1.
Prognostic impact of EBV serostatus in patients with lymphomas or chronic malignancies undergoing allogeneic HCT
Styczynski, J., Tridello, G., Gil, L., Ljungman, P., Mikulska, M., Ward, K. N., Cordonnier, C., de la Camara, R., Averbuch, D., Knelange, N., et al
Bone marrow transplantation. 2019
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
The influence of the donor (D) and recipient (R) pre-transplant Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) serostatus on transplant outcomes (overall survival, relapse-free survival, relapse incidence, non-relapse mortality, acute and chronic GVHD) in 12,931 patients with lymphomas or chronic malignancies undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) between 1997-2016 was analyzed. In multivariate analysis, the risk of development of chronic GVHD was increased for EBV R+/D+ (HR = 1.26; p = 0.003), R+/D- (HR = 1.21; p = 0.044), and R-/D + (HR = 1.21; p = 0.048) in comparison to R-/D- transplants. No significance was shown for other transplant outcomes; however, in univariate analysis, EBV-seropositive patients receiving grafts from EBV-seropositive donors (EBV R+/D+transplants) had inferior transplant outcomes in comparison to EBV-seronegative recipients of grafts from EBV-seronegative donors (EBV R-/D-): inferior overall survival (59.6% vs 65.9%), inferior relapse-free survival (51.1% vs 57.5%), increased incidence of chronic GVHD (49.5% vs 41.8%), and increased incidence of de novo chronic GVHD (30.5% vs 24.0%). In conclusion, an EBV-negative recipient with lymphoma or chronic malignancy can benefit from selection of an EBV-negative donor in context of chronic GVHD, while there are no preferences in donor EBV serostatus for EBV-seropositive recipient.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with lymphomas or chronic malignancies undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant between 1997-2016 (n=12,931)
Intervention
Epstein-Barr virus seropositive donors (D+) and/or recipients (R+)
Comparison
Epstein-Barr virus seronegative donors (D-) and/or recipients (R-)
Outcome
In multivariate analysis, the risk of development of chronic GVHD was increased for EBV R+/D+, R+/D- and R-/D + in comparison to R-/D- transplants. No significance was shown for other transplant outcomes; however, in univariate analysis, EBV-seropositive patients receiving grafts from EBV-seropositive donors (EBV R+/D+transplants) had inferior transplant outcomes in comparison to EBV-seronegative recipients of grafts from EBV-seronegative donors (EBV R-/D-): inferior overall survival (59.6% vs 65.9%), inferior relapse-free survival (51.1% vs 57.5%), increased incidence of chronic GVHD (49.5% vs 41.8%), and increased incidence of de novo chronic GVHD (30.5% vs 24.0%).
2.
The prognostic impact of the cytomegalovirus serostatus in patients with chronic hematological malignancies after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a report from the Infectious Diseases Working Party of EBMT
Schmidt-Hieber, M., Tridello, G., Ljungman, P., Mikulska, M., Knelange, N., Blaise, D., Socie, G., Volin, L., Blijlevens, N., Fegueux, N., et al
Annals of hematology. 2019
Abstract
It has been shown recently that donor and/or recipient cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity is associated with a significant overall survival (OS) decline in acute leukemia patients who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). We now analyzed the prognostic impact of the donor/recipient CMV serostatus in 6968 patients with chronic hematological malignancies who underwent allo-HSCT. Donor and/or recipient CMV seropositivity was associated with a significantly reduced 2-year progression-free survival (PFS, 50% vs. 52%, p = 0.03) and OS (62% vs. 65%, p = 0.01). Multivariate Cox regression analyses showed an independent negative prognostic impact of donor and/or recipient CMV seropositivity on PFS (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; p = 0.03), OS (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; p = 0.003), and non-relapse mortality (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.3; p = 0.02). OS decline was strongest for CMV-seropositive recipients with a CMV-seronegative donor (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3), followed by CMV-seropositive patients with a CMV-seropositive donor (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2). Conversely, OS did not differ significantly between CMV-seronegative recipients allografted from a CMV-seropositive donor (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9-1.2) and patients with donor/recipient CMV seronegativity (p = 0.001 for the four groups together). Non-relapse mortality was also significantly (p = 0.01) higher for CMV-seropositive patients with a CMV-seronegative graft (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4) than for CMV-seropositive patients with a CMV-seropositive graft (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.2) or CMV-seronegative recipients with a CMV-seropositive graft (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2). Donor and/or recipient CMV seropositivity still results in an OS decline in patients with chronic hematological malignancies who have undergone allo-HSCT. However, this OS decline seems to be lower than that described for acute leukemia patients previously.