Outcomes of related donor HLA-identical or HLA-haploidentical allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation for peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Biology of blood and marrow transplantation: journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (Impact Factor: 3.15). 01/2013;
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The role of allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation (alloBMT) for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) remains to be defined. There is growing interest in reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens and/or utilization of HLA-haploidentical (haplo) grafts given concerns about treatment-associated toxicities and donor availability. METHODS: We reviewed the outcomes of 44 consecutive, related donor alloBMTs for PTCL performed at Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1994-2011, including 18 RIC/haplo alloBMTs. RESULTS: Patients receiving RIC (n=24) were older with median age of 59 years (range 24-70) than patients receiving myeloablative conditioning (MAC, n=20) with median age of 46 years (range 18-64), p=0.01. The median age at RIC/haplo alloBMT was 60 years. The estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 40% (95% confidence interval (CI) 26-55%) and overall survival (OS) was 43% (95% CI 28-59%). In older patients (> 60, n=14), the estimated 2-year PFS and OS were 38% (CI 18-79%) and 45% (CI 24-86%). On unadjusted analysis, there was a tendency towards superior outcomes for alloBMT in first remission versus beyond first remission, with an estimated 2-year PFS of 53% (95% CI 33-77%) versus 29% (95% CI 9-45%), p=0.08. On competing risk analysis, the 1-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 38% for MAC/HLA-identical alloBMTs and 34% for RIC/haplo alloBMTs. Estimated 1-year non-relapse mortality was 10% for MAC and 8% for RIC (11% for RIC/haplo alloBMT). On unadjusted landmark analysis, patients with acute grade II-IV or chronic GVHD had a 17% probability of relapse (95% CI 0-39%), compared to 66% (95% CI 48-84%) in patients without GVHD, p=0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of RIC and alternative donors expands treatment options in PTCL to those who are older and unable to tolerate high-dose conditioning, with outcomes comparable to approaches using myeloablative regimens and HLA-matched donors. AlloBMT may be appropriate in first remission in select high-risk cases.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is associated with several complications and risk factors, for example, graft versus host disease (GVHD), viral infections, relapse, and graft rejection. While high levels of CD3+ cells in grafts can contribute to GVHD, they also promote the graft versus leukemia (GVL) effect. Infusions of extra lymphocytes from the original stem cell donor can be used as a treatment after transplantation for relapse or poor immune reconstitution but also they increase the risk for GVHD. In peripheral blood, 95% of T-cells express the αβ T-cell receptor and the remaining T-cells express the γδ T-cell receptor. As αβ T-cells are the primary mediators of GVHD, depleting them from the graft should reduce this risk. In this pilot study, five patients transplanted with HLA-matched related and unrelated donors were treated with αβ T-cell depleted stem cell boosts. The majority of γδ T-cells in the grafts expressed Vδ2 and/or Vγ9. Most patients receiving αβ-depleted stem cell boosts increased their levels of white blood cells, platelets, and/or granulocytes 30 days after infusion. No signs of GVHD or other side effects were detected. A larger pool of patients with longer follow-up time is needed to confirm the data in this study.
    Research Journal of Immunology 01/2014; 2014:578741.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hepatosplenic T cell lymphoma (HSTCL) is a type of hematologic neoplasia with a poor prognosis and a high frequency of refractoriness to conventional chemotherapy. The results obtained by high dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cells transplantation seem to be a more effective option but still unsatisfactory. Also the role of allogeneic stem cell transplantation is still unclear, although the few cases reported on the literature would seem to show good results in overall survival rates. In this paper, we reported the patient׳s medical history affected by a αβ variant of hepatosplenic T cell successfully rescued with a haploidentical transplant.
    Leukemia research reports. 01/2014; 3(2):90-93.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) receiving conventional treatment have a poor clinical outcome. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of chemo-immunotherapy in young (60 years old, Clin A study) and elderly (>60 and 75 years old, Clin B study) patients with newly diagnosed PTCL. Clin A patients (n=61) received two courses of CHOP (cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine, prednisone)-21 with alemtuzumab (AL, 30 mg) followed by two courses of high-dose chemotherapy. On the basis of donor availability, patients in response received allogeneic (allo) or autologous (auto) stem cell transplantation (SCT). Clin B patients (n=25) received six courses of CHOP-21 and AL (10 mg). Clin A responding patients were 38 of 61 (62%) and received alloSCT (n=23) or autoSCT (n=14); one complete remission (CR) patient was not transplanted. At a median follow-up of 40 months, the 4-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 49, 44 and 65%, respectively. In Clin B study, the response rate was 72%. At a median follow-up of 48 months, the 4-year OS, PFS and DFS rates were 31, 26 and 44%, respectively. In conclusion, front-line alloSCT or autoSCT is effective in prolonging DFS in young patients; AL in elderly improved response with no survival benefit.Leukemia advance online publication, 25 March 2014; doi:10.1038/leu.2014.79.
    Leukemia: official journal of the Leukemia Society of America, Leukemia Research Fund, U.K 02/2014; 28(9). · 10.16 Impact Factor