Characteristics of patients analyzed for the impact of NK alloreactivity on HSCT outcome
| Characteristics . | Patients with predicted NK alloreactivity (n = 41) . | Patients without predicted NK alloreactivity (n = 58) . | P . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median follow-up, mo (range) | 15.5 (5.2-38.6) | 27.4 (3.5-44.3) | .13 |
| Median age, y (range) | 53 (21-77) | 49.5 (21-76) | .54 |
| Patient sex, n | .39 | ||
| M | 29 | 36 | |
| F | 12 | 22 | |
| Disease, n | .66 | ||
| AML | 27 | 32 | |
| ALL | 2 | 6 | |
| MPN | 1 | 2 | |
| MDS | 1 | 5 | |
| NHL | 2 | 5 | |
| HL | 7 | 7 | |
| MM | 1 | 0 | |
| Median Sorror HCT-CI (range)* | 2 (0-6) | 3 (0-8) | .14 |
| Refined DRI, n† | .28 | ||
| Low | 3 | 4 | |
| Intermediate | 9 | 9 | |
| High | 13 | 19 | |
| Very high | 4 | 15 | |
| Previous allogeneic HSCT | 12 | 11 | |
| Conditioning regimen, n‡ | .36 | ||
| Treo-Flu-Mel | 25 | 34 | |
| Thio-Treo-Flu | 13 | 12 | |
| Thio-Bu-Flu | 0 | 3 | |
| Treo-Flu | 1 | 5 | |
| Other | 2 | 4 | |
| Source of stem cells, n | .26 | ||
| PB | 41 | 55 | |
| BM | 0 | 3 | |
| Graft composition | |||
| CD34+ cells × 106/kg, median (range) | 5.6 (4-10.3) | 5.4 (1.6-6.7) | .69 |
| CD3+ cells × 107/kg, median (range) | 156 (5-400) | 196 (4-729) | .02 |
| GVHD prophylaxis, n | NA | ||
| PT-Cy, sirolimus, MMF | 41 (100%) | 58 (100%) |
| Characteristics . | Patients with predicted NK alloreactivity (n = 41) . | Patients without predicted NK alloreactivity (n = 58) . | P . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median follow-up, mo (range) | 15.5 (5.2-38.6) | 27.4 (3.5-44.3) | .13 |
| Median age, y (range) | 53 (21-77) | 49.5 (21-76) | .54 |
| Patient sex, n | .39 | ||
| M | 29 | 36 | |
| F | 12 | 22 | |
| Disease, n | .66 | ||
| AML | 27 | 32 | |
| ALL | 2 | 6 | |
| MPN | 1 | 2 | |
| MDS | 1 | 5 | |
| NHL | 2 | 5 | |
| HL | 7 | 7 | |
| MM | 1 | 0 | |
| Median Sorror HCT-CI (range)* | 2 (0-6) | 3 (0-8) | .14 |
| Refined DRI, n† | .28 | ||
| Low | 3 | 4 | |
| Intermediate | 9 | 9 | |
| High | 13 | 19 | |
| Very high | 4 | 15 | |
| Previous allogeneic HSCT | 12 | 11 | |
| Conditioning regimen, n‡ | .36 | ||
| Treo-Flu-Mel | 25 | 34 | |
| Thio-Treo-Flu | 13 | 12 | |
| Thio-Bu-Flu | 0 | 3 | |
| Treo-Flu | 1 | 5 | |
| Other | 2 | 4 | |
| Source of stem cells, n | .26 | ||
| PB | 41 | 55 | |
| BM | 0 | 3 | |
| Graft composition | |||
| CD34+ cells × 106/kg, median (range) | 5.6 (4-10.3) | 5.4 (1.6-6.7) | .69 |
| CD3+ cells × 107/kg, median (range) | 156 (5-400) | 196 (4-729) | .02 |
| GVHD prophylaxis, n | NA | ||
| PT-Cy, sirolimus, MMF | 41 (100%) | 58 (100%) |
HCT-CI, hematopoietic cell transplantation-comorbidity index; MM, multiple myeloma; MPN, myeloproliferative neoplasm; NA, not available.
HCT-CI calculated according to Sorror et al.50
DRI calculated according to Armand et al.49
Conditioning regimens: Thio-Bu-Flu, thiotepa (5 mg/kg/d on days −7 and −6), busulfan (3.2 mg/kg/d on days −5 to −3), and fludarabine (50 mg/m2/d on days −5 to −3); Treo-Flu, treosulfan (14 g/m2/d on days −6 to −4) and fludarabine (30 mg/m2/d on days −6 to −2); Treo-Flu-Mel, treosulfan (14 g/m2/d on days −6 to −4), fludarabine (30 mg/m2/d on days −6 to −2), and melphalan (70 mg/m2/d on days −2 and −1).