Safety and efficacy of post transplant cyclophosphamide vs tacrolimus plus methotrexate for gvhd prophylaxis in myelofibrosis

Abstract

Abstract Background In patients with myelofibrosis (MF) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has traditionally included a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX). We conducted a retrospective study comparing the safety and efficacy of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based GVHD prophylaxis to CNI-based regimens. Methods This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. Patients with myelofibrosis who underwent allo-HCT after 2016 at Mayo Clinic in Arizona and Florida were included. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Overall survival (OS) was defined from transplant to death, and progression-free survival (PFS) from transplant to relapse or death. OS and PFS were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; univariate differences were assessed with log-rank tests. The cumulative incidence of acute and chronic GVHD and time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were analyzed using competing risk models, with death as a competing event; differences were tested using Gray's test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). Results A total of 110 patients were included. 53 patients received PTCy-based prophylaxis (43 PTCy/Tac/MMF, 1 PTCy/CSA/MMF, 9 PTCy/Siro/MMF), while 57 received non-PTCy regimens (54 Tac/MTX +/- 39 T-cell depletion, 2 CSA/MMF, 1 Tac/MMF). Median age at transplant was 63 (range: PTCy 40-76; others 38-74) years in both groups; 59 were male (58.5% PTCy vs 49.1% others). Median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and HCT–Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) in patients receiving PTCy vs non-PTCy were 90 vs 80 and 1 vs 3, respectively. Conditioning intensity was similar: 22.6% myeloablative vs 21.7%, and 77.4% reduced-intensity vs 76.7% in PTCy and non-PTCy, respectively (p=1.000). Stem cell source was peripheral blood in all patients except one in the non-PTCy group who received bone marrow. 58 patients had primary MF (54.7% PTCy vs 50.9% others), and 52 had secondary MF (45.3% PTCy vs 49.1% others), including essential thrombocythemia (28.3% PTCy vs 31.6% others), polycythemia vera (17.0% vs 15.8%), and MPN-NOS (0% vs 1.8%). Median follow-up was 26.2 months (95% CI: 20.7-52.7) in the PTCy and 60.6 months (95% CI: 53.1-70.6) in the non-PTCy cohort. CD3 and CD33 donor chimerism ≥95% at day +100 was 66.7% and 86.7% in PTCy vs 63.6% and 92.7% in others, respectively (p=0.50); day +100 driver molecular mutations were present in 32.1% of PTCy and 32.0% of others (p>0.99). Rates of acute GVHD grades ≥2 and ≥3 were not statistically significant, in the PTCy group (37.7% vs 49.1% p=0.229 and 17.0% vs 22.8% p=0.445, respectively). Chronic GVHD (any grade) occurred in 42.3% of PTCy vs 38.2% of others (p=0.664), while moderate-to-severe cGVHD was lower with PTCy (21.2% vs 27.3% p=0.461). Platelet engraftment was significantly delayed in the PTCy group (median 33 vs 21 days, p=0.030). Median time to neutrophil engraftment was also delayed in the PTCy group (20 vs 17 days, adjusted p=0.025). Age-adjusted HR for time to platelet engraftment was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.41–0.90; p=0.014), and for neutrophil engraftment 0.65 (95% CI: 0.44–0.95; p=0.025), indicating significantly delayed hematopoietic recovery with PTCy. Graft failure occurred in 9.4% vs 5.3% (p = 0.48); primary 7.5% vs 3.5%, secondary 1.9% vs 1.8% in PTCy vs non-PTCy groups, respectively. Relapse or progression occurred in 11.3% of PTCy vs 17.5% of others (p=0.355); four patients in the non-PTCy group progressed to AML post-transplant, versus none in the PTCy group (p=0.119). 1-year TRM was 22.6% in the PTCy group and 14.0% in the non-PTCy group, p = 0.324. Median OS was 72.8 months in the PTCy group (95% CI: 49.9 months, upper limit not estimable [NE]) and 93.4 months in the non-PTCy group (95% CI: 48.5 months, upper limit NE), although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.739). After adjusting for age and HCT-CI, there were no significant differences in PFS (adjusted HR 1.37; 95% CI: 0.73–2.56; p=0.331) or OS (adjusted HR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.64–2.51; p=0.498). Conclusions In myelofibrosis patients undergoing allo-HCT, PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis showed similar rates of grade ≥2 acute and moderate-severe chronic GVHD compared to non-PTCy regimens. Engraftment was significantly delayed, while OS and PFS were comparable. PTCy appears to be a safe and viable alternative to CNI-based prophylaxis.