SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • acute myeloid leukaemia;
  • allogeneic stem cell transplantation;
  • bone marrow;
  • peripheral blood stem cells;
  • unrelated donors

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Design and methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conflict of interest statement
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Abstract.  Ringdén O, Labopin M, Beelen DW, Volin L, Ehninger G, Finke J, Greinix HT, Kyrcz-Krzemien S, Bunjes D, Brinch L, Niederwieser D, Arnold R, Mohty M, Rocha V, for the Acute Leukaemia Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) (Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Sweden; CEREST-TC EBMT, Paris, France; University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany; Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland; University Hospital, Dresden, Germany; University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany; Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland; University Hospital, Ulm, Germany; Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway; University Hospital, Leipzig, Germany; Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany; Université de Nantes, Nantes, France; and Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France). Bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation from unrelated donors in adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, an Acute Leukaemia Working Party analysis in 2262 patients. J Intern Med 2012; 272: 472–483.

Background.  No survival benefit of using blood stem cells instead of bone marrow (BM) has been shown in matched unrelated donor (MUD) transplantation.

Design and methods.  In a retrospective registry analysis, we compared the use of blood stem cells (= 1502) and BM (= 760) from unrelated donors in patients aged 18–60 years with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) undergoing myeloablative conditioning between 1997 and 2008. The blood stem cell recipients were older (< 0.01), had more advanced disease (< 0.0001) and received less total body irradiation (< 0.0001) and more antithymocyte globulin (= 0.01).

Results.  Recovery of neutrophils and platelets was faster with blood stem cells (< 0.0001). The incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was similar, but there was more chronic GVHD in the blood stem cell group [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29, = 0.02]. There were no significant differences in nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse incidence and leukaemia-free survival (LFS) between the two groups amongst patients with AML in remission. In patients with advanced leukaemia, NRM was lower (HR = 0.61, = 0.02) and LFS was prolonged (HR = 0.67, = 0.002) when blood stem cells were used. At 3 years, LFS for all patients, regardless of remission status, was 41% for both treatment groups. The outcome was not affected after multivariable analysis adjusted for confounders.

Conclusion.  Blood stem cells compared with BM in MUD transplantation for patients with AML in remission resulted in the same rates of LFS. In patients with advanced leukaemia, the blood stem cell group had reduced NRM and improved LFS.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Design and methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conflict of interest statement
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Using HLA-identical sibling transplants, several prospective randomized studies and retrospective studies have compared granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) and bone marrow (BM) as the source of haematopoietic stem cells [1–10]. During the last decade, PBSCs have become the most common source of stem cells in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) [11]. In the report from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) in 2006, PBSCs were the source of stem cells in 71%, BM in 24% and cord blood in 5% of transplants [11]. In 2009, the corresponding figures for the three stem cells sources were 71%, 22% and 7% [12].

Regarding the use of unrelated donors, a few studies with limited numbers of transplant patients have lent support to wider use of PBSCs rather than BM [13–17]. One complication associated with the use of PBSCs is the higher risk of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) than with BM using HLA-identical sibling donors or matched unrelated donors (MUDs) [8, 14, 18, 19]. Chronic GVHD is associated with a beneficial graft-versus-leukaemia effect, resulting in a reduced probability of relapse [20–22]. Despite the increased incidence of chronic GVHD using unrelated donors, the use of PBSCs has not resulted in a reduced probability of relapse compared with BM transplantation in patients with leukaemia in remission [14, 16, 17, 19]. To determine which source of stem cells is superior in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), we compared the outcomes of using PBSCs and BM in MUD recipients treated with myeloablative conditioning (MAC).

Design and methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Design and methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conflict of interest statement
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Data collection

The EBMT is a group of 605 HSCT centres that report all consecutive transplantations to a common registry. Adult patients (18–60 years) with AML who received MAC and MUD transplants between 1997 and 2008 were included in this retrospective registry analysis; patients with secondary AML were excluded. Only the first HSCT was included, and transplants were restricted to those receiving HLA-A-, HLA-B- and DRB1-identical grafts. MUDs were identified by serological or genomic tissue typing for HLA class I and genomic typing for HLA class II. Detailed HLA typing was lacking for the majority of cases. In most European centres, a 6/6 antigen match is required for MUD transplantation in AML. When detailed HLA matching was available, it was similar in the PBSC and BM groups. In total, 760 patients who received BM and 1502 patients who received PBSCs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Ethics Committee of the Karolinska Institutet.

Patient characteristics

The characteristics of the patients who received BM or PBSCs are shown in Table 1. Median follow-up was longer in the BM group, because the PBSC transplants were carried out more recently. In the PBSC group, the patients were older and had more advanced disease at transplant, fewer patients received total body irradiation (TBI), and more received antithymocyte globulin (ATG) or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG). PBSC recipients who underwent transplantation during complete remission (CR) for the first time (CR1) or in the advanced phase of the disease were transplanted more recently than those who received BM. Other prognostic variables such as female donor to male recipient, cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity in recipients and donors, French–American–British nomenclature (FAB) and cytogenetic abnormalities were not statistically significantly different between the two groups.

Table 1. Characteristics of adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia who received PBSC or BM grafts from unrelated donors
 BMPBSCs P-value
n % n %
  1. CR, complete remission; FAB, French–American–British; CMV, cytomegalovirus; CsA, cyclosporine; Mtx, methotrexate; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; ATG, antithymocyte globulin; ALG, antilymphocyte globulin; WBC, white blood cell; PBSC, peripheral blood stem cell.

No. of patients7601502 
Median age at transplant, years3640<0.01
Range18–6018–60
Median year of transplant20032005<0.0001
Range(1997–2008)(1997–2008)
Median WBC count at diagnosis15.616.50.77
Range(0.5–415)(0.3–818)
Remission
 CR13474671448 
 CR2 and CR32443235324 
 Advanced (>5% blasts in the BM)1692243529<0.0001
FAB
 M04177880.21
 M11142021422
 M21462626126
 M3173121
 M41282323524
 M5851513413
 M6234535
 M7112131
Cytogenetic abnormalities
 Good43145914 
 Intermediate2167130169
 Poor46157417
 Missing4551068
Sex of patient, female38250718480.26
Median age of donor, years37360.25
Range(18–67)(16–62)
Sex of donor, female23030411270.2
Female donor to male recipient9313160110.29
CMV
 CMV+ donor, CMV+ recipient14927314320.08
 CMV mismatch donor/recipient2394339140
 CMV–donor, CMV–recipient1733127728
Median time from diagnosis to transplant, days
 CR1191 (81–761)168 (48–749)0.0001
 CR2/3583 (127–2515)578 (113–3535)0.93
 Advanced disease306 (104–1425)220 (60–1890)0.0001
Conditioning
 Cyclophosphamide, total body irradiation52068858570.0001
 Busulfan and cyclophosphamide1912541927
 Other49725515
Nucleated cell dose × 108 kg−12.7 (0.2–87.0)9.71 (1.58–46.0)<0.001
CD34+ cell dose × 106 kg−12.78 (0.14–74.0)6.9 (2.02–35.3)<0.001
Graft-versus-host disease prevention
 CsA + MTX4788167168<0.0001
 Tacrolimus ± MTX102151
 CsA + MMF14210810
 CsA + steroids28510810
 Other112273
 T-cell depletion in vitro53910690.98
 ATG or ALG: yes/no, %311/33448588/489550.01
Median follow-up, months3615 
Range1–1401–144<0.0001

Prophylaxis of GVHD

Graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis consisted of cyclosporine or tacrolimus and methotrexate in 83% of the BM recipients and 69% of the PBSC recipients. The remaining patients received cyclosporine alone or with mycophenolate mofetil or steroids.

Conditioning regimen

In EBMT in 2004, 34% of patients received reduced-intensity conditioning [11]; in 2009, 39% were conditioned with such regimens [12]. To maximize the homogeneity of the patient population, we decided to include only patients who received MAC, defined as established conditioning regimens that result in pancytopenia if haematopoietic stem cells are not infused. The most common conditioning regimen was cyclophosphamide (120 mg kg−1) combined with fractionated TBI, which was given to 68% of the patients in the BM group and 57% in the PBSC group (< 0.0001). Busulfan (16 mg kg−1 orally or intravenous Busulvex) combined with cyclophosphamide (120 mg kg−1) was the second most commonly used regimen. Other regimens were only used in a small number of patients.

Definitions

Study end-points included engraftment, GVHD, relapse, leukaemia-free survival (LFS) and survival. Engraftment was defined as a sustained recovery of absolute neutrophil count of more than 0.5 × 109 L−1. GVHD was scored from 0 to IV according to established criteria [23]. Nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was defined as any death without previous relapse or progression of leukaemia. Relapse was defined as haematological relapse with at least 20% blast cells in the BM aspirate, or the presence of extramedullary leukaemic cells (i.e. extramedullary relapse). LFS was defined as survival without any evidence of relapse or progressive leukaemia (i.e. >5% blasts in the BM, with the percentage increasing and not controlled by therapy). Cytogenetic abnormalities were classified as: ‘good’, including t(8;21), t(15;17) and inv or del (16); or ‘poor’, including 11q23 abnormalities, complex karyotypes (at least three abnormalities) and abnormalities of chromosomes five and seven. All other abnormalities, including trisomies, were included in an ‘intermediate’ group [24].

Statistics

Cumulative incidence curves were used in a competing risks setting, death being treated as a competing event to calculate the probabilities of haematopoietic recovery and chronic GVHD [25, 26]. Cumulative incidence curves were also used to calculate the probabilities of relapse and NRM as death and relapse were competing events. Comparisons between cumulative incidence curves were performed using the Gray test. Probabilities of survival and LFS were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier estimate, and the log-rank test was used for univariable comparisons. Multivariable analysis for acute GVHD was performed using logistic regression analysis.

Patient-, disease- and transplant-related variables of the two groups were compared using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and the Mann–Whitney test for continuous variables. Recipient age and sex, disease characteristics, FAB classification, cytogenetic abnormalities, white blood cell count at the time of diagnosis, donor age and sex and recipient and donor CMV status were considered as variables. Patients were divided into those in CR1, or second or third complete remission (CR2 and CR3, respectively) and those with more advanced disease (>5% blast cells in the BM). Transplant characteristics included year of transplant, source of stem cells, pretransplant regimen and GVHD prophylaxis.

Factors that differed between recipients of BM and PBSCs, with P-values <0.05, and factors known to influence outcome were included in the final models. For all prognostic analyses, continuous variables were categorized and the median was used as a cut-off point. Associations between patient/graft characteristics and outcomes were evaluated in multivariable analysis, using the Cox proportional hazards model. To test for a centre effect, we introduced a random effect or frailty for each centre into the model [27, 28]. All tests were two-sided. The type-I error rate was fixed at 0.05 for determination of factors associated with time to event outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using spss software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and splus software (Math-Soft Inc, Seattle, WA, USA).

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Design and methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conflict of interest statement
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Neutrophil and platelet recovery

The cumulative incidence of neutrophil recovery at day 60 was 94% (95% CI: 92–96%) in the BM group and 96% (95% CI: 95–97%) in the PBSC group (< 0.001). Six patients in the BM group lost their grafts, compared with three in the PBSC group. Median time to reach an absolute neutrophil count >0.5 × 109 L−1 was 20 days in the BM group and 16 days in the PBSC group (< 0.001; Fig. 1a). Cumulative incidence of platelet recovery to >20 × 109 L−1 at 1 year was significantly higher in the PBSC group (93%; 95% CI: 90–95%) than in the BM group (89%; 95% CI: 85–92%; < 0.0001; Fig. 1b). In multivariable analysis, after adjustment for differences between the two groups, we found that PBSC recipients experienced faster neutrophil recovery [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.67–2.14; < 0.0001] and platelet recovery (HR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.92–2.75; < 0.0001) than patients who received BM.

image

Figure 1. (a) Cumulative recovery of absolute neutrophil count to >0.5 × 109 L−1 in patients treated with unrelated peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) or bone marrow (BM; P  < 0.0001). Proportion of neutrophils at 30 and 60 days ± standard error. (b) Cumulative recovery of platelets to >20 × 109 L−1 in recipients of unrelated PBSCs or BM (P  < 0.0001). Proportion of platelets at 1 year (±standard error) is shown.

Download figure to PowerPoint

GVHD

Acute GVHD of grades II–IV occurred in 35% of patients in the BM group, which was not statistically significantly different from 33% of those in the PBSC group (= 0.41). Acute GVHD of grades III–IV was present in 11% of patients who received BM and in 12.5% of those given PBSCs. In multivariable analysis, graft source (BM or PBSCs) was not associated with the presence of acute GVHD of grades II–IV. However, the use of T-cell depletion and ATG or ALG in the conditioning regimen significantly reduced GVHD. The cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD at 2 years was 36% in the BM group (95% CI: 32–40%) compared with 46% (95% CI: 43–50%) in the PBSC group (= 0.001; Fig. 2). However, the cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was 16% (95% CI: 13–19%) and 19% (95% CI: 17–22%), respectively, (= 0.21). Multivariable analysis confirmed that PBSC recipients experienced more chronic GVHD (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.04–1.61; = 0.02).

image

Figure 2. Cumulative incidence and time to chronic graft-versus-host disease in recipients of unrelated peripheral blood stem cells or bone marrow (P  = 0.002). Incidence rate at 2 years after transplant are given for the two groups (± standard error).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Chronic GVHD, NRM, relapse incidence and LFS according to disease status at transplantation

Patients in CR1.  Median age was lower in the BM group: 36 years (range 18–60) compared with 39 (range 18–60) in the PBSC group (P = 0.001). The median year of transplantation was earlier in the BM group: 2004 compared with 2006 in the PBSC group (P < 0.0001). There were no significant difference probabilities in chronic GVHD, NRM, incidence of relapse or LFS in univariable or multivariable analysis between patients undergoing transplant in CR1 in the two groups (Tables 2 and 3). Three years after transplantation, LFS was 53% (95% CI: 47–59%) in patients in the BM group and 48% (95% CI: 44–53%) in PBSC recipients (P = 0.32; Fig. 3a). Amongst patients in CR1 with cytogenetic abnormalities classified as intermediate, poor or missing (defined as a lack of data), there were no statistically significant differences in NRM, relapse incidence or LFS between the BM and PBSC groups.

Table 2. Chronic GVHD, NRM, relapse incidence and LFS in patients with adult AML in CR1, CR2/3 or advanced disease, who received BM or PBSC grafts from unrelated donors
OutcomesBMPBSCs P-value
  1. Values are probability (95% confidence interval).

  2. CR, complete remission; AML, acute myeloid leukaemia; BM, bone marrow; PBSC, peripheral blood stem cell; GVHD, graft-versus-host disease; NRM, nonrelapse mortality; LFS, leukaemia-free survival.

AML CR1
 2-year chronic GVHD38 (31–44)46 (41–44)0.14
 3-year NRM22 (17–27)22 (18–26)0.96
 3-year relapse incidence25 (20–31)30 (26–34)0.25
 3-year LFS53 (47–59)48 (44–53)0.32
AML CR2/3
 2-year chronic GVHD40 (33–47)50 (43–57)0.005
 3-year NRM32 (26–38)31 (26–36)0.47
 3-year relapse incidence24 (18–30)21 (16–26)0.50
 3-year LFS44 (37–51)48 (42–54)0.21
AML advanced disease (>5% blasts in the BM)
 2-year chronic GVHD25 (17–33)41 (34–47)0.002
 3-year NRM36 (29–43)28 (24–33)0.06
 3-year relapse incidence51 (43–58)49 (44–54)0.46
 3-year LFS13 (8–18)23 (18–27)0.001
Table 3. Multivariable analysis of adult patients with AML who received BM or PBSCs from unrelated donors: chronic GVHD, NRM, relapse incidence and LFS were analysed
ParametersHazard ratio95% CI P-value
AML CR1
 Chronic GVHD, PBSC versus BM1.050.67–1.640.83
 NRM, PBSC versus BM0.940.63–1.390.75
  Age >39 years1.881.30–2.710.0001
  TBI1.751.14–2.660.009
 Relapse, PBSC versus BM1.150.81–1.620.43
  Time from diagnosis to tx >175 days0.570.41–0.800.001
 LFS, PBSC versus BM1.070.83–1.360.62
  Age >39 years (median)1.451.14–1.840.002
AML CR2
 Chronic GVHD, PBSC versus BM0.990.66–1.510.99
  Year of transplant after 20041.591.06–2.380.02
 NRM, PBSC versus BM0.920.58–1.470.73
 CsA + MTX versus other GVHD prevention0.590.35–0.990.05
 Relapse, PBSC versus BM0.930.56–1.550.79
 LFS, PBSC versus BM0.90.64–1.260.54
AML advanced stage, (>5% blasts in the MB)
 Chronic GVHD, PBSC versus BM1.520.94–2.480.09
 NRM; PBSC versus BM0.610.40–0.910.02
 Relapse, PBSC versus BM0.770.54–1.090.14
 Time from diagnosis to transplant >251 days0.700.53–0.940.02
 LFS, PBSC versus BM0.670.52–0.860.002
image

Figure 3. (a) Leukaemia-free survival (LFS) rate in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) in complete remission (CR)1 who received peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) or bone marrow (BM) from unrelated donors (P = 0.14). The probabilities of 3-year survival are shown (± standard error). (b) LFS rate in patients with AML in CR2/3 who received PBSCs or BM from unrelated donors (P  = 0.26). The probabilities of 3-year survival (± standard error) are shown. (c) LFS rate in patients with AML at an advanced stage (>5% blasts in the BM) who received PBSCs or BM from unrelated donors (P = 0.002). The probabilities of 3-year survival are shown (± standard error).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Patients in CR2 or CR3.  Amongst patients in CR2 or CR3, median age was significantly lower in the BM cohort: 36 years (range 18–57), compared with 41 years (range 18–60) in the PBSC group (< 0.0001). Median year of transplantation was earlier in the BM cohort: 2002 compared with 2005 in the PBSC group (< 0.0001). TBI was part of the conditioning regimen in 78% of patients in the BM group and 68% in the PBSC group (= 0.005). Use of ATG/ALG during conditioning was more common in the PBSC group (50%) than in the BM group (39%; = 0.02). There was more chronic GVHD in the PBSC group (50%; 95% CI: 43–57%), compared with the BM group (40%; 95% CI: 33–47%; = 0.05; Table 2). Amongst patients in CR2 and CR3 with good, intermediate or missing cytogenetic abnormalities, there were no differences in NRM, incidence of relapse or LFS between the BM and PBSC groups. However, in multivariable analysis, chronic GVHD as well as NRM, incidence of relapse and LFS were not significantly associated with the source of the graft (Tables 2 and 3).

Patients with advanced AML.  In patients with advanced AML, median age was significantly higher in the PBSC group: 42 years (range 19–60) compared with 36 years (range 18–58) in the BM group (< 0.0001). Median year of transplant was 2005 and 2001 in the two groups, respectively, (< 0.0001). TBI was given to 67% of the patients in the BM group, compared with 56% in the PBSC group (= 0.01). There were no other statistically significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups.

The probability of chronic GVHD was 25% (95% CI: 17–33%) in the BM group and 41% (95% CI: 34–47%) in the PBSC group; this difference was statistically significant in univariable analysis (P = 0.002; Table 2) but not in multivariable analysis (HR = 1.52; P = 0.09). The incidence of relapse was similar in the BM and PBSC cohorts in both univariable and multivariable analyses (Tables 2 and 3). The only significant factor in the multivariable analysis that was associated with a reduced risk of relapse was time from diagnosis to transplantation of >251 days (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53–0.94; = 0.02; Table 3).

In multivariable analysis, patients in the PBSC group had a lower NRM than those in the BM group (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40–0.91; = 0.02; Table 3). Thus, LFS was significantly increased at 3 years for patients with advanced AML amongst those receiving PBSCs (23%; 95% CI: 18–27%), compared with BM recipients (13%; 95% CI: 8–18%; = 0.001; Table 2). In the multivariable analysis, receiving PBSCs versus BM was the only significant factor for improved LFS (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52–0.86; = 0.002; Table 3). Amongst patients with intermediate cytogenetic abnormalities, median 3-year LFS was 10% (2–18%) in the BM group compared with 17% (8–26%) in the PBSC group (= 0.14). Amongst those with missing cytogenetic data, the corresponding figures were 16% (9–23%) and 25% (19–30%) in the two groups, respectively, (= 0.02).

Overall survival.  In all patients in CR (CR1–3), survival was similar for recipients of BM or PBSCs (Fig. 4a,b). In patients with advanced AML, the PBSC group had a 3-year survival of 25 ± 3%, compared with 15 ± 3% in recipients of BM (= 0.004, Fig. 4c). With regard to all patients with AML, 3-year survival was 43% (95% CI: 40–48%) in those who received BM and 44% (95% CI: 41–47%) in PBSC recipients (Fig. 5a). The corresponding figures for LFS were 41% in both groups (Fig. 5b). Median follow-up for surviving patients was 36 months (range 1–140) in the BM group and 16 months (range 1–144) in the PBSC group.

image

Figure 4. (a) Survival rate in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) in complete remission (CR)1 who received peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) or bone marrow (BM) from unrelated donors (P = 0.12). The probabilities of 3-year survival are shown (± standard error). (b) Survival rate in patients with AML in CR2/3 who received PBSCs or BM from unrelated donors (P  = 0.3). The probabilities of 3-year survival are shown (± standard error). (c) Survival rate in AML patients with advanced stage disease (>5% blasts the BM) who received PBSCs or BM from unrelated donors (P = 0.004). The probabilities of 3-year survival are shown (± standard error).

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 5. (a) Survival rate in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) at all disease stages who received unrelated peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) or bone marrow (BM; P = 0.95). Three-year survival rate is shown (± standard error). (b) Leukaemia-free survival rate in patients with AML at all disease stages who received unrelated PBSCs or BM (P = 0.94). Three-year probability is shown (± standard error).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Design and methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conflict of interest statement
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Peripheral blood stem cell transplantation from HLA-identical sibling donors started in the early 1990s [29–31]. The advantages of using PBSCs were higher yields of CD34+ cells, CD3+ cells, CD19+ cells and CD56+ cells [32]. Because of the high content of T cells, there was a reluctance to use PBSCs from unrelated donors. It was feared that there would be an increased risk of acute GVHD; however, initial studies did not show any increased risk of acute GVHD using PBSCs from unrelated donors, compared with BM [16, 17, 33].

An advantage regarding the outcome after HSCT of using PBSCs rather than BM from both related and unrelated donors was faster recovery of platelet and absolute neutrophil counts [1, 3–10, 13, 15–17, 29]. This very important advantage of engraftment capacity using PBSCs was confirmed in the present study. This may be even more important using RIC; however, only patients who received MAC were included in the present study. Although the results of all retrospective studies comparing PBSCs and BM suggest that use of PBSCs is preferred, this issue can only be properly addressed in prospective randomized studies. Recently, a prospective randomized study comparing transplantation with PBSCs and BM has been closed to recruitment, and publication of the results is awaited.

There is controversy as to whether or not PBSCs increase the risk of acute GVHD (relative to BM). In HLA-identical sibling transplants, PBSCs and BM have been reported to be associated with a similar probability of acute GVHD in most studies [1–5, 7–10, 29–31]; however, a few studies have suggested that there is an increased incidence of acute GVHD using PBSCs as compared to BM [6, 34]. Regarding unrelated donor transplants, most studies so far have shown a similar probability of acute GVHD using PBSCs and BM [13, 15–17]. This finding is supported by results of the present analysis. By contrast, a study by Eapen et al. [14] showed an increased incidence of acute and chronic GVHD using PBSCs compared with BM.

It is well established that there is an increased incidence of chronic GVHD with PBSCs from HLA-identical siblings and also in MUD transplants [8, 14, 18, 19, 35]. In patients undergoing HSCT for leukaemia in remission, this increased incidence of chronic GVHD did not lead to a superior graft-versus-leukaemia effect, resulting in a reduced probability of relapse in patients receiving PBSC transplants compared with BM grafts [1–5, 7–10, 13–17]. During the last decade, PBSCs have been increasingly used not only from HLA-identical siblings, but also from unrelated donors [8, 11, 14, 16, 17]. In children receiving HLA-identical sibling transplants for leukaemia, the increased risk of chronic GVHD from using PBSCs resulted in a reduced probability of survival compared with BM [36]. Such an effect has not been seen from the limited experience of using MUDs in children with leukaemia [37]. Despite the relatively few advantages of using PBSCs compared with BM and the small number of reported studies, especially of using unrelated donor transplants, PBSCs are currently the predominant source of haematopoietic stem cells [11, 12]. Other advantages of using PBSCs such as the fact that there is no need for surgery or anaesthesia for the donor and convenience for the transplant physician are probably the major reasons for this. In general, unrelated donors prefer donation of PBSCs rather than BM for safety reasons and because of the convenience of the procedure.

A retrospective study from the Centre for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research showed a lower NRM and a higher LFS with PBSCs compared to BM in patients with advanced leukaemia [4]. The results of a randomized study in patients with advanced malignancy also showed that survival was prolonged in PBSC recipients compared with those who received BM [2]. No difference in survival was seen in patients with less advanced disease [2]. The results of a meta-analysis showed that overall and disease-free survival using PBSCs compared with BM were only statistically significantly improved in patients with late-stage disease [1]. An improved LFS was also seen using MUD transplants in patients with advanced AML in the present study (= 0.002; Fig. 3c, Table 3). The significant effect on LFS using PBSCs compared with BM for advanced disease is probably due to the reduced effect on NRM. However, a nonsignificant trend towards a lower relapse risk in the PBSC group may also have contributed to the improved LFS and survival compared with the BM group. It is surprising that we did not find any significant association between PBSCs and a higher incidence of chronic GVHD and a subsequent lower incidence of relapse. The benefit of PBSCs in patients with advanced AML appears to be related to lower NRM. That such an effect is only seen in patients with advanced leukaemia and not in those in remission is interesting, but the cause of this difference remains unclear. It is possible that faster engraftment induced by PBSCs relative to BM may lower the risk of life-threatening infections and toxicity. This may be critical in patients with advanced leukaemia, but of marginal value in low-risk patients in remission. In patients with AML in CR, the probability of relapse, NRM and LFS were similar amongst those receiving PBSCs or BM (Table 2). Three studies of patients with HLA-identical sibling transplants showed improved survival and/or LFS using PBSCs compared to BM in those with advanced cancer, but not early disease [1, 2, 4]. The results of the present study show that, using MUDs, there is also an improved outcome with PBSCs in patients with advanced AML. The advantages of using PBSCs compared with BM for advanced leukaemia should, therefore, be considered seriously.

The positive effects on NRM and LFS of using PBSCs rather than BM may be due to the higher cell dose with PBSCs given (< 0.001, Table 1). The doses of nucleated cells and CD34 cells are important for outcomes after HSCT. A high BM cell dose has been variously associated with improved survival and reduced graft rejection, risk of relapse, death from GVHD, invasive fungal infection and CMV disease [38–40]. A PBSC CD34+ cell content of >6 × 106 kg−1 was associated with a reduced risk of leukaemic relapse and improved LFS [39]. Therefore, the outcome of both BM and PBSC grafts may be improved by increasing the cell dose.

For patients with AML in CR, there were no differences in NRM, incidence of relapse or LFS when using PBSCs compared with BM (Table 3, Fig. 3a,b). Although we did not observe an increase in the probability of chronic GVHD in any remission group, there was an overall increased incidence of chronic GVHD using MUD PBSCs (Fig. 2). Because of the increased risk of chronic GVHD, there is no major advantage for patients in remission of receiving PBSCs instead of BM. However, in a study of long-term outcome and late effects following HLA-identical sibling transplantation with either PBSCs or BM (random assignment), there was no difference in general health status or late events in the two groups [6], despite an increased proportion of chronic GVHD in the PBSC group.

The limitations of the study should be acknowledged. First, it was a retrospective multicentre registry study, with various protocols used in the different centres. Of note, patients receiving PBSCs may differ in many important aspects from those receiving BM. Although several important variables have been controlled for, there may be some differences that cannot be accounted for. Furthermore, the possibility that some results may be biased for differences between the two groups cannot be excluded. Therefore, the data should be interpreted with caution. A further limitation is the amount of missing data, for instance regarding cytogenetic abnormalities. The strengths of the study include the large number of participants and the restriction to a single disease with MAC as the only conditioning regimen.

In conclusion, using PBSCs rather than BM for MUD transplantation in adults with AML resulted in faster recovery of neutrophils and platelets, a similar incidence of acute GVHD, and an overall increased probability of developing chronic GVHD. In patients with AML in remission, comparable NRM, incidence of relapse and LFS were observed using PBSCs and BM. Therefore, either PBSCs or BM may be effective for these patients. In patients with advanced AML, NRM was reduced and LFS improved with PBSCs compared with BM. Thus, for AML patients in relapse, we recommend the use of PBSCs.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Design and methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conflict of interest statement
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

We thank all the EBMT centres for submitting data to the Acute Leukaemia Working Party (ALWP; see list in Data S1). We also thank all the members of staff at the various departments for excellent patient care, all the volunteer donors for their generous gifts to the patients and the staff at ALWP for data collection. Finally, we thank Inger Holmström for typing this manuscript and Hugh Kidd at Good Written English for language revision. This study was supported by grants from the EBMT. Olle Ringdén was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, the Children’s Cancer Foundation, the Swedish Research Council, the Cancer Society in Stockholm and Karolinska Institutet.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Design and methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conflict of interest statement
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information
  • 1
    Stem Cell Trialist’s Collaborative Group. Allogeneic peripheral blood stem-cell compared with bone marrow transplantation in the management of hematologic malignancies: an individual patient data meta-analysis of nine randomized trials. J Clin Oncol2005; 23: 507487.
  • 2
    Bensinger WI, Martin PJ, Storer B et al. Transplantation of bone marrow as compared with peripheral-blood cells from HLA-identical relatives in patients with hematologic cancers. N Engl J Med2001; 344: 17581.
  • 3
    Blaise D, Kuentz M, Fortanier C et al. Randomized trial of bone marrow versus lenograstim-primed blood cell allogeneic transplantation in patients with early-stage leukemia: a report from the Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle. J Clin Oncol2000; 18: 53746.
  • 4
    Champlin RE, Schmitz N, Horowitz MM et al. Blood stem cells compared with bone marrow as a source of hematopoietic cells for allogeneic transplantation. IBMTR Histocompatibility and Stem Cell Sources Working Committee and the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Blood2000; 95: 37029.
  • 5
    Cutler C, Giri S, Jeyapalan S, Paniagua D, Viswanathan A, Antin JH. Acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic peripheral-blood stem-cell and bone marrow transplantation: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol2001; 19: 368591.
  • 6
    Friedrichs B, Tichelli A, Bacigalupo A et al. Long-term outcome and late effects in patients transplanted with mobilised blood or bone marrow: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol2010; 11: 3318.
  • 7
    Heldal D, Tjonnfjord G, Brinch L et al. A randomised study of allogeneic transplantation with stem cells from blood or bone marrow. Bone Marrow Transplant2000; 25: 112936.
  • 8
    Ringden O, Labopin M, Bacigalupo A et al. Transplantation of peripheral blood stem cells as compared with bone marrow from HLA-identical siblings in adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol2002; 20: 465564.
  • 9
    Vigorito AC, Azevedo WM, Marques JF et al. A randomised, prospective comparison of allogeneic bone marrow and peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in the treatment of haematological malignancies. Bone Marrow Transplant1998; 22: 114551.
  • 10
    Schmitz N, Bacigalupo A, Hasenclever D et al. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation vs filgrastim-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in patients with early leukaemia: first results of a randomised multicentre trial of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant1998; 21: 9951003.
  • 11
    Gratwohl A, Baldomero H, Frauendorfer K, Rocha V, Apperley J, Niederwieser D. The EBMT activity survey 2006 on hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: focus on the use of cord blood products. Bone Marrow Transplant2008; 41: 687705.
  • 12
    Baldomero H, Gratwohl M, Gratwohl A et al. The EBMT activity survey 2009: trends over the past 5 years. Bone Marrow Transplant2011; 46: 485501.
  • 13
    Blau IW, Basara N, Lentini G et al. Feasibility and safety of peripheral blood stem cell transplantation from unrelated donors: results of a single-center study. Bone Marrow Transplant2001; 27: 2733.
  • 14
    Eapen M, Logan BR, Confer DL et al. Peripheral blood grafts from unrelated donors are associated with increased acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease without improved survival. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant2007; 13: 14618.
  • 15
    Garderet L, Labopin M, Gorin NC et al. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia allografted with a matched unrelated donor may have a lower survival with a peripheral blood stem cell graft compared to bone marrow. Bone Marrow Transplant2003; 31: 239.
  • 16
    Remberger M, Ringden O, Blau IW et al. No difference in graft-versus-host disease, relapse, and survival comparing peripheral stem cells to bone marrow using unrelated donors. Blood2001; 98: 173945.
  • 17
    Ringden O, Remberger M, Runde V et al. Peripheral blood stem cell transplantation from unrelated donors: a comparison with marrow transplantation. Blood1999; 94: 45564.
  • 18
    Storek J, Gooley T, Siadak M et al. Allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation may be associated with a high risk of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Blood1997; 90: 47059.
  • 19
    Remberger M, Beelen DW, Fauser A, Basara N, Basu O, Ringden O. Increased risk of extensive chronic graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation using unrelated donors. Blood2005; 105: 54851.
  • 20
    Horowitz MM, Gale RP, Sondel PM et al. Graft-versus-leukemia reactions after bone marrow transplantation. Blood1990; 75: 55562.
  • 21
    Ringden O, Pavletic SZ, Anasetti C et al. The graft-versus-leukemia effect using matched unrelated donors is not superior to HLA-identical siblings for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood2009; 113: 31108.
  • 22
    Weiden PL, Sullivan KM, Flournoy N, Storb R, Thomas ED. Antileukemic effect of chronic graft-versus-host disease: contribution to improved survival after allogeneic marrow transplantation. N Engl J Med1981; 304: 152933.
  • 23
    Glucksberg H, Storb R, Fefer A et al. Clinical manifestations of graft-versus-host disease in human recipients of marrow from HL-A-matched sibling donors. Transplantation1974; 18: 295304.
  • 24
    Suciu S, Mandelli F, de Witte T et al. Allogeneic compared with autologous stem cell transplantation in the treatment of patients younger than 46 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1): an intention-to-treat analysis of the EORTC/GIMEMAAML-10 trial. Blood2003; 102: 123240.
  • 25
    Fine J, Gray R. A proportional hazards model for subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc1999; 94: 496509.
  • 26
    Gooley TA, Leisenring W, Crowley J, Storer BE. Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators. Stat Med1999; 18: 695706.
  • 27
    Andersen PK, Klein JP, Zhang MJ. Testing for centre effects in multi-centre survival studies: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed and random effects tests. Stat Med1999; 18: 1489500.
  • 28
    Hoogard P. Frailty model for survival data. Lifetime Data Anal1995; 1: 25573.
  • 29
    Bensinger WI, Weaver CH, Appelbaum FR et al. Transplantation of allogeneic peripheral blood stem cells mobilized by recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Blood1995; 85: 16558.
  • 30
    Korbling M, Przepiorka D, Huh YO et al. Allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation for refractory leukemia and lymphoma: potential advantage of blood over marrow allografts. Blood1995; 85: 165965.
  • 31
    Schmitz N, Dreger P, Suttorp M et al. Primary transplantation of allogeneic peripheral blood progenitor cells mobilized by filgrastim (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor). Blood1995; 85: 166672.
  • 32
    Dreger P, Suttorp M, Haferlach T, Loffler H, Schmitz N, Schroyens W. Allogeneic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells for treatment of engraftment failure after bone marrow transplantation. Blood1993; 81: 14047.
  • 33
    Ringden O, Lonnqvist B, Hagglund H et al. Transplantation with peripheral blood stem cells from unrelated donors without serious graft-versus-host disease. Bone Marrow Transplant1995; 16: 8567.
  • 34
    Nagafuji K, Matsuo K, Teshima T et al. Peripheral blood stem cell versus bone marrow transplantation from HLA-identical sibling donors in patients with leukemia: a propensity score-based comparison from the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation registry. Int J Hematol2010; 91: 85564.
  • 35
    Mohty M, Kuentz M, Michallet M et al. Chronic graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation: long-term results of a randomized study. Blood2002; 100: 312834.
  • 36
    Eapen M, Horowitz MM, Klein JP et al. Higher mortality after allogeneic peripheral-blood transplantation compared with bone marrow in children and adolescents: the Histocompatibility and Alternate Stem Cell Source Working Committee of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry. J Clin Oncol2004; 22: 487280.
  • 37
    Remberger M, Ringden O. Similar outcome after unrelated allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation compared with bone marrow in children and adolescents. Transplantation2007; 84: 5514.
  • 38
    Bortin MM, Gale RP, Kay HE, Rimm AA. Bone marrow transplantation for acute myelogenous leukemia. Factors associated with early mortality. JAMA1983; 249: 116675.
  • 39
    Paulin T. Importance of bone marrow cell dose in bone marrow transplantation. Clin Transplant1992; 6: 4854.
  • 40
    Ringden O, Barrett AJ, Zhang MJ et al. Decreased treatment failure in recipients of HLA-identical bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplants with high CD34 cell doses. Br J Haematol2003; 121: 87485.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Design and methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conflict of interest statement
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Data S1. EBMT centres for submitting data.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
joim2547_sm_supplement.doc30KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.