Al-Shaibani Eshrak, Bautista Rhida, Lipton Jeffrey H, Kim Dennis D, Viswabandya Auro, Kumar Rajat, Lam Wilson, Law Arjun D, Al-Shaibani Zeyad, Gerbitz Armin, Pasic Ivan, Mattsson Jonas, Michelis Fotios V
Hans Messner Allogeneic Transplant Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Hans Messner Allogeneic Transplant Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022 May;22(5):e327-e334. doi: 10.1016/j.clml.2021.11.004. Epub 2021 Nov 11.
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is potentially curative for hematological disease however can be complicated by relapse or graft failure (GF), for which second-HCT and donor lymphocyte infusions (DLI) are performed. This study aimed to compare outcomes following the two interventions.
We retrospectively investigated 89 patients with relapse or GF after first-HCT, 50 (56%) underwent second HCT and 39 (44%) received (DLI), from June 2011 to September 2020.
Median age at intervention was 55 years (19-72). Second-HCT was performed for relapse in 19 patients and for GF in 31 patients (primary GF in 11 and secondary in 20 patients), same donor was used in 25 (50%) patients. DLI was performed for relapse in 20 and for secondary GF in 19 patients. Median number of DLI administered was 2 (range 1-11). Univariate analysis demonstrated 2 year overall survival (OS) for second-HCT was superior when performed for relapse (65%) compared to GF (44%) (P = .03). For DLI patients, 2 year OS was 49% for GF and 45% for relapse patients (P = .49). For relapse as an indication, second-HCT demonstrated borderline superiority compared to DLI (P = .07). Multivariable analysis demonstrated for OS for the entire cohort demonstrated donor mismatch (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26%-0.94%, P = .03), KPS at time of intervention (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14%-3.85%, P = .02) and time from first-HCT to intervention (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28%-0.93%, P = .03) as significant variables.
Second-HCT may improve outcomes when performed for relapse post-transplant if patients achieve remission again, while DLI may be reserved for patients with active disease.
异基因造血细胞移植(HCT)对血液系统疾病有潜在的治愈作用,但可能并发复发或移植物失败(GF),针对这些情况会进行二次HCT和供体淋巴细胞输注(DLI)。本研究旨在比较这两种干预措施后的结果。
我们回顾性研究了2011年6月至2020年9月期间89例首次HCT后复发或发生GF的患者,其中50例(56%)接受了二次HCT,39例(44%)接受了DLI。
干预时的中位年龄为55岁(19 - 72岁)。19例患者因复发接受二次HCT,31例患者因GF接受二次HCT(11例为原发性GF,20例为继发性GF),25例(50%)患者使用了相同供体。20例患者因复发接受DLI,19例患者因继发性GF接受DLI。DLI的中位给药次数为2次(范围1 - 11次)。单因素分析显示,二次HCT用于复发时的2年总生存率(OS)(65%)优于用于GF时(44%)(P = 0.03)。对于接受DLI的患者,GF患者的2年OS为49%,复发患者为45%(P = 0.49)。对于以复发为指征的情况,二次HCT与DLI相比显示出临界优势(P = 0.07)。多因素分析显示,整个队列的OS显示供体不匹配(HR 0.50,95% CI 0.26% - 0.94%,P = 0.03)、干预时的KPS(HR 2.10,95% CI 1.14% - 3.85%,P = 0.02)以及从首次HCT到干预的时间(HR 0.51,95% CI 0.28% - 0.93%,P = 0.03)为显著变量。
如果患者再次缓解,移植后复发时进行二次HCT可能会改善结果,而DLI可保留用于患有活动性疾病的患者。