 (reference) | 258 (38%) | 1.0 | |
| 90-100 | 404 (60%) | 0.7 (0.5, 0.9) | 0.01 |
| Missing | 13 (2%) | 0.8 (0.2, 2.5) | 0.69 |
| Grade III-IV aGVHD | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.26 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 291 (43%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 109 (16%) | 1.6 (0.9, 2.8) | 0.15 |
| MTX-CYSP | 213 (31%) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | 0.76 |
| MMF-TAC | 63 (9%) | 1.5 (0.8, 3.1) | 0.23 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | 0.03 | ||
| Bu+Flu+/−others (reference) | 248 (37%) | 1.0 | |
| ATG+/−Bu+/−Flu+/−others | 134 (20%) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.3) | 0.25 |
| Flu+Mel+/−others | 193 (29%) | 1.7 (1.0, 2.8) | 0.04 |
| TBI+/−Cy+/−Flu+/−others | 101 (15%) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.4) | 0.53 |
| Chronic GVHD | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.42 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 287 (43%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 103 (15%) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 0.58 |
| MTX-CYSP | 210 (32%) | 1.3 (0.9, 1.8) | 0.13 |
| MMF-TAC | 63 (9%) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) | 0.25 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | 0.006 | ||
| Bu+Flu+/−others (reference) | 246 (37%) | 1.0 | |
| ATG+/−Bu+/−Flu+/−others | 134 (20%) | 0.5 (0.4, 0.8) | 0.001 |
| Flu+Mel+/−others | 186 (28%) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) | 0.95 |
| TBI+/−Cy+/−Flu+/−others | 97 (15%) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 0.66 |
| Disease status | 0.04 | ||
| Early (reference) | 385 (58%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 142 (21%) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.4) | 0.74 |
| Intermediate | 117 (18%) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.6) | 0.37 |
| Missing | 19 (3%) | 2.5 (1.3, 4.7) | 0.005 |
| Donor-recipient CMV match | 0.02 | ||
| −/− (reference) | 113 (17%) | 1.0 | |
| +/+ | 321 (48%) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.5) | 0.74 |
| +/− | 71 (11%) | 0.6 (0.4, 1.0) | 0.05 |
| −/+ | 144 (22%) | 0.7 (0.5, 1.1) | 0.11 |
| Missing | 14 (2%) | 1.8 (0.7, 4.5) | 0.22 |
| Donor-recipient sex match | 0.01 | ||
| M-M (reference) | 219 (33%) | 1.0 | |
| F-F | 131 (20%) | 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) | 0.06 |
| F-M | 161 (24%) | 1.7 (1.2, 2.4) | 0.002 |
| M-F | 152 (23%) | 1.5 (1.1, 2.0) | 0.02 |
| Race | 0.005 | ||
| Caucasian (reference) | 512 (77%) | 1.0 | |
| Missing | 43 (6%) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | 0.78 |
| Non-Caucasian | 108 (16%) | 1.7 (1.2, 2.4) | 0.001 |
| OS | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.69 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 296 (43%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 110 (16%) | 1.2 (0.9, 1.5) | 0.26 |
| MTX-CYSP | 220 (32%) | 1.0 (0.8, 1.3) | 0.77 |
| MMF-TAC | 64 (9%) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.6) | 0.52 |
| Age at transplant, years | 0.002 | ||
| 18-29 (reference) | 22 (3%) | 1.0 | |
| 30-39 | 55 (8%) | 1.6 (0.6, 4.0) | 0.35 |
| 40-49 | 84 (12%) | 1.9 (0.8, 4.7) | 0.13 |
| 50-64 | 388 (56%) | 2.8 (1.2, 6.4) | 0.01 |
| 65+ | 141 (20%) | 3.3 (1.4, 7.7) | 0.006 |
| Disease | 0.008 | ||
| AML (reference) | 400 (58%) | 1.0 | |
| ALL | 35 (5%) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) | 0.28 |
| CML | 63 (9%) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.0) | 0.05 |
| MDS | 192 (28%) | 0.7 (0.6, 0.9) | 0.02 |
| Disease status | 0.01 | ||
| Early (reference) | 397 (57%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 147 (21%) | 1.4 (1.1, 1.8) | 0.004 |
| Intermediate | 126 (18%) | 0.89 (0.6, 1.2) | 0.50 |
| Missing | 20 (3%) | 1.51 (0.8, 2.7) | 0.16 |
| Karnofsky performance score | 0.006 | ||
| <90 (reference) | 264 (38%) | 1.0 | |
| 90-100 | 413 (60%) | 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) | 0.002 |
| Missing | 13 (2%) | 1.1 (0.6, 2.2) | 0.78 |
| DFS | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.22 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 287 (43%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 108 (16%) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.5) | 0.29 |
| MTX-CYSP | 212 (32%) | 0.8 (0.7, 1.1) | 0.19 |
| MMF-TAC | 63 (9%) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) | 0.71 |
| Disease status | 0.003 | ||
| Early (reference) | 390 (58%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 146 (22%) | 1.4 (1.1, 1.8) | 0.002 |
| Intermediate | 116 (17%) | 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) | 0.55 |
| Missing | 18 (3%) | 1.6 (0.9, 2.7) | 0.08 |
| Donor-recipient CMV match | 0.006 | ||
| −/− (reference) | 118 (18%) | 1.0 | |
| +/+ | 325 (48%) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.5) | 0.38 |
| +/− | 69 (10%) | 1.3 (0.9, 1.8) | 0.20 |
| −/+ | 144 (21%) | 1.2 (0.9, 1.7) | 0.20 |
| Missing | 14 (2%) | 3.1 (1.7, 5.6) | <0.001 |
| Karnofsky performance score | 0.01 | ||
| <90 (reference) | 259 (39%) | 1.0 | |
| 90-100 | 399 (60%) | 0.7 (0.6, 0.9) | 0.004 |
| Missing | 12 (2%) | 1.0 (0.5, 2.1) | 0.97 |
| NRM | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.54 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 287 (43%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 108 (16%) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) | 0.23 |
| MTX-CYSP | 212 (32%) | 1.3 (0.9, 2.0) | 0.19 |
| MMF-TAC | 63 (9%) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.1) | 0.51 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | 0.02 | ||
| Bu+Flu+/−others (reference) | 246 (37%) | 1.0 | |
| ATG+/−Bu+/−Flu+/−others | 131 (20%) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.0) | 0.47 |
| Flu+Mel+/−others | 188 (28%) | 1.9 (1.3, 2.8) | 0.002 |
| TBI+/−Cy+/−Flu+/−others | 105 (16%) | 1.5 (0.9, 2.6) | 0.10 |
| Disease status | 0.03 | ||
| Early (reference) | 390 (58%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 146 (22%) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.7) | 0.32 |
| Intermediate | 116 (17%) | 0.6 (0.4, 1.0) | 0.07 |
| Missing | 18 (3%) | 2.2 (1.0, 4.7) | 0.04 |
| Donor-recipient sex match | 0.002 | ||
| M-M (reference) | 219 (33%) | 1.0 | |
| F-F | 135 (20%) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.5) | 0.77 |
| F-M | 164 (24%) | 1.8 (1.2, 2.7) | 0.003 |
| M-F | 152 (23%) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.6) | 0.98 |
| Sorror co-morbidity index | 0.03 | ||
| 0-1 (reference) | 134 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| ≥2 | 187 (28%) | 2.3 (1.3, 4.2) | 0.003 |
| Missing | 10 (1%) | 2.4 (0.7, 8.3) | 0.18 |
| N/A Prior to 2007 | 339 (51%) | 2.0 (1.2, 3.5) | 0.01 |
| Relapse | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.22 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 287 (43%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 108 (16%) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.6) | 0.70 |
| MTX-CYSP | 212 (32%) | 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) | 0.07 |
| MMF-TAC | 63 (9%) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.5) | 0.80 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | <0.001 | ||
| Bu+Flu+/−others (reference) | 246 (37%) | 1.0 | |
| ATG+/−Bu+/−Flu+/−others | 131 (20%) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) | 0.65 |
| Flu+Mel+/−others | 188 (28%) | 0.4 (0.3, 0.6) | <0.001 |
| TBI+/−Cy+/−Flu+/−others | 105 (16%) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) | 0.55 |
| Disease | 0.03 | ||
| AML (reference) | 393 (59%) | 1.0 | |
| ALL | 34 (5%) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.8) | 0.85 |
| CML | 59 (9%) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.7) | 0.96 |
| MDS | 184 (27%) | 0.6 (0.5, 0.8) | 0.003 |
| Disease status | <0.001 | ||
| Early (reference) | 390 (58%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 146 (22%) | 2.1 (1.5, 2.8) | <0.001 |
| Intermediate | 116 (17%) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.9) | 0.28 |
| Missing | 18 (3%) | 1.9 (0.9, 4.2) | 0.11 |
| Donor-recipient CMV match | 0.02 | ||
| −/− (reference) | 118 (18%) | 1.0 | |
| +/+ | 325 (48%) | 1.2 (0.9, 1.8) | 0.23 |
| +/− | 69 (10%) | 1.4 (0.9, 2.2) | 0.15 |
| −/+ | 144 (21%) | 1.3 (0.9, 1.9) | 0.21 |
| Missing | 14 (2%) | 3.3 (1.6, 6.7) | <0.001 |
| Sorror co-morbidity index | 0.003 | ||
| 0-1 (reference) | 134 (20%) | 1.0 | 0.94 |
| ≥2 | 187 (28%) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) | 0.94 |
| Missing | 10 (1%) | 0.4 (0.1, 1.4) | 0.18 |
| N/A Prior to 2007 | 339 (51%) | 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) | 0.001 |
Abbreviations: N, number; Est, estimate; CI, confidence interval; GVHD, Graft-versus-Host Disease; MTX, methotrexate; TAC, tacrolimus; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; CYSP, cyclosporine; ATG, anti-thymocyte globulin; Bu, busulfan; Flu, fludarabine; TBI, total body irradiation; Cy, cyclophosphamide; Mel, melphalan; CMV, cytomegalovirus; M, male; F, female; OS, overall survival; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; DFS, disease-free survival; NRM, non-relapse mortality; N/A, not available; RIC, reduced intensity conditioning; alloHCT, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation
Figure 1.
A. Adjusted curves for cumulative incidence of Grade II-IV acute GVHD in matched sibling donor recipients of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic transplants (alloHCT) using one of the four GVHD prophylaxis regimens: tacrolimus (TAC)-methotrexate (MTX), cyclosporine (CYSP)-MTX, CYSP-mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and TAC-MMF.
B. Adjusted curves for cumulative incidence of Grade II-IV acute GVHD in matched unrelated donor RIC alloHCT patients on one of the four GVHD prophylaxis regimens: TAC-MTX, CYSP-MTX, CYSP-MMF, and TAC-MMF.
The URD cohorts had a higher cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD on day 100 post-alloHCT on univariate analysis: 32% (95%CI 22-45%) and 53% (95% CI 45-61%) in the MTX-CYSP and MMF-CYSP cohorts, respectively, and 37% (95% CI 32-41%) and 47% (95% CI 41-54%) with using MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC, respectively (Table 2B). The cumulative incidences of grade III-IV aGVHD at day 100 were 15% (95% CI 8-25%), 21% (95% CI 15-28%), 13% (95% CI 10-17%) and 21% (95% CI 16-27%) in the MTX-CYSP, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC cohorts of URD group on univariate analysis, respectively (Table 2B). Multivariate analysis of the URD group demonstrated that MMF-CYSP resulted in increased incidence of grade II-IV aGVHD compared to MTX-TAC (HR 1.78, p<0.001) (Table 3B, Figure 1B) and MTX-CYSP (HR 2.23, p<0.001) (not shown in Table 3B). A significantly higher incidence of grade III-IV aGVHD was shown in the URD group with the GVHD prophylaxis of MMF-CYSP compared to MTX-TAC (HR 1.93, p=0.006) (Table 3B).
Table 2B.
Univariate analyses, unrelated donor
| MTX-CYSP (N=71) |
MMF-CYSP (N=153) |
MTX-TAC (N=432) |
MMF-TAC (N=218) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes |
Prob. % (95%CI) |
Prob. % (95%CI) |
Prob. % (95%CI) |
Prob. % (95%CI) |
P-Value |
| aGVHD II-IV | |||||
| 1 months | 15 (8-25) | 38 (30-45) | 18 (15-22) | 26 (21-32) | <0.001 |
| 2 months | 31 (21-42) | 51 (43-59) | 33 (29-37) | 41 (35-48) | <0.001 |
| 100-day | 32 (22-44) | 53 (45-61) | 37 (32-41) | 47 (41-54) | <0.001 |
| aGVHD III-IV | |||||
| 1 months | 8 (3-16) | 16 (10-22) | 8 (6-11) | 14 (10-19) | 0.03 |
| 2 months | 15 (8-25) | 21 (15-28) | 12 (9-16) | 19 (14-25) | 0.02 |
| 100-day | 15 (8-25) | 21 (15-28) | 13 (10-17) | 21 (16-27) | 0.06 |
| cGVHD | |||||
| 100-day | 3 (0-8) | 10 (6-15) | 4 (3-6) | 2 (1-5) | 0.03 |
| 6 months | 19 (10-29) | 36 (28-43) | 22 (18-26) | 26 (21-33) | 0.01 |
| 1-year | 36 (25-47) | 50 (42-58) | 40 (35-45) | 44 (37-50) | 0.11 |
| Overall Survival | |||||
| 100-day | 77 (67-86) | 83 (77-89) | 87 (83-90) | 81 (75-86) | 0.12 |
| 6 months | 66 (54-76) | 69 (62-76) | 78 (74-82) | 67 (61-73) | 0.006 |
| 1-year | 54 (42-66) | 57 (49-65) | 60 (55-65) | 49 (42-56) | 0.06 |
| 2-year | 40 (28-52) | 45 (37-53) | 47 (42-51) | 41 (35-48) | 0.49 |
| DFS | |||||
| 100-day | 72 (60-82) | 73 (66-80) | 74 (69-78) | 70 (64-76) | 0.78 |
| 6 months | 59 (47-71) | 60 (52-68) | 61 (57-66) | 56 (49-62) | 0.59 |
| 1-year | 50 (38-62) | 50 (42-58) | 48 (43-53) | 41 (34-47) | 0.21 |
| 2-year | 36 (25-48) | 41 (33-49) | 38 (33-42) | 33 (27-40) | 0.47 |
| Relapse | |||||
| 100-day | 16 (9-26) | 15 (10-21) | 17 (14-21) | 15 (11-20) | 0.85 |
| 6 months | 26 (16-37) | 19 (13-26) | 26 (22-31) | 24 (18-30) | 0.29 |
| 1-year | 30 (20-42) | 23 (17-30) | 35 (30-39) | 28 (22-34) | 0.03 |
| 2-year | 34 (23-46) | 27 (21-35) | 40 (35-44) | 31 (25-37) | 0.02 |
| NRM | |||||
| 100-day | 12 (5-21) | 12 (7-17) | 9 (6-12) | 15 (10-20) | 0.16 |
| 6 months | 15 (7-25) | 21 (15-28) | 13 (10-16) | 21 (16-27) | 0.02 |
| 1-year | 20 (11-30) | 27 (20-34) | 17 (14-21) | 31 (25-37) | <0.001 |
| 2-year | 30 (19-42) | 31 (24-39) | 23 (19-27) | 36 (29-42) | 0.005 |
| GRFS | |||||
| 100-day | 63 (52-74) | 52 (44-60) | 63 (58-67) | 58 (51-65) | 0.12 |
| 6 months | 41 (30-52) | 31 (24-38) | 38 (34-43) | 33 (26-39) | 0.20 |
| 1-year | 24 (15-34) | 14 (9-21) | 16 (13-20) | 11 (8-16) | 0.10 |
| 2-year | 13 (6-22) | 10 (5-15) | 11 (8-14) | 7 (4-11) | 0.29 |
| CRFS | |||||
| 100-day | 66 (55-77) | 67 (60-75) | 73 (68-77) | 70 (63-76) | 0.52 |
| 6 months | 49 (37-61) | 47 (40-55) | 55 (50-59) | 47 (41-54) | 0.22 |
| 1-year | 37 (27-49) | 35 (27-42) | 37 (32-42) | 31 (25-38) | 0.50 |
| 2-year | 21 (12-32) | 26 (20-34) | 28 (24-33) | 22 (17-28) | 0.31 |
| Neutrophil recovery | |||||
| 14 days | 46 (35-58) | 32 (25-40) | 35 (31-40) | 69 (62-75) | <0.001 |
| 28 days | 97 (92-100) | 96 (92-99) | 96 (94-98) | 95 (92-98) | 0.91 |
| Platelet recovery | |||||
| 14 days | 17 (9-27) | 19 (13-27) | 19 (13-27) | 18 (13-24) | 0.61 |
| 28 days | 73 (62-84) | 82 (75-89) | 83 (79-87) | 80 (74-85) | 0.38 |
Abbreviations: TAC, tacrolimus; CYSP, cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; Prob, probability; N, number; CI, confidence interval; aGVHD, acute graft-versus-host disease; cGVHD, chronic graft-versus-host disease; NRM, non-relapse mortality; DFS, disease-free survival; GRFS, GVHD- and relapse-free survival; CRFS, chronic GVHD- and relapse-free survival.
Table 3B.
Multivariate analyses in unrelated donor RIC alloHCT
| N (%) | Est (95% CI) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade II-IV aGVHD | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | <0.001 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 429 (49%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 152 (17%) | 1.8 (1.3, 2.4) | <0.001 |
| MTX-CYSP | 71 (8%) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 0.29 |
| MMF-TAC | 216 (25%) | 1.3 (1.0, 1.7) | 0.03 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | 0.002 | ||
| Bu+Flu+/−others (reference) | 173 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| ATG+/−Bu+/−Flu+/−others | 414 (48%) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.4) | 0.61 |
| Flu+Mel+/−others | 147 (17%) | 1.7 (1.3, 2.4) | <0.001 |
| TBI+/−Cy+/−Flu+/−others | 134 (15%) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.7) | 0.37 |
| Disease status | 0.01 | ||
| Early (reference) | 512 (59%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 206 (24%) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.5) | 0.25 |
| Intermediate | 127 (15%) | 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) | 0.03 |
| Missing | 23 (3%) | 1.6 (0.9, 2.7) | 0.08 |
| Donor type | |||
| 7/8-matched URD (reference) | 172 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| 8/8-matched URD | 696 (80%) | 0.7 (0.5, 0.9) | 0.002 |
| Grade III-IV aGVHD | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.01 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 428 (49%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 152 (18%) | 1.9 (1.2, 3.1) | 0.006 |
| MTX-CYSP | 71 (8%) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.6) | 0.53 |
| MMF-TAC | 214 (257%) | 1.5 (1.0, 2.3) | 0.03 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | <0.001 | ||
| Bu+Flu+/−others (reference) | 173 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| ATG+/−Bu+/−Flu+/−others | 412 (48%) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 0.78 |
| Flu+Mel+/−others | 146 (17%) | 2.7 (1.6, 4.4) | <0.001 |
| TBI+/−Cy+/−Flu+/−others | 134 (15%) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.6) | 0.66 |
| Disease | 0.02 | ||
| AML (reference) | 495 (57%) | 1.0 | |
| ALL | 39 (4%) | 0.4 (0.1, 1.2) | 0.10 |
| CML | 48 (5%) | 2.1 (1.1, 4.0) | 0.03 |
| MDS | 283 (33%) | 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) | 0.08 |
| Disease status | 0.04 | ||
| Early (reference) | 511 (59%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 204 (24%) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.7) | 0.46 |
| Intermediate | 127 (15%) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | 0.25 |
| Missing | 23 (3%) | 2.3 (1.2, 4.5) | 0.01 |
| Donor type | |||
| 7/8-matched URD (reference) | 172 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| 8/8-matched URD | 693 (80%) | 0.5 (0.4, 0.7) | <0.001 |
| Chronic GVHD | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.35 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 428 (49%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 152 (17%) | 1.3 (0.9, 1.7) | 0.10 |
| MTX-CYSP | 70 (8%) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.5) | 0.96 |
| MMF-TAC | 217 (25%) | 1.2 (0.9, 1.5) | 0.18 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | <0.001 | ||
| Bu+Flu+/−others (reference) | 174 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| ATG+/−Bu+/−Flu+/−others | 413 (48%) | 0.7 (0.6, 1.0.) | 0.03 |
| Flu+Mel+/−others | 146 (17%) | 1.4 (1.0, 1.9) | 0.03 |
| TBI+/−Cy+/−Flu+/−others | 134 (15%) | 1.4 (1.0, 2.0) | 0.04 |
| Year of transplant | 0.03 | ||
| 2000-2004 (reference) | 80 (9%) | 1.0 | |
| 2005-2008 | 366 (42%) | 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) | 0.03 |
| 2009-2013 | 421 (49%) | 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) | 0.007 |
| OS | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.82 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 432 (49%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 153 (17%) | 1.0 (0.8, 1.2) | 0.97 |
| MTX-CYSP | 71 (8%) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) | 0.49 |
| MMF-TAC | 218 (25%) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.3) | 0.47 |
| Age at transplant, years | 0.008 | ||
| 18-29 (reference) | 38 (4%) | 1.0 | |
| 30-39 | 54 (6%) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.0) | 0.03 |
| 40-49 | 80 (9%) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.3) | 0.37 |
| 50-64 | 444 (51%) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) | 0.67 |
| 65+ | 258 (29%) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 0.55 |
| Disease status | 0.004 | ||
| Early (reference) | 515 (59%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 208 (24%) | 1.2 (1.0, 1.5) | 0.02 |
| Intermediate | 127 (14%) | 1.0 (0.8, 1.3) | 0.82 |
| Missing | 24 (3%) | 2.0 (1.3, 3.1) | 0.002 |
| Donor type | |||
| 7/8-matched URD (reference) | 172 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| 8/8-matched URD | 702 (80%) | 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) | <0.001 |
| Karnofsky performance score | 0.002 | ||
| <90 (reference) | 372 (43%) | 1.0 | |
| 90-100 | 475 (54%) | 0.8 (0.6, 0.9) | 0.001 |
| Missing | 27 (3%) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.6) | 0.71 |
| Sorror co-morbidity index | 0.05 | ||
| 0-1 (reference) | 191 (22%) | 1.0 | |
| ≥2 | 315 (36%) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) | 0.43 |
| Missing | 20 (2%) | 0.5 (0.3, 1.1) | 0.09 |
| N/A Prior to 2007 | 348 (40%) | 1.2 (1.0, 1.5) | 0.08 |
| DFS | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.68 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 423 (49%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 153 (18%) | 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) | 0.28 |
| MTX-CYSP | 67 (8%) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) | 0.94 |
| MMF-TAC | 216 (25%) | 1.0 (0.8, 1.2) | 0.82 |
| Age at transplant, years | 0.04 | ||
| 18-29 (reference) | 38 (4%) | 1.0 | |
| 30-39 | 52 (6%) | 0.5 (0.3, 0.9) | 0.02 |
| 40-49 | 78 (9%) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 0.24 |
| 50-64 | 439 (51%) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) | 0.59 |
| 65+ | 252 (29%) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.4) | 0.88 |
| Disease status | 0.003 | ||
| Early (reference) | 511 (59%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 204 (24%) | 1.4 (1.1, 1.6) | <0.001 |
| Intermediate | 121 (14%) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) | 0.46 |
| Missing | 23 (3%) | 1.7 (1.0, 2.6) | 0.03 |
| Donor type | |||
| 7/8-matched URD (reference) | 170 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| 8/8-matched URD | 689 (80%) | 0.8 (0.6, 0.9) | 0.006 |
| Karnofsky performance score | 0.005 | ||
| <90 (reference) | 361 (42%) | 1.0 | |
| 90-100 | 471 (55%) | 0.8 (0.7, 0.9) | 0.002 |
| Missing | 27 (3%) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.6) | 0.70 |
| NRM | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.05 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 423 (49%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 153 (18%) | 1.4 (1.0, 1.9) | 0.06 |
| MTX-CYSP | 67 (8%) | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) | 0.26 |
| MMF-TAC | 216 (25%) | 1.5 (1.1, 2.0) | 0.008 |
| Age at transplant, years | 0.003 | ||
| 18-29 (reference) | 38 (4%) | 1.0 | |
| 30-39 | 52 (6%) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.3) | 0.20 |
| 40-49 | 78 (9%) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.7) | 0.60 |
| 50-64 | 439 (51%) | 1.1 (0.6, 2.2) | 0.69 |
| 65+ | 252 (29%) | 1.5 (0.8, 3.0) | 0.20 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | 0.008 | ||
| Bu+Flu+/−others (reference) | 172 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| ATG+/−Bu+/−Flu+/−others | 410 (48%) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.2) | 0.43 |
| Flu+Mel+/−others | 143 (17%) | 1.4 (1.0, 2.1) | 0.05 |
| TBI+/−Cy+/−Flu+/−others | 134 (16%) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 0.35 |
| Disease status | 0.02 | ||
| Early (reference) | 511 (59%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 204 (24%) | 0.9 (0.7, 1.2) | 0.68 |
| Intermediate | 121 (14%) | 0.8 (0.6, 1.2) | 0.34 |
| Missing | 23 (3%) | 2.2 (1.3, 3.9) | 0.006 |
| Donor type | <0.001 | ||
| 7/8-matched URD (reference) | 170 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| 8/8-matched URD | 689 (80%) | 0.5 (0.4, 0.7) | <0.001 |
| Donor-recipient CMV match | 0.04 | ||
| −/− (reference) | 215 (25%) | 1.0 | |
| +/+ | 201 (23%) | 1.2 (0.8, 1.7) | 0.30 |
| +/− | 80 (9%) | 1.7 (1.1, 2.6) | 0.01 |
| −/+ | 340 (40%) | 1.3 (1.0, 1.8) | 0.05 |
| Missing | 23 (3%) | 2.2 (1.1, 4.2) | 0.02 |
| Karnofsky performance score | 0.007 | ||
| <90 (reference) | 361 (42%) | 1.0 | |
| 90-100 | 471 (55%) | 0.7 (0.5, 0.9) | 0.002 |
| Missing | 27 (3%) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.7) | 0.82 |
| Relapse | |||
| GVHD prophylaxis | 0.006 | ||
| MTX-TAC (reference) | 423 (49%) | 1.0 | |
| MMF-CYSP | 153 (18%) | 0.5 (0.4, 0.7) | <0.001 |
| MTX-CYSP | 67 (8%) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 0.35 |
| MMF-TAC | 216 (25%) | 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) | 0.03 |
| Conditioning regimen / ATG | 0.003 | ||
| Bu+Flu+/−others (reference) | 172 (20%) | 1.0 | |
| ATG+/−Bu+/−Flu+/−others | 410 (48%) | 0.8 (0.6, 1.1) | 0.26 |
| Flu+Mel+/−others | 143 (17%) | 0.5 (0.3, 0.7) | <0.001 |
| TBI+/−Cy+/−Flu+/−others | 134 (16%) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.5) | 0.99 |
| Disease | 0.006 | ||
| AML (reference) | 492 (57%) | 1.0 | |
| ALL | 37 (4%) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.9) | 0.66 |
| CML | 48 (6%) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.1) | 0.09 |
| MDS | 282 (33%) | 0.6 (0.5, 0.9) | 0.002 |
| Disease status | <0.001 | ||
| Early (reference) | 511 (59%) | 1.0 | |
| Advanced | 204 (24%) | 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) | <0.001 |
| Intermediate | 121 (14%) | 1.2 (0.9, 1.7) | 0.17 |
| Missing | 23 (3%) | 1.2 (0.5, 2.8) | 0.64 |
| Sex | 0.03 | ||
| Male (reference) | 487 (57%) | 1.0 | |
| Female | 372 (43%) | 1.3 (1.0, 1.6) | 0.03 |
Abbreviations: N, number; Est, estimate; CI, confidence interval; GVHD, Graft-versus-Host Disease; MTX, methotrexate; TAC, tacrolimus; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; CYSP, cyclosporine; ATG, anti-thymocyte globulin; Bu, busulfan; Flu, fludarabine; TBI, total body irradiation; Cy, cyclophosphamide; Mel, melphalan; CMV, cytomegalovirus; M, male; F, female; OS, overall survival; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; DFS, disease-free survival; NRM, non-relapse mortality; N/A, not available; RIC, reduced intensity conditioning; alloHCT, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation
Chronic GVHD
The one-year cumulative incidences of cGVHD with MTX-CYSP, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC were 49% (95% CI 42-56%), 39% (95% CI 29-49%), 34% (95% CI 29-40%) and 34% (95% CI 23-46%) on univariate analysis of the MRD group (Table 2A). Multivariate analysis did not reveal any significant difference in the incidence of cGVHD between the four cohorts in MRD group (Table 3A, Figure 2A). In this group, the addition of ATG to Flu/Bu conditioning was associated with lower cGVHD incidence (HR 0.55, p=0.001).
Figure 2.
A. Adjusted curves for cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD in matched sibling donor RIC alloHCT patients on one of the four GVHD prophylaxis regimens: TAC-MTX, CYSP-MTX, CYSP-MMF, and TAC-MMF.
B. Adjusted curves for cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD in matched unrelated donor RIC alloHCT patients receiving one of the four GVHD prophylaxis regimens: TAC-MTX, CYSP-MTX, CYSP-MMF, and TAC-MMF.
Univariate analysis demonstrated 1-year cumulative incidences of cGVHD with MTX-CYSP, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC of 36% (95% CI 25-47%), 50% (95% CI 42-58%), 40% (95% CI 35-45%) and 44% (95% CI 37-50%), respectively, in the URD group (Table 2B). There was no significant difference in the incidence of cGVHD between the four URD cohorts on multivariate analysis (Table 3B, Figure 2B).
Overall Survival
The MRD cohort exhibited 2-year OS of 59% (95% CI 52-66%) in the MTX-CYSP cohort, 46% (95% CI 37-56%) in the MMF-CYSP cohort, 48% (95% CI 42-54%) in the MTX-TAC cohort and 47% (95% CI 35-59%) in the MMF-TAC cohort, on univariate analysis (Table 2A). Multivariate analysis was unrevealing for a statistically significant difference between the four MRD cohorts (Table 3A, Figure 3A).
Figure 3.
A. Adjusted curves for overall survival in matched sibling donor RIC alloHCT patients receiving one of the four GVHD prophylaxis regimens: TAC-MTX, CYSP-MTX, CYSP-MMF, and TAC-MMF.
B. Adjusted curves for overall survival in matched unrelated donor RIC alloHCT patients receiving one of the four GVHD prophylaxis regimens: TAC-MTX, CYSP-MTX, CYSP-MMF, TAC-MMF.
The unadjusted probabilities of 2-year OS were 40% (95% CI 28-52%), 45% (95% CI 37-53%), 47% (95% CI 42-51%) and 41% (95% CI 35-48%) in the MTX-CYSP, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC cohorts of the URD group, respectively (Table 2B). Multivariate analysis did not show any significant difference among the cohorts of URD group (Table 3B, Figure 3B).
Disease-Free Survival
Univariate analysis demonstrated 2-year DFS of in the MRD group of 50% (95% CI 43-57%) in the MTX-CYSP cohort, 41% (95% CI 32-50%) in the MMF-CYSP cohort, 41% (95% CI 36-47%) with MTX-TAC and 44% (95% CI 32-57%) with MMF-TAC (Table 2A). There was no significant difference in DFS between any of the GVHD cohorts in the MRD group on multivariate analysis (Table 3A).
In the URD group, DFS at 2 years was 36% (95% CI 25-48%) in the MTX-CYSP cohort, 41% (95% CI 33-49%) in the MMF-CYSP cohort, 38% (95% CI 33-42%) in the MTX-TAC cohort and 33% (95% CI 27-40%) in the MMF-TAC cohort (Table 2B). Multivariate analysis did not show any significant difference in DFS among any of the URD cohorts (Table 3B).
Relapse
Univariate analysis revealed that in the MRD group, the cumulative incidences of relapse at 2 years were 28% (95% CI 22-35%) and 36% (95% CI 27-46%) in the MTX-CYSP and MMF-CYSP cohorts, respectively, and 43% (95% CI 37-48%) and 33% (95% CI 22-46%) in the MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC cohorts, respectively (Table 2A). The risk of relapse was not shown to be significantly different among any of the four cohorts in the MRD group on multivariate analysis (Table 3A).
In the URD group, the 2-year cumulative incidences of relapse were 34% (95% CI 23-46%), 27% (95% CI 21-35%), 40% (95% CI 35-44%) and 31% (95% CI 25-37%) in the MTX-CYSP, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC cohorts, respectively, on univariate analysis (Table 2B). On multivariate analysis, URD patients receiving MMF-CYSP had a significantly lower risk of relapse, compared to those receiving MTX-TAC (HR 0.53, p<0.001) (Table 3B).
Non-relapse Mortality
On univariate analysis, the cumulative incidences of NRM at 2 years post-alloHCT in the MRD group were 21% (95% CI 16-27%), 23% (95% CI 15-32%), 16% (95% CI 12-21%), and 22% (95% CI 13-33%) in the MTX-CYSP, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC cohorts, respectively (Table 2A). Multivariate analysis did not show any significant difference in NRM among the four GVHD cohorts of MRD group (Table 3A).
The cumulative incidences of NRM at 2 years in the URD group were 31% (95% CI 20-43%), 31% (95% CI 24-39%), 23% (95% CI 19-27%) and 37% (95% CI 31-43%) in the MTX-CYSP, MMF-CYSP, MTX-TAC and MMF-TAC cohorts, respectively (Table 2B). Multivariate analysis of the URD group demonstrated that compared to MTX-TAC, MMF-TAC was associated with increased risk of NRM (HR 1.48, p=0.008) (Table 3B), notwithstanding the faster neutrophil recovery observed with MMF-TAC compared with other regimens (P<0.001) (Table 2B).
DISCUSSION
The combinations of CNI with MTX or MMF for prevention of acute and chronic GVHD after alloHCT have been accepted as the current standard,6,8,9,18 although conflicting reports of outcomes with MMF- and MTX-containing CNI-based regimens have been noted. Despite the lack of prospective comparative data between MMF- and MTX-based regimens in RIC setting, MMF-CNI has been an established regimen after RIC alloHCT. While some studies have compared the CNIs (TAC vs. CYSP) and others have compared MTX- and MMF-containing GVHD prophylaxis, no study to date has investigated all four regimens concomitantly to compare the outcomes after RIC alloHCT and therefore, there has been no convincing evidence to date supporting the use of a particular regimen in the RIC setting.
We have made several important observations in this analysis. No single GVHD prevention regimen is superior, the limited power notwithstanding, to detect differences in aGVHD and survival outcomes in the MRD group. In those with URD, however, MTX-TAC performed better than MMF-CYSP and resulted in 44% risk reduction in grade II-IV and 48% risk reduction in grade III-IV aGVHD. Furthermore, MTX-CYSP resulted in 48% reduction in the incidence of grade II-IV aGVHD relative to MMF-CYSP but did not show statistically significant difference in the grade III-IV aGVHD risk. All four regimens resulted in similar cGVHD incidence after URD alloHCT. MTX-TAC, in addition, was associated with 32% lower NRM risk compared to MMF-TAC. Furthermore, MTX-TAC was associated with 88% increase in relapse risk relative to MMF-CYSP but did not meet statistical significance when compared to MMF-TAC. Higher relapse risk observed with MTX-TAC did not translate into worse DFS and OS as the analysis revealed no significant difference between any of the cohorts in the URD group. No significant interaction was found between GVHD prophylaxis and the conditioning, but patients receiving Flu/Mel conditioning had significantly higher risk of grade II-IV (HR 1.75, P<0.001) and III-IV (HR 2.71, P<0.001) aGVHD compared to Flu/Bu regimen (Table 3B). The risks of cGVHD and NRM with Flu/Mel conditioning were also increased but did not meet statistical significance (P=0.03 and 0.05, respectively).
Previously, three randomized studies had compared outcomes of alloHCT after CYSP21,22 or TAC23 combined with MTX or MMF in the myeloablative setting. One study enrolled alloHCT from URD 21, another study from MRD22, and a third study included both23. None of the studies showed a statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of aGVHD between the regimens. Bolwell et al. reported the randomized study comparing MMF-CYSP and MTX-CYSP (n=40) after marrow transplantation using MRD22. No difference was observed in the incidence of GVHD or survival. Perkins et al. reported the results of a randomized phase II study comparing MMF-TAC and MTX-TAC after alloHCT from MRD and URD (n=89)23. Patients in the MMF cohort were less likely to experience severe mucositis, and the cumulative incidence of grade II-IV aGVHD was similar. However, the cumulative incidence of grade III-IV aGVHD was higher in the MMF arm (19% vs. 4%, p=0.03), predominantly in MAC alloHCT using URD. A meta-analysis of the above-mentioned three randomized trials by the Cochrane Collaboration found no differences in the rates of aGVHD and cGVHD between the different regimens24. There was no evidence for a significant difference between MMF and MTX for the incidence of aGVHD and cGVHD, neutrophil engraftment, incidence of relapse, NRM and OS. The results are also in accord with those of a meta-analysis of 11 studies2 including 1076 patients (a mix of MAC and RIC alloHCT recipients) that determined greater incidence of grade III-IV aGVHD in MMF recipients (HR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.3). The increased risk of severe aGVHD with MMF was limited to the patients with URD and was not evident after MRD alloHCT. The three prospective trials had relatively small sample sizes and only included patients receiving MAC and therefore, their findings cannot be applied to RIC patients. It is noteworthy that none of the above-mentioned studies including the meta-analyses demonstrated any significant differences in the relapse risk between MTX- and MMF-based GVHD regimens, unlike reported by our study. We can only speculate that there are unknown variables and confounders, in addition to the competing risk of low NRM that contributed to the increased relapse risk and neutralized any possible survival advantage MTX-based regimens could have had in URD group.
Eapen et al. compared outcomes between bone marrow and peripheral blood grafts for RIC alloHCT for patients with AML, MDS and non-Hodgkin lymphoma using URD in 88 US transplant centers (2000-2008) and reported no differences in outcomes between the two graft sources16, but patients receiving MMF (vs. MTX) had an increased risk of grade II-IV and III-IV aGVHD, cGVHD, NRM and worse OS. Patients with ALL and those receiving TBI were excluded in this study. Despite the differences in the primary objectives and patient populations between the two studies, the results of our analysis are in concordance with Eapen et al. study as we show MMF-containing regimens are associated with worse intermediate outcomes without impact on OS in the URD setting. This is an important study because it examines not only the efficacy of MTX or MMF, but also the added impact of TAC and CYSP in ensuring post-alloHCT outcomes. To compare only MTX and MMF would be assuming that the two CNIs, TAC and CYSP, have no difference in efficacy and can be used interchangeably and the study findings do not support this assumption.
Owing to the retrospective nature, the findings of the study need to be interpreted with caution. We acknowledge the differences in patient, disease, and transplant characteristics among the cohorts in both donor groups, especially the small sample size in certain cohorts (MMF-TAC cohort in the MRD group and MTX-CYSP in the URD group), differences in the proportions of ATG recipients in the cohorts of the URD group and the fact that the inclusion of ATG in the conditioning makes for a heterogeneous study population. These differences were addressed by performing a controlled analysis that accounted for all the characteristics and any center effects. We also examined the study population for differences in the outcomes of grade II-IV and III-IV aGVHD and cGVHD after excluding ATG recipients: univariate analysis showed cumulative incidence of grade II-IV aGVHD was highest with MMF-CYSP and lowest with MTX-TAC in both MRD and URD groups (Supplementary Tables 1A and 1B), but no significant differences in the incidence of grade III-IV aGVHD were observed in either group. Chronic GVHD was observed more frequently with CYSP regimens than TAC in the MRD group, and similarly, in the URD group, MMF-CYSP had higher incidence of cGVHD compared to TAC-based regimens.
Despite carefully considering multiple potentially significant variables, the effect of unrecognized biases and residual confounding in the analysis cannot be ruled out. For instance, the dose of MTX and the dose and schedule of MMF in the regimens are variable among the transplant centers. Different dosing protocols for short-course MTX and different doses and duration of MMF adopted by the transplant centers were not captured in the database. It has been demonstrated that higher trough levels of MMF attributed to intensified dosing are correlated with a decreased incidence of severe GVHD after umbilical cord blood transplantation25,26. Moreover, the proportion of patients that did not receive all four doses of MTX due to severe oropharyngeal mucositis is not known. We cannot confirm that oral (and not intravenous) formulations of TAC and CYSP were used for all RIC alloHCT in the study. We also recognize the limitation in having variable therapeutic target blood level ranges for TAC and CYSP at different centers. Furthermore, we examined the cumulative incidences of cGVHD of any grade reported to the database and did not specifically evaluate the risk of moderate-to-severe or organ-specific cGVHD in the cohorts.
It is also important to note in the study the trade-off between low NRM and higher relapse risk with MTX-TAC compared to MMF-CYSP, resulting in no difference in OS. For this reason, it would be worth considering a future prospective study in the URD patient population using the composite endpoint such as GVHD- and relapse-free survival (GRFS) that assesses all significant and relevant endpoints27. The events for GRFS include grade III-IV acute GVHD, systemic therapy-requiring chronic GVHD, relapse, or death. A similar composite end-point that has been in vogue is cGVHD- and relapse-free survival (CRFS), which includes survival without development of cGVHD, disease relapse or progression and death28. Interestingly, the analysis for both GRFS and CRFS did not reveal any significant differences among the MRD and URD cohorts (Table 2A and 2B).
In summary, in this observational study, we described the outcomes after RIC alloHCT using the four CNI-based regimens. This differentiates the study in that we considered the two drugs of each prophylactic regimen as a unique combination, which enabled comparisons among the four regimens. This analysis demonstrated equivalent outcomes in those with MRD using either of the four CNI-based combinations and inferior efficacy of MMF-based approach with regards to grade II-IV and III-IV aGVHD and NRM in those with URD. Moreover, the analysis did not suggest using a particular regimen in URD alloHCT recipients using RIC and peripheral blood graft, based on the lack of significant differences in OS, even though aGVHD risk was significantly improved with MTX-CNI regimens and there may be a trend for improved 1-year GRFS in the URD group with MTX-CNI than with MMF-CNI. Finally, a prospective randomized controlled trial of URD RIC alloHCT recipients is needed to evaluate these GVHD prophylaxis regimens with uniform dosing schedules and target pharmacokinetic ranges and using novel endpoints such as GRFS to confirm the findings of this study. The results of such a trial may also inform the ideal partner for GVHD prevention strategies such as post-transplant cyclophosphamide and other novel agents in the future clinical trials.
Supplementary Material
Highlights.
There is lack of comparative efficacy analysis between mycophenolate-calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) and methotrexate-CNI regimens for Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in the setting of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic transplantation.
In this retrospective cohort study evaluating the efficacy of the four commonly used CNI-based regimens in a large cohort of patients, mycophenolate-based approach showed a higher risk for acute GVHD and non-relapse mortality in RIC allogeneic transplant recipients with unrelated donor. Nonetheless, lack of overall survival advantage suggests that no GVHD prophylaxis regimen is superior.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
REFERENCES:
- 1.Pinana JL, Valcarcel D, Fernandez-Aviles F, et al. : MTX or mycophenolate mofetil with CsA as GVHD prophylaxis after reduced-intensity conditioning PBSCT from HLA-identical siblings. Bone Marrow Transplant 45:1449–56, 2010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ram R, Yeshurun M, Vidal L, et al. : Mycophenolate mofetil vs. methotrexate for the prevention of graft-versus-host-disease--systematic review and meta-analysis. Leuk Res 38:352–60, 2014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Alyea EP: Graft-Versus-Host Disease Prevention: Corticosteroids Revisited. J Clin Oncol 34:1836–7, 2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Storb R, Deeg HJ, Pepe M, et al. : Methotrexate and cyclosporine versus cyclosporine alone for prophylaxis of graft-versus-host disease in patients given HLA-identical marrow grafts for leukemia: long-term follow-up of a controlled trial. Blood 73:1729–34, 1989 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Storb R, Deeg HJ, Whitehead J, et al. : Methotrexate and cyclosporine compared with cyclosporine alone for prophylaxis of acute graft versus host disease after marrow transplantation for leukemia. N Engl J Med 314:729–35, 1986 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Nieto Y, Patton N, Hawkins T, et al. : Tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil after nonmyeloablative matched-sibling donor allogeneic stem-cell transplantations conditioned with fludarabine and low-dose total body irradiation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 12:217–25, 2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Storb R, Antin JH, Cutler C: Should methotrexate plus calcineurin inhibitors be considered standard of care for prophylaxis of acute graft-versus-host disease? Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 16:S18–27, 2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ratanatharathorn V, Nash RA, Przepiorka D, et al. : Phase III study comparing methotrexate and tacrolimus (prograf, FK506) with methotrexate and cyclosporine for graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis after HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplantation. Blood 92:2303–14, 1998 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Nash RA, Antin JH, Karanes C, et al. : Phase 3 study comparing methotrexate and tacrolimus with methotrexate and cyclosporine for prophylaxis of acute graft-versus-host disease after marrow transplantation from unrelated donors. Blood 96:2062–8, 2000 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Neumann F, Graef T, Tapprich C, et al. : Cyclosporine A and mycophenolate mofetil vs cyclosporine A and methotrexate for graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis after stem cell transplantation from HLA-identical siblings. Bone Marrow Transplant 35:1089–93, 2005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cutler C, Li S, Kim HT, et al. : Mucositis after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a cohort study of methotrexate- and non-methotrexate-containing graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis regimens. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 11:383–8, 2005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ho VT, Weller E, Lee SJ, et al. : Prognostic factors for early severe pulmonary complications after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 7:223–9, 2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.McSweeney PA, Niederwieser D, Shizuru JA, et al. : Hematopoietic cell transplantation in older patients with hematologic malignancies: replacing high-dose cytotoxic therapy with graft-versus-tumor effects. Blood 97:3390–400, 2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ostronoff F, Ostronoff M, Souto-Maior AP, et al. : Prospective trial of mycophenolate mofetil-cyclosporine A prophylaxis for acute GVHD after G-CSF stimulated allogeneic bone marrow transplantation with HLA-identical sibling donors in patients with severe aplastic anemia and hematological malignancies. Clin Transplant 23:33–8, 2009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ruutu T, van Biezen A, Hertenstein B, et al. : Prophylaxis and treatment of GVHD after allogeneic haematopoietic SCT: a survey of centre strategies by the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 47:1459–64, 2012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Eapen M, Logan BR, Horowitz MM, et al. : Bone marrow or peripheral blood for reduced-intensity conditioning unrelated donor transplantation. J Clin Oncol 33:364–9, 2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Weisdorf D, Spellman S, Haagenson M, et al. : Classification of HLA-matching for retrospective analysis of unrelated donor transplantation: revised definitions to predict survival. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 14:748–58, 2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Przepiorka D, Weisdorf D, Martin P, et al. : 1994 Consensus Conference on Acute GVHD Grading. Bone Marrow Transplant 15:825–8, 1995 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Filipovich AH, Weisdorf D, Pavletic S, et al. : National Institutes of Health consensus development project on criteria for clinical trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease: I. Diagnosis and staging working group report. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 11:945–56, 2005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bacigalupo A, Ballen K, Rizzo D, et al. : Defining the intensity of conditioning regimens: working definitions. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 15:1628–33, 2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kiehl MG, Schafer-Eckart K, Kroger M, et al. : Mycophenolate mofetil for the prophylaxis of acute graft-versus-host disease in stem cell transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 34:2922–4, 2002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bolwell B, Sobecks R, Pohlman B, et al. : A prospective randomized trial comparing cyclosporine and short course methotrexate with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil for GVHD prophylaxis in myeloablative allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 34:621–5, 2004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Perkins J, Field T, Kim J, et al. : A randomized phase II trial comparing tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil to tacrolimus and methotrexate for acute graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 16:937–47, 2010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kharfan-Dabaja M, Mhaskar R, Reljic T, et al. : Mycophenolate mofetil versus methotrexate for prevention of graft-versus-host disease in people receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD010280, 2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bejanyan N, Rogosheske J, DeFor T, et al. : Higher Dose of Mycophenolate Mofetil Reduces Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease in Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Double Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21:926–33, 2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Harnicar S, Ponce DM, Hilden P, et al. : Intensified Mycophenolate Mofetil Dosing and Higher Mycophenolic Acid Trough Levels Reduce Severe Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease after Double-Unit Cord Blood Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21:920–5, 2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Holtan SG, DeFor TE, Lazaryan A, et al. : Composite end point of graft-versus-host disease-free, relapse-free survival after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood 125:1333–8, 2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Pasquini MC, Logan B, Jones RJ, et al. : Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Report on the Development of Novel Endpoints and Selection of Promising Approaches for Graft-versus-Host Disease Prevention Trials. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 24:1274–1280, 2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.