Allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation outcomes of patients aged ≥ 55 years with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in China: a retrospective study

Abstract

Abstract Background Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes (AML/MDS) have historically had poor prognoses. However, there has been a recent increase in the use of allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) are in this patient population. Nevertheless, the optimal choice of donor type for the patients remains an unmet need. Limited data exist on the use of allo-HSCT in elderly patients with AML/MDS from China. To better understand and optimize the selection of donor type for the elderly patients, particularly for those with refractory or relapsed disease, in comparison with the previous studies in the US and Europe. Methods Our retrospective study enrolled 259 patients aged over 55 years who underwent their first allo-HSCT between April 2015 and August 2022. These patients were divided into three groups based on donor type: haploidentical related donor group (haploidentical related donor transplantation [HID], n = 184), matched sibling donor group (matched sibling donor transplantation [MSD], n = 39), and matched unrelated donor group (matched unrelated donor transplantation [MUD], n = 36). Statistics were performed with the chi-square test, the log-rank and Fine-Gray tests. Results The median age of the cohort was 57 years (range: 55–75) and 26.25% of patients were over 60 years old. Younger patients had a higher incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (HR = 1.942, P = 0.035), faster neutrophil recovery (HR = 1.387, P = 0.012), and better overall survival (HR = 0.567, P = 0.043) than patients aged ≥ 60 years across the entire cohort. Patients with refractory or relapsed (R/R) diseases had delayed neutrophil engraftment (P = 0.010, HR = 0.752) and platelet engraftment (P < 0.001, HR = 0.596), higher incidence of relapses (HR = 2.300, P = 0.013), and inferior relapse-free survival (RFS) (HR = 1.740, HR = 0.016) regardless of donor type. When it came to graft-versus-host-disease-free, relapse-free survival (GRFS), MUDs turned out to be superior to HIDs (HR = 0.472, P = 0.026) according to the multivariable analysis. In contrast, we found MSDs had an inferior GRFS to HIDs in parallel (HR = 1.621, P = 0.043). Conclusion The choice of donor type did not significantly affect the outcomes of allo-HSCT. However, when considering the quality of post-transplant life, MUDs or HIDs from younger donors may be the optimal choice for elderly patients.