Dehn, Jason

Abstract Newer approaches to control alloreactivity may produce similar transplant outcomes using HLA-mismatched donors vs HLA-matched unrelated donors (MUD). However, prospective comparisons are lacking. BMT CTN 1702 used a donor search prognosis score to assign patients to an 8/8 HLA MUD or the center’s preference of haploidentical related donors (HAPLO), mismatched unrelated donors (MMUD), or umbilical cord blood (UCB). Outcomes of MUD were compared to HAPLO, MMUD, and UCB transplantation after adjusting for covariates. Patients (n = 1179 [93% adults]) underwent transplantation with MUD (n = 772), HAPLO (n = 254), MMUD (n = 112), and UCB (n = 41) at a median of 3.7, 3.4, 3.9, and 3.8 months from enrollment. Posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) was used in 23.9%, 83.9%, 65.2%, and 0% of MUD, HAPLO, MMUD, and UCB. In multivariate analyses, compared to MUD, survival was lower for UCB (hazard ratio [HR], 2.65; P< .001) but not statistically different for HAPLO and MMUD (HRs, 1.08 and 1.18, respectively). Relapse risk was not significantly different by donor, but treatment-related mortality (HR, 3.31; P< .001) and disease-free survival (HR, 1.99; P = .002) were inferior for UCB but not different for HAPLO and MMUD than MUD. In patients who received PTCy, HAPLO and MMUD were associated with increased grade 3 or 4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD; HR, 2.39 [P = .017] and 2.53 [P = .038], respectively) and chronic GVHD (HR, 1.71 for both; P = .028 and .080) than MUD, but other outcomes were not different. HAPLO or MMUD may be used to expedite transplantation when finding MUD is unlikely. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03904134.

PURPOSE The likelihood of finding a human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–matched unrelated donor (MUD) for hematopoietic cell transplantation can be predicted using a donor search prognosis score. Patients without a MUD may use alternative donors (haploidentical related, mismatched unrelated, or umbilical cord blood). METHODS This multicenter biological assignment trial was conducted by the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 1702). Eligibility criteria were broad to mirror clinical practice. The primary end point was 2-year survival from evaluability and compared between those Very Likely (>90%) and Very Unlikely (<10%) to find a MUD. All other patients, Less Likely to find a MUD, were enrolled in an observational arm. Transplant outcomes were compared for all three groups. RESULTS A total of 1,751 evaluable patients at 47 centers were Very Likely (54.7%), Less Likely (29.5%), and Very Unlikely (15.8%) to identify a MUD. Survival did not differ in univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.21]; P = .98) or multivariate (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.33]; P = .56) analyses between the Very Unlikely and Very Likely groups, measured through 2 years from the beginning of a search for a MUD or alternative donor. Of the transplanted patients (n = 1,179), MUD was used for 94% of the Very Likely, 38% of Less Likely, and 9% of Very Unlikely patients. Multivariate analyses showed no differences in relapse, treatment-related mortality, disease-free survival, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host diseases for the three search prognosis groups after transplantation. CONCLUSION Using a donor search prognosis strategy to prioritize an alternative donor for patients Very Unlikely to find a MUD resulted in survival and transplant outcomes that were not statistically different compared with those Very Likely to find a MUD.

Background: A donor search prognosis score based on HLA type and race/ethnicity can classify patients into 3 groups based on the likelihood of finding an HLA-matched (8/8) unrelated donor (MUD): Very Likely (44% of the population), Likely (41%) and Very Unlikely (15%). Previous studies showed that &gt;90% of Very Likely, 26% of Likely and &lt;10% of Very Unlikely patients used a MUD for their hematopoietic cell transplants (HCT), with the rest using other donor sources (mismatched unrelated donor, cord blood, or haploidentical relative). For some patients, prolonged efforts to identify a MUD might be futile and delay HCT, leading to increased morbidity, greater chance for relapse and disease resistance, and worse HCT outcomes. BMT CTN 1702 (NCT03904134) was the first national study to track the entire donor search identification process. Designed as a biologic assignment study, the goal was to estimate and compare overall survival between two arms: patients who are Very Likely to find a MUD versus those who are Very Unlikely to find a MUD. It tested whether provision of a donor search prognosis score to centers could prevent prolonged futile searches for the Very Unlikely group and improve their transplant rates and outcomes, compared to the Very Likely group. Methods: Eligible diagnoses included acute leukemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, lymphoma, acquired aplastic anemia and sickle cell disease. Patients could be consented at any time after diagnosis until an unrelated donor search was started. Consented patients became evaluable only after it was determined that no appropriate HLA-identical siblings were available. The primary endpoint was survival time after the patient was declared evaluable, regardless of whether HCT occurred, and was compared between the Very Unlikely and Very Likely groups. The target enrollment was 1732 evaluable patients. Because this was a biologic assignment trial and not a randomized trial, formal comparisons of overall survival between the Very Likely and Very Unlikely groups were done using a covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. The following covariates were a priori specified for adjustment in the model, according to the statistical analysis plan: sex, age, Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), race/ethnicity, disease, disease status, and interval from consent to evaluability. Results: 1751 evaluable patients were enrolled at 47 centers: 44% female, median age 59.4 years (range 0.6-81.3 years), 73% were non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic White, 8% Black, 5% Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.5% American Indian/Alaska Native. Among the evaluable patients, 1181 received a HCT, 827 died, and 924 are still alive with or without HCT, with a median of 25 months of follow up (range=6-54 months [mos], inter-quartile range [IQR]=25-34 mos). The distribution was: 958 Very Likely, 517 Less Likely, and 276 Very Unlikely. Individuals in the Very Unlikely group were younger and were less likely to be non-Hispanic White. The unadjusted cumulative incidences of undergoing HCT by 6 mos and 2 years [yrs], in the Very Unlikely group were 51% and 61% vs. 60% and 69% in the Very Likely Group; after adjustment, there was not a significant difference in the likelihood of undergoing HCT (Dehn et al, submitted). There was no difference in median time from evaluability to HCT: 3.4 mos Very Unlikely and 3.3 mos Very Likely. Unadjusted survival rates from the time of evaluability for the Very Unlikely and the Very Likely groups were: 6 mos (85% vs 84%), 1 yr (69% vs. 69%) and 2 yrs (55% vs. 56%). In the multivariate Cox model, there was no significant difference in the risk of death (HR = 1.07 for Very Unlikely vs. Very Likely, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.33, p=0.56) adjusting for significant clinical covariates: age, KPS, disease status, and time from consent to evaluability were all significantly associated with overall survival. There was no significant center effect and no interaction between donor search prognosis group and clinical covariates. Conclusion: In this large multicenter BMT CTN study, using the donor selection strategy described, there was no difference in adjusted time to HCT or survival for patients Very Likely versus Very Unlikely to find an 8/8 MUD. These results suggest that patients Very Unlikely to identify a MUD should proceed to HCT using the best available alternative donor rather than delaying HCT to try to identify a MUD.

Abstract Background: The association of clinical trial participation with outcomes in cancer patients is controversial, with some studies reporting better outcomes for trial participants while others do not. It is possible that the difference in outcomes is due to differences in baseline characteristics of participants and non-participants. The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) 0201 trial was a large randomized, multi-center study comparing peripheral blood (PB) with bone marrow (BM) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) from HLA-matched or 1 allele mismatched unrelated donors (URD) in patients with acute leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. The trial reported no significant survival differences between PB and BM; there was decreased risk of graft failure but increased risk of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) with PB grafts (Anasetti et al NEJM 2012). Methods: We compared characteristics of BMT CTN 0201 study participants (n=494) with HCT recipients who did not participate on the trial (n=1384) but were potentially eligible by virtue of known characteristics. These patients received similar conditioning and GVHD prophylaxis as trial participants at 38 United States trial centers during the study time-period. Centers that had no eligible non-trial participants were excluded. Outcomes between patients on and off trial were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Data were obtained from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) that collects patient data on all trial and non-trial allogeneic HCT recipients through its registry function. Results: Approximately 29% [494/1878] of apparently eligible patients were randomized and analyzed as part of the trial. There were no significant differences between study participants and non-participants in age or sex distribution, disease types, HLA or sex matching, comorbidities, or interval from diagnosis to HCT. Higher proportions of non-participants were Hispanic, had a lower performance status and lower disease risk, and received myeloablative conditioning and antithymocyte globulin (ATG) or Campath than the study participants. PB was used more commonly as the graft source in the non-participants as compared to the study participants (65% vs. 50%, p<0.001). In multivariate models, overall mortality (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95-1.25, p=0.22), transplant-related mortality (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.32, p=0.42) and risks of acute grade II-IV (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82-1.12, p=0.57) and chronic GVHD (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92-1.23, p=0.41) were comparable between study non-participants and participants. Non-participants were at higher risk for relapse than participants (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.04-1.49, p=0.02) in the multivariate analysis adjusted for disease risk and other clinical variables. Center effect was examined and was not found to be significant (p=0.10). There was no significant interaction between graft source and trial participation (P=0.22) and the risk of mortality was comparable for BM (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80-1.22, p=0.90) and PB recipients (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.41, p=0.09) whether on trial or off trial. (Figure) Conclusion: Approximately 29% of patients who appeared eligible and were treated with conditioning and GVHD prophylaxis regimens allowed on the trial were enrolled. Despite some differences in clinical characteristics, most of the outcomes of non-trial participants were comparable to trial participants, suggesting that there is no definitive evidence that the outcomes of patients in a clinical trial are superior to those of the non-participants treated in a similar fashion. The comparable outcomes also indicate that the results of this trial were not seriously affected by selection bias and are therefore representative of the larger population. Figure 1: Adjusted overall survival in BMT CTN 0201 trial participants and non-participants Figure 1:. Adjusted overall survival in BMT CTN 0201 trial participants and non-participants Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.