Table 2 Recent studies of alloHSCT using... | American Society of Hematology

Table 2

Recent studies of alloHSCT using haploidentical donors in AML

First author, year of study, study group, type of study	AML patients characteristics						Outcome, by donor type				Study conclusions
First author, year of study, study group, type of study	Age at diagnosis (y) (range)	AML in CR1 (%)	Median follow-up, mo	Conditioning	Stem cell source	GVHD prevention	Donor type and No.	NRM	Relapse	LFS	Study conclusions
Ciceri, 2008, retrospective, multicentric⁹⁶	36 (16-66)	14	47	Myeloablative, 100%	PBSC	Ex vivo T-cell depletion, 100%; ATG, 89%	Haploidentical, 86	0.36	0.16	0.48	The choice between haploidentical and UCB transplantation may be based on center expertise, policy, costs of the procedures, and the availability of clinical trials.


Ruggeri, 2015 EBMT, retrospective, multicentric⁹⁵	45 (18-72)	34	24	Myeloablative, 61%	BM; PBSC	PT-HDCy, 32%	UCB, 558	0.30	0.32	0.38	Cumulative incidence of relapse was not different between the 2 groups; adjusted LFS and OS were comparable.
							Haploidentical, 360	0.27	0.41	0.32

Wang, 2015, prospective, multicentric¹⁰¹	28 (15-57)	100	32	Myeloablative, 100%	BM + PBSC	ATG, 100%	MSD, 219	0.08	0.15	0.78	This comparison suggests that outcome after haploidentical HSCT (with ATG) is comparable to matched sibling alloHSCT.
Wang, 2015, prospective, multicentric¹⁰¹	28 (15-57)	100	32	Myeloablative, 100%	BM + PBSC	ATG, 100%	Haploidentical, 231	0.13	0.15	0.74
Ciurea, 2015, IBMTR, retrospective, multicentric⁹⁷	57 (21-70)	47	30-39	Myeloablative, 54%	BM	PT-HDCy, 100%	MAC MUD, 1245;	0.20	0.39	0.42	These data suggest that OS after haploidentical HSCT with PT-HDCy is comparable to MUD alloHSCT.
							Haploidentical, 104	0.14	0.44	0.41
							RIC MUD, 737	0.23	0.42	0.37
							Haploidentical, 88	0.09	0.58	0.35

First author, year of study, study group, type of study	AML patients characteristics						Outcome, by donor type				Study conclusions
First author, year of study, study group, type of study	Age at diagnosis (y) (range)	AML in CR1 (%)	Median follow-up, mo	Conditioning	Stem cell source	GVHD prevention	Donor type and No.	NRM	Relapse	LFS	Study conclusions
Ciceri, 2008, retrospective, multicentric⁹⁶	36 (16-66)	14	47	Myeloablative, 100%	PBSC	Ex vivo T-cell depletion, 100%; ATG, 89%	Haploidentical, 86	0.36	0.16	0.48	The choice between haploidentical and UCB transplantation may be based on center expertise, policy, costs of the procedures, and the availability of clinical trials.


Ruggeri, 2015 EBMT, retrospective, multicentric⁹⁵	45 (18-72)	34	24	Myeloablative, 61%	BM; PBSC	PT-HDCy, 32%	UCB, 558	0.30	0.32	0.38	Cumulative incidence of relapse was not different between the 2 groups; adjusted LFS and OS were comparable.
							Haploidentical, 360	0.27	0.41	0.32

Wang, 2015, prospective, multicentric¹⁰¹	28 (15-57)	100	32	Myeloablative, 100%	BM + PBSC	ATG, 100%	MSD, 219	0.08	0.15	0.78	This comparison suggests that outcome after haploidentical HSCT (with ATG) is comparable to matched sibling alloHSCT.
Wang, 2015, prospective, multicentric¹⁰¹	28 (15-57)	100	32	Myeloablative, 100%	BM + PBSC	ATG, 100%	Haploidentical, 231	0.13	0.15	0.74
Ciurea, 2015, IBMTR, retrospective, multicentric⁹⁷	57 (21-70)	47	30-39	Myeloablative, 54%	BM	PT-HDCy, 100%	MAC MUD, 1245;	0.20	0.39	0.42	These data suggest that OS after haploidentical HSCT with PT-HDCy is comparable to MUD alloHSCT.
							Haploidentical, 104	0.14	0.44	0.41
							RIC MUD, 737	0.23	0.42	0.37
							Haploidentical, 88	0.09	0.58	0.35

BM, bone marrow; LFS, leukemia-free survival; MSD, matched sibling donor; MUD, matched unrelated donor; UCB, unrelated cord blood.