4.6 Article

ATG versus PTCy in matched unrelated donor haematopoietic stem cell transplantations with non-myeloablative conditioning

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.19031

关键词

allogeneic; anti-thymocyte globulin; in vivo; matched unrelated donor; post-transplantation cyclophosphamide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic comparison of transplantation outcomes between two lymphocyte-depleting strategies, ATG and PTCy, in non-myeloablative conditioning for allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation revealed a significantly lower rate of acute GvHD in the PTCy group compared to the ATG group.
Graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) is a serious complication of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Both anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) and post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) are used as lymphocyte-depleting strategies, yet a systematic comparison of transplantation outcomes between these two methods in matched unrelated donors (MUD) transplantations with non-myeloablative conditioning (NMC) is lacking. Adult patients with haematological malignancies who had undergone MUD HSCT with NMC regimens between 2014 and 2021 at 2 centres in Amsterdam (ATG: n = 95, PTCy: n = 90), were included in this retrospective study. Patient characteristics were comparable between the groups. The cumulative incidence of acute GvHD grade II-IV was 48% in the ATG group compared to 21% in the PTCy group (p < 0.001). The 3-year moderate/severe chronic GvHD was similar in both groups (p = 0.69). While the relapse rate was comparable between the groups (ATG 31% vs. PTCy 34%, p = 0.94), non-relapse mortality tended to be higher in the ATG group (17% vs. 9%, p = 0.069). Overall survival was similar in both groups (p = 0.12). In conclusion, PTCy-based regimens resulted in a significantly lower rate of acute GvHD than ATG-containing regimens in MUD transplantations with NMC. Whether PTCy results in improved overall survival as compared to ATG needs to be elucidated in larger prospective studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据