Smith, Sonali M.

Purpose To analyze outcomes of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Patients and Methods Outcomes of 241 patients (112 anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, 102 peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, 27 angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma) undergoing autologous HCT (autoHCT; n = 115; median age, 43 years) or allogeneic HCT (alloHCT; n = 126; median age, 38 years) were analyzed. Primary outcomes were nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Patient, disease, and HCT-related variables were analyzed in multivariate Cox proportional hazard models to determine association with outcomes. Results AutoHCT recipients were more likely in first complete remission (CR1; 35% v 14%; P = .001) and with chemotherapy-sensitive disease (86% v 60%; P < .001), anaplastic large-cell histology (53% v 40%; P = .04), and two or fewer lines of prior therapy (65% v 44%; P < .001) compared with alloHCT recipients. Three-year PFS and OS of autoHCT recipients beyond CR1 were 42% and 53%, respectively. Among alloHCT recipients who received transplantations beyond CR1, 31% remained progression-free at 3 years, despite being more heavily pretreated and with more refractory disease. NRM was 3.5-fold higher (95% CI, 1.80 to 6.99; P < .001) for alloHCT. In multivariate analysis, chemotherapy sensitivity (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.87) and two or fewer lines of pretransplantation therapy (HR, 5.02; 95% CI, 2.15 to 11.72) were prognostic of survival. Conclusion These data describe the roles of autoHCT and alloHCT in T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and suggest greater effectiveness earlier in the disease course, and limited utility in multiply relapsed disease. Notably, autoHCT at relapse may be a potential option for select patients, particularly those with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma histology.

Abstract The best conditioning regimen before allogeneic transplantation for high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains to be clarified. We analyzed data from 396 recipients of allotransplants for DLBCL receiving myeloablative (MAC; n = 165), reduced intensity (RIC; n = 143), or nonmyeloablative conditioning (NMAC; n = 88) regimens. Acute and chronic GVHD rates were similar across the groups. Five-year nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was higher in MAC than RIC and NMAC (56% vs 47% vs 36%; P = .007). Five-year relapse/progression was lower in MAC than in RIC/NMAC (26% vs 38% vs 40%; P = .031). Five-year progression-free survival (15%-25%) and overall survival (18%-26%) did not differ significantly between the cohorts. In multivariate analysis, NMAC and more recent transplant year were associated with lower NRM, whereas a lower Karnofsky performance score (< 90), prior relapse resistant to therapy, and use of unrelated donors were associated with higher NRM. NMAC transplants, no prior use of rituximab, and prior relapse resistant to therapy were associated with a greater risk of relapse/progression. In conclusion, allotransplantation with RIC or NMAC induces long-term progression-free survival in selected DLBCL patients with a lower risk of NRM but with higher risk of lymphoma progression or relapse.