Myeloablative Conditioning Is Preferred for Allogeneic Transplantation of Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes with Low/Intermediate but Not High Disease Risk Index

Abstract

Although some data (Scott, JCO 2017) suggest that myeloablative conditioning (MAC) is preferred for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), these data were not informed by analysis of disease specific risk factors. We analyzed AML and MDS HCT outcomes stratified by the disease risk index (DRI) in order to identify the preferred transplant conditioning intensity (reduced-intensity conditioning [RIC] vs. MAC). In this large CIBMTR registry study we identified 4387 adult patients (age 40-65 years) who received HCT for AML (68%) or MDS (32%) between 2009 and 2015. DRI was stratified as low/ intermediate risk (1539 MAC and 999 RIC) and high/ very high risk (1121 MAC and 728 RIC). Examining the low/ intermediate risk DRI cohort (Table), RIC was associated with lower risk of TRM (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88; p<0.001) but significantly higher risk of relapse (HR=1.54, 95% CI 1.35-1.76; p<0.001). As a result, RFS in this cohort was significantly worse with RIC (HR=1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.33; p=0.001). In the high/ very high risk DRI cohort, RIC resulted in similar TRM (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.00; p=0.051) but again significantly higher risk of relapse (HR=1.23, 95% CI 1.08-1.41; p=0.002). RFS in high/ very high risk DRI cohort was similar between RIC and MAC. Adjusted outcome curves for the 3 endpoints are shown in the Figure. In this large study of HCT for AML or MDS stratified by DRI, RIC was independent predictor of lower TRM, but significantly higher risk of relapse. The MAC was an independent predictor of lower relapse in both low/ intermediate and high/very high DRI groups. However, MAC only resulted in RFS benefit in the low/ intermediate group where the magnitude of impact on relapse was not offset by the higher TRM. In adults with AML or MDS aged 40-65 years, these data support MAC as the preferred conditioning intensity for low/ intermediate risk DRI, whereas MAC does not provide significant benefit in those with high/ very high risk DRI. Safer, yet still potent MAC regimens could benefit this higher risk group. Disclosures Bejanyan: Kiadis Pharma: Other: advisory board. Brunstein:Gamida: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Magenta: Research Funding. Kebriaei:Amgen: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria. Weisdorf:Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding.