Table 2.

Donor and transplant characteristics

Characteristics	Data (N = 129)
Donor matching
HLA-matched sibling	22 (17)
HLA-mismatched related*	2 (2)
HLA-matched unrelated (10 of 10)	41 (32)
HLA-mismatched unrelated (≤ 9 of 10)	21 (16)
Unrelated CB	39 (30)
6 of 6	13 (10)
5 of 6	20 (15)
4 of 6	6 (5)
Unrelated donor, match unknown	4 (3)
Hematopoietic stem cell source
Bone marrow†	80 (62)
PBSC	10 (8)
CB	39 (30)
Conditioning regimen‡
Myeloablative	88 (68)
Busulfan/cyclophosphamide	80 (62)
Busulfan/fludarabine	3 (2)
Busulfan/melphalan	1 (1)
MAC (other)	4 (3)
Reduced intensity	39 (30)
Busulfan/cyclophosphamide	8 (6)
Busulfan/fludarabine	17 (13)
RIC (other)	14 (11)
Fludarabine/melphalan ± thiotepa	12 (9)
Other	2 (2)
Unknown intensity	2 (2)
Busulfan/fludarabine	2 (2)
Serotherapy
Yes	123 (95)
Rabbit or horse ATG	99 (76)
Alemtuzumab	24 (19)
No	6 (5)
GVHD prophylaxis
CNI alone	2 (2)
CNI+MTX	41 (32)
CNI+MMF	21 (16)
CNI+steroids	49 (38)
CNI+steroids+MTX	11 (8)
CNI+steroids+MMF	1 (1)
None	4 (3)§
T-cell depletion
Yes	5 (4)
No	124 (96)

Data are number of recipients (percentage of total study group).

ATG, anti-thymocyte globulin.

^*Two patients received HLA-mismatched related grafts that included a 5- of 8-HLA–mismatched relative and a 9- of 10-HLA–matched sibling graft.

^†Two patients received bone marrow plus CB from their siblings.

^‡Of the 108 patients who received busulfan/cyclophosphamide or busulfan/fludarabine, AUC data were available in 89 patients and were used for classification of MAC (n = 64) and RIC (n = 25). Two additional patients who received busulfan/fludarabine could not be classified because of lack of information and were excluded from analyses comparing MAC and RIC.

^§Four patients who received TCD grafts received no additional immune suppression for GVHD prophylaxis.