Risk factors for acute GVHD (AGVHD), overall survival, and transplant-related mortality were evaluated in adults receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplants (1999-2005) from HLA-identical sibling donors (SDs; n = 3191) or unrelated donors (URDs; n = 2370) and reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, Minneapolis, MN. To understand the impact of transplant regimen on AGVHD risk, 6 treatment categories were evaluated: (1) myeloablative conditioning (MA) with total body irradiation (TBI) + PBSCs, (2) MA + TBI + BM, (3) MA + nonTBI + PBSCs, (4) MA + nonTBI + BM, (5) reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) + PBSCs, and (6) RIC + BM. The cumulative incidences of grades B-D AGVHD were 39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-41%) in the SD cohort and 59% (95% CI, 57%-61%) in the URD cohort. Patients receiving SD transplants with MA + nonTBI + BM and RIC + PBSCs had significantly lower risks of grades B-D AGVHD than patients in other treatment categories. Those receiving URD transplants with MA + TBI + BM, MA + nonTBI + BM, RIC + BM, or RIC + PBSCs had lower risks of grades B-D AGVHD than those in other treatment categories. The 5-year probabilities of survival were 46% (95% CI, 44%-49%) with SD transplants and 33% (95% CI, 31%-35%) with URD transplants. Conditioning intensity, TBI and graft source have a combined effect on risk of AGVHD that must be considered in deciding on a treatment strategy for individual patients.

Acute GVHD (AGVHD) remains a common complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), with a significant impact on early morbidity and mortality. Over the past few decades, diverse clinical factors were reported to be significantly associated with the incidence and severity of AGVHD.1-13  Most of these factors were evaluated in large studies of recipients undergoing HCT from sibling donors (SDs) or unrelated donors (URDs) after myeloablative conditioning (MA). During the same period of time, there was a substantial increase in the use of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens. The influence of conditioning regimen and the interaction of conditioning regimen, donor source, and graft type on incidence and severity of AGVHD and on factors predicting the occurrence of AGVHD are not well studied. Identifying pretransplantation and transplant-related clinical predictors is important, because modulation of these factors, if possible, could favorably impact transplantation outcome.

We analyzed the impact of demographic, HCT-related and disease-specific variables on AGVHD, overall survival, and transplant-related mortality after allogeneic HCT among 5561 adults with hematologic malignancies who underwent HCT from 1999 to 2005 and who were reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), Minneapolis, MN.

CIBMTR

CIBMTR is a research organization formed through an affiliation between the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR) and the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and is composed of a voluntary working network of more than 450 transplant centers worldwide. Detailed clinical data on consecutive autologous and allogeneic HCTs are reported to a Statistical Center associated with the Division of Hematology and Oncology in the Department of Medicine of the Medical College of Wisconsin (Milwaukee, WI) and with the NMDP Coordinating Center (Minneapolis, MN). Data quality is maintained by on-site audits, computerized checks for errors, and physician review of submitted data. Observational studies conducted by CIBMTR are performed with informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and in compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations as determined by the NMDP and Medical College of Wisconsin Institutional review boards.

Study design

This is a retrospective cohort study to analyze the incidence and risk factors for AGVHD, overall survival, and transplant-related mortality. The study population consisted of adults (≥ 20 years old) who received an HLA-identical SD (n = 3191) or URD (n = 2370) HCT with a non-T cell–depleted graft from 1999 to 2005 and were reported to the CIBMTR. SD transplants were reported at 177 centers, and 87 centers reported URD transplants. All unrelated recipient–donor pairs had high-resolution typing available at HLA-A, -B, -C, and DRB1 loci. Subjects with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), or myelodysplastic syndromes were included. Both MA and RIC regimens were included, to study the impact of these factors on AGVHD.14  We used the IBMTR grading system (A-D) for classifying AGVHD because it is less reliant on physicians' subjective assessments of performance status and it performs similarly to the Glucksberg system in explaining variability in AGVHD outcomes.15,16 

Definitions and study endpoints

Disease status at transplant was classified as early, intermediate, or advanced. Early disease was defined as acute leukemia (AML or ALL) in first complete remission, CML in first chronic phase or myelodysplastic syndromes with refractory anemia or acquired idiopathic sideroblastic anemia. Intermediate stage disease was defined as acute leukemia (AML or ALL) in second or greater complete remission, CML in accelerated phase or second or greater chronic phase. Advanced stage disease was defined as primary induction failure or relapse of acute leukemia (AML or ALL), refractory anemia with excess blasts, or CML in blast crisis. We defined MA regimens as follows: busulfan dose ≥ 9 mg/kg, melphalan dose ≥ 150 mg/m2, or total body irradiation (TBI) dose ≥ 5 Gy (single or fractionated) or > 8 Gy (fractionated).14  Regimens not meeting these criteria were classified as reduced intensity. HLA matching for URD transplants was determined using high-resolution HLA typing. Eight of 8 matched URDs were matched at the allele level at HLA-A, -B, -C, or DRB1 loci; 7/8 matched URD had a single mismatch at either the antigen or allele level; and ≤ 6/8 matched URD had 2 or more mismatches at either the antigen or allele level.

The primary end points of the study were incidences of grades B-D AGVHD, grades C-D AGVHD, overall survival, and transplant-related mortality. Overall survival was estimated from day of HCT. Death from any cause was treated as an event. Transplant-related mortality was defined as death in continuous remission.

Statistical methods

Analyses of recipients of SD and URD transplants were performed separately. Models were designed to study the effects of risk factors on incidence and grade of AGVHD and other clinical outcomes. For discrete variables, number and proportions were calculated. For continuous factors, the median and range are presented. Survival probabilities were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using variance estimated by the Greenwood formula.17  Estimates of AGVHD and transplant-related mortality were calculated using the cumulative incidence function. Estimates of AGVHD were calculated using death as the competing risk, whereas estimates of transplant-related mortality were calculated using disease relapse or progression as the competing risk.18  Multivariate analyses were done to study the association of risk factors with the odds of AGVHD at 100 days using logistic regression. A stepwise selection procedure was performed with P ≤ .05 as the criterion for inclusion in final models. Multivariate analyses of transplant-related mortality were done using the pseudovalue approach of Klein.19-21  A stepwise regression model using a generalized linear model for the pseudovalues was used. Patient-related variables considered were recipient and donor age (10-year increments), sex and Karnofsky performance score. Because conditioning regimen and graft source are often given as “packages,” we created 6 treatment categories to evaluate the risk of AGVHD associated with common current treatment strategies for transplantation, considering conditioning intensity (MA or RIC), use of TBI (TBI and nonTBI) and graft source (bone marrow [BM] or peripheral blood stem cells [PBSCs]) as follows: MA + TBI + PBSCs (category 1), MA + TBI + BM (category 2), MA + nonTBI + PBSCs (category 3), MA + nonTBI + BM (category 4), RIC + PBSCs (category 5), and RIC + BM (category 6). Other transplant-related variables that were analyzed were HLA match in URD HCT (8/8, 7/8, or ≤ 6/8), donor–recipient sex mismatch, parity of female donors, donor–recipient cytomegalovirus (CMV) serology, ABO mismatch, GVHD prophylaxis, AGVHD grade, and year of transplantation. Disease-related variables considered were diagnosis and disease status pretransplant. Interactions were evaluated between treatment category and all significant variables affecting the incidence of AGVHD and were not statistically significant.

Recipient and donor characteristics are outlined in Table 1. Median follow-up times after SD and URD allogeneic HCT were 40.1 months (range, 3.3-99.2 months) and 40.2 months (range, 4.4-101.7 months), respectively. Transplant-specific parameters are outlined in Table 2. Approximately 20% of patients receiving SD and URD transplants received RIC regimens, and 75% of SD and 54% of URD received PBSCs as their graft source.

Table 1

Patient characteristics

VariableSD
URD
No. assessableNo.%No. assessableNo.%
Recipient age, y 3191  2370    
    Median  42.7  44.2 
    Range  20-74  20-74 
    20-29  617 19  447 19 
    30-39  741 23  493 21 
    40-49  872 27  644 27 
    50-59  734 23  587 25 
    ≥ 60  227  199 
Sex 3191   2370   
    Male  1796 56  1309 55 
    Female  1395 44  1061 45 
Donor age, y 3191   2370   
    Median  41.6  35.4 
    Range  < 1-75  18.6-60.6 
    < 10  15 < 1    
    10-19  163  24 
    20-29  476 15  677 29 
    30-39  773 24  888 37 
    40-49  844 26  612 26 
    ≥ 50  872 27  169 
    Missing  48    
Donor–recipient sex match       
    Male→male  1034 32  854 36 
    Male→female  709 22  638 27 
    Female→male  756 24  455 19 
    Female→female  683 21  423 18 
    Unknown  < 1    
KPS 3191   2370   
    < 80  260  216 
    80-100  2824 88  1906 80 
    Unknown  107  248 10 
Disease type 3191   2370   
    AML  1377 43  1044 44 
    ALL  516 16  446 19 
    CML  831 26  463 20 
    MDS  467 15  417 18 
Disease status at transplant 3191   2370   
    Early  1761 55  907 38 
    Intermediate  528 17  568 24 
    Advanced  681 21  707 30 
    Other  221  188 
Recipient race 3191   2370   
    White  2239 70  2063 87 
    Other  952 30  307 13 
Donor race 3191   2370   
    White  2239 70  1941 82 
    Other  95 30  429 18 
Recipient–donor CMV status 3191   2370   
    R−/D−  624 20  738 31 
    R+/D−  461 14  775 33 
    R−/D+  301  289 12 
    R+/D+  1656 52  552 22 
    Unknown  149  46 
Donor pregnancy 3191   2370   
    Male  1743 55  1492 62 
    Female, no pregnancy  276  343 14 
    Female, > 1 pregnancy  730 23  500 21 
    Unknown  442 14  35 
VariableSD
URD
No. assessableNo.%No. assessableNo.%
Recipient age, y 3191  2370    
    Median  42.7  44.2 
    Range  20-74  20-74 
    20-29  617 19  447 19 
    30-39  741 23  493 21 
    40-49  872 27  644 27 
    50-59  734 23  587 25 
    ≥ 60  227  199 
Sex 3191   2370   
    Male  1796 56  1309 55 
    Female  1395 44  1061 45 
Donor age, y 3191   2370   
    Median  41.6  35.4 
    Range  < 1-75  18.6-60.6 
    < 10  15 < 1    
    10-19  163  24 
    20-29  476 15  677 29 
    30-39  773 24  888 37 
    40-49  844 26  612 26 
    ≥ 50  872 27  169 
    Missing  48    
Donor–recipient sex match       
    Male→male  1034 32  854 36 
    Male→female  709 22  638 27 
    Female→male  756 24  455 19 
    Female→female  683 21  423 18 
    Unknown  < 1    
KPS 3191   2370   
    < 80  260  216 
    80-100  2824 88  1906 80 
    Unknown  107  248 10 
Disease type 3191   2370   
    AML  1377 43  1044 44 
    ALL  516 16  446 19 
    CML  831 26  463 20 
    MDS  467 15  417 18 
Disease status at transplant 3191   2370   
    Early  1761 55  907 38 
    Intermediate  528 17  568 24 
    Advanced  681 21  707 30 
    Other  221  188 
Recipient race 3191   2370   
    White  2239 70  2063 87 
    Other  952 30  307 13 
Donor race 3191   2370   
    White  2239 70  1941 82 
    Other  95 30  429 18 
Recipient–donor CMV status 3191   2370   
    R−/D−  624 20  738 31 
    R+/D−  461 14  775 33 
    R−/D+  301  289 12 
    R+/D+  1656 52  552 22 
    Unknown  149  46 
Donor pregnancy 3191   2370   
    Male  1743 55  1492 62 
    Female, no pregnancy  276  343 14 
    Female, > 1 pregnancy  730 23  500 21 
    Unknown  442 14  35 

KPS indicates Karnofsky performance score; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; R, recipient; and D, donor.

Table 2

Transplant characteristics

VariableSD
URD
No. assessableNo.%No. assessableNo.%
Graft source 3191   2370   
    Bone marrow  806 25  1081 46 
    Peripheral blood  2385 75  1289 54 
Preparative regimen 3191   2370   
    Myeloablative  2463 78  1882 79 
    Reduced intensity  689 22  488 21 
    Other  39    
GVHD prophylaxis 3191   2370   
    CSA + MTX ± other  2683 84  1208 51 
    Tacrolimus + MTX ± other  484 15  1140 48 
    Other  24  22 
HLA high-resolution typing, -A, -B, -C, and -DRB1 (URD only)    2370   
    8/8 matched     1532 65 
    7/8     614 26 
    ≤ 6/8     224 
Year of transplant 3191   2370   
    1999  498 16  233 10 
    2000  478 15  284 12 
    2001  453 14  266 11 
    2002  446 14  239 10 
    2003  350 11  340 14 
    2004  503 16  486 21 
    2005  463 15  522 22 
AGVHD grades B-D 3191   2370   
    No  1952 61  969 41 
    Yes  1239 39  1401 59 
AGVHD grades C-D 3191   2370   
    No  2692 84  1618 68 
    Yes  499 18  752 32 
AGVHD organ       
    Skin 3191   2370   
        Stage 0  325 20  264 16 
        Stage 1  522 32  313 19 
        Stage 2  482 29  479 29 
        Stage 3  274 17  502 30 
        Stage 4  46  
    GI 3191   2370   
        Stage 0  922 56  820 50 
        Stage 1  309 19  392 24 
        Stage 2  152  123 
        Stage 3  138  134 
        Stage 4  118  176 11 
    Liver 3191   2370   
        Stage 0  1121 69  1160 71 
        Stage 1  154  112 
        Stage 2  114  127 
        Stage 3  127  112 
        Stage 4  108  117 
AGVHD organ involvement combination       
    Skin + GI + liver  234 15  282 18 
    Skin + GI  262 17  342 21 
    Skin + liver  158 10  119 
    GI + liver  69  50 
    Skin  670 42  641 40 
    GI  152 10  151 
    Liver  42  17 
VariableSD
URD
No. assessableNo.%No. assessableNo.%
Graft source 3191   2370   
    Bone marrow  806 25  1081 46 
    Peripheral blood  2385 75  1289 54 
Preparative regimen 3191   2370   
    Myeloablative  2463 78  1882 79 
    Reduced intensity  689 22  488 21 
    Other  39    
GVHD prophylaxis 3191   2370   
    CSA + MTX ± other  2683 84  1208 51 
    Tacrolimus + MTX ± other  484 15  1140 48 
    Other  24  22 
HLA high-resolution typing, -A, -B, -C, and -DRB1 (URD only)    2370   
    8/8 matched     1532 65 
    7/8     614 26 
    ≤ 6/8     224 
Year of transplant 3191   2370   
    1999  498 16  233 10 
    2000  478 15  284 12 
    2001  453 14  266 11 
    2002  446 14  239 10 
    2003  350 11  340 14 
    2004  503 16  486 21 
    2005  463 15  522 22 
AGVHD grades B-D 3191   2370   
    No  1952 61  969 41 
    Yes  1239 39  1401 59 
AGVHD grades C-D 3191   2370   
    No  2692 84  1618 68 
    Yes  499 18  752 32 
AGVHD organ       
    Skin 3191   2370   
        Stage 0  325 20  264 16 
        Stage 1  522 32  313 19 
        Stage 2  482 29  479 29 
        Stage 3  274 17  502 30 
        Stage 4  46  
    GI 3191   2370   
        Stage 0  922 56  820 50 
        Stage 1  309 19  392 24 
        Stage 2  152  123 
        Stage 3  138  134 
        Stage 4  118  176 11 
    Liver 3191   2370   
        Stage 0  1121 69  1160 71 
        Stage 1  154  112 
        Stage 2  114  127 
        Stage 3  127  112 
        Stage 4  108  117 
AGVHD organ involvement combination       
    Skin + GI + liver  234 15  282 18 
    Skin + GI  262 17  342 21 
    Skin + liver  158 10  119 
    GI + liver  69  50 
    Skin  670 42  641 40 
    GI  152 10  151 
    Liver  42  17 

Other GVHD prophylaxis include for SD, MTX ± other (no MMF) 16, MMF ± other (no MTX) 1, steroids ± other (no MTX or MMF) 1, MTX + MMF ± other 3, unknown 3; and for URD, MTX ± other (no MMF) 8, MMF ± other (no MTX) 3, MTX + MMF ± other 4, unknown 7.

CSA indicates cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; GI, gastrointestinal; and MMF, mycophenolate mofetil.

AGVHD risk factors

Tables 3 and 4 summarize the multivariate analyses of risk factors associated with incidence of AGVHD in SD and URD cohorts for grades B-D and C-D AGVHD, respectively.

Table 3

Multivariate analyses of risk factors for grades B-D AGVHD

VariableSD
URD
nOR95% CIPnOR95% CIP
Treatment category    < .0001    .0006 
    1: MA + TBI + PBSC 709 1.00   534 1.00   
    2: MA + TBI + BM 245 0.94 0.70-1.27 .69 733 0.71 0.56-0.91 .006 
    3: MA + nonTBI + PBSC 1017 0.97 0.80-1.18 .78 350 0.87 0.65-1.16 .34 
    4: MA + nonTBI + BM 492 0.56 0.44-0.71 < .0001 265 0.55 0.40-0.75 .0001 
    5: RIC + PBSC 622 0.70 0.56-0.88 .002 405 0.75 0.57-1.00 .05 
    6: RIC + BM 67 0.90 0.54-1.49 .67 83 0.47 0.29-0.76 .002 
GVHD prophylaxis    .0001    .03 
    CSA + MTX ± other 2645 1.00   1208 1.00   
    Tacrolimus ± MTX ± other 484 0.65 0.53-0.80 < .0001 1140 0.79 0.67-0.94 .008 
    Other 23 0.54 0.21-1.39 .20 22 1.04 0.44-2.46 .94 
Disease        .008 
    ALL     446 1.00   
    AML     1044 1.02 0.81-1.30 .85 
    CML     463 1.51 1.14-1.99 .004 
    MDS     417 1.12 0.83-1.49 .46 
HLA match        .03 
    8/8 matched     1532 1.00   
    7/8 matched     614 1.27 1.05-1.54 .02 
    ≤ 6/8 matched     224 1.26 0.94-1.68 .13 
VariableSD
URD
nOR95% CIPnOR95% CIP
Treatment category    < .0001    .0006 
    1: MA + TBI + PBSC 709 1.00   534 1.00   
    2: MA + TBI + BM 245 0.94 0.70-1.27 .69 733 0.71 0.56-0.91 .006 
    3: MA + nonTBI + PBSC 1017 0.97 0.80-1.18 .78 350 0.87 0.65-1.16 .34 
    4: MA + nonTBI + BM 492 0.56 0.44-0.71 < .0001 265 0.55 0.40-0.75 .0001 
    5: RIC + PBSC 622 0.70 0.56-0.88 .002 405 0.75 0.57-1.00 .05 
    6: RIC + BM 67 0.90 0.54-1.49 .67 83 0.47 0.29-0.76 .002 
GVHD prophylaxis    .0001    .03 
    CSA + MTX ± other 2645 1.00   1208 1.00   
    Tacrolimus ± MTX ± other 484 0.65 0.53-0.80 < .0001 1140 0.79 0.67-0.94 .008 
    Other 23 0.54 0.21-1.39 .20 22 1.04 0.44-2.46 .94 
Disease        .008 
    ALL     446 1.00   
    AML     1044 1.02 0.81-1.30 .85 
    CML     463 1.51 1.14-1.99 .004 
    MDS     417 1.12 0.83-1.49 .46 
HLA match        .03 
    8/8 matched     1532 1.00   
    7/8 matched     614 1.27 1.05-1.54 .02 
    ≤ 6/8 matched     224 1.26 0.94-1.68 .13 

Pairwise comparisons significant for the treatment categories were as follows for SD, treatment category 2 versus treatment category 4 (P = .003), treatment category 3 versus treatment category 4 (P < .0001), treatment category 3 versus treatment category 5 (P = .003); and for URD, treatment category 3 versus treatment category 4 (P = .006), and treatment category 3 versus treatment category 6 (P = .01).

CSA indicates cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; and MA, myeloablative.

Table 4

Multivariate analyses of risk factors for grades C-D AGVHD

VariableSD
URD
nOR95% CIPnOR95% CIP
Treatment category    .03    .04 
    1: MA+TBI+PBSC 709 1.0   534 1.00   
    2: MA + TBI + BM 245 0.90 0.62-1.32 .60 733 0.79 0.62-1.00 .05 
    3: MA + nonTBI + PBSC 1017 1.03 0.81-1.32 .79 350 0.92 0.68-1.23 .56 
    4: MA + nonTBI + BM 492 0.61 0.44-0.85 .003 265 0.67 0.48-0.93 .02 
    5: RIC + PBSC 622 1.00 0.76-1.31 .98 405 0.85 0.64-1.12 .25 
    6: RIC + BM 67 0.88 0.46-1.70 .71 83 0.48 0.28-0.83 .009 
GVHD prophylaxis    .0003     
    CSA + MTX ± other 2645 1.00       
    Tacrolimus ± MTX ± other 484 0.56 0.42-0.75 < .0001     
    Other 23 0.59 0.17-1.99 .39     
Disease status at transplant    .01     
    Early 1750 1.00       
    Intermediate 520 1.02 0.78-1.32 .90     
    Advanced 666 1.32 1.05-1.66 .02     
    Unknown 216 1.55 1.10-2.18 .01     
Sex mismatch (D/R)    .009     
    M/M, M/F, F/F 2397 1.00       
    F/M 746 1.37 1.12-1.69 .002     
    Missing 0.62 0.08-5.06 .66     
Disease        .003 
    ALL     446 1.00   
    AML     1044 1.01 0.78-1.29 .97 
    CML     463 1.52 1.14-2.01 .004 
    MDS     417 1.25 0.93-1.70 .15 
HLA match        .0006 
    8/8 matched     1532 1.00   
    7/8 matched     614 1.36 1.12-1.66 .002 
    ≤ 6/8 matched     224 1.55 1.16-2.08 .003 
VariableSD
URD
nOR95% CIPnOR95% CIP
Treatment category    .03    .04 
    1: MA+TBI+PBSC 709 1.0   534 1.00   
    2: MA + TBI + BM 245 0.90 0.62-1.32 .60 733 0.79 0.62-1.00 .05 
    3: MA + nonTBI + PBSC 1017 1.03 0.81-1.32 .79 350 0.92 0.68-1.23 .56 
    4: MA + nonTBI + BM 492 0.61 0.44-0.85 .003 265 0.67 0.48-0.93 .02 
    5: RIC + PBSC 622 1.00 0.76-1.31 .98 405 0.85 0.64-1.12 .25 
    6: RIC + BM 67 0.88 0.46-1.70 .71 83 0.48 0.28-0.83 .009 
GVHD prophylaxis    .0003     
    CSA + MTX ± other 2645 1.00       
    Tacrolimus ± MTX ± other 484 0.56 0.42-0.75 < .0001     
    Other 23 0.59 0.17-1.99 .39     
Disease status at transplant    .01     
    Early 1750 1.00       
    Intermediate 520 1.02 0.78-1.32 .90     
    Advanced 666 1.32 1.05-1.66 .02     
    Unknown 216 1.55 1.10-2.18 .01     
Sex mismatch (D/R)    .009     
    M/M, M/F, F/F 2397 1.00       
    F/M 746 1.37 1.12-1.69 .002     
    Missing 0.62 0.08-5.06 .66     
Disease        .003 
    ALL     446 1.00   
    AML     1044 1.01 0.78-1.29 .97 
    CML     463 1.52 1.14-2.01 .004 
    MDS     417 1.25 0.93-1.70 .15 
HLA match        .0006 
    8/8 matched     1532 1.00   
    7/8 matched     614 1.36 1.12-1.66 .002 
    ≤ 6/8 matched     224 1.55 1.16-2.08 .003 

Pairwise comparisons significant for the treatment categories were as follows for SD, none; and for URD, treatment category 3 versus treatment category 6 (P = .02).

CSA indicates cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; D, donor; R, recipient; M, male; F, female; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; and MA, myeloablative.

SD cohort

In the SD cohort, the cumulative incidences of AGVHD grades B-D and grades C-D at 100 days were 39% (95% CI, 37%-41%) and 16% (95% CI, 14%-17%), respectively. Figure 1A shows the cumulative incidences of grades B-D AGVHD stratified by transplant treatment category. In multivariate analyses, using MA + TBI + PBSCs as the reference category, lower risks of grades B-D AGVHD were seen with MA + nonTBI + BM (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44%-0.71%; P < .0001) and RIC + PBSCs (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56%-0.88%; P = .002). Tacrolimus plus methotrexate-based AGVHD prophylaxis (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53%-0.80%; P < .0001) also was associated with significantly lower odds of grades B-D AGVHD. No other patient, disease, or treatment factors were associated with grades B-D AGVHD after SD transplantation. Figure 1B shows the cumulative incidences of grades C-D AGVHD stratified by transplant treatment category. MA + nonTBI + BM (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44%-0.85%; P = .003; Figure 1B) and tacrolimus plus methotrexate-based AGVHD prophylaxis (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42%-0.75%; P < .0001) also were associated with significantly lower odds of grades C-D AGVHD. Advanced disease status and transplantation from female donors to male recipients were associated with significantly higher odds of grades C-D AGVHD.

Figure 1

Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades in SD cohorts. (A) Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades B-D in SD cohort stratified by treatment category. (B) Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades C-D in SD cohort stratified by treatment category.

Figure 1

Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades in SD cohorts. (A) Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades B-D in SD cohort stratified by treatment category. (B) Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades C-D in SD cohort stratified by treatment category.

Close modal

URD cohort

In the URD cohort, the cumulative incidences of AGVHD grades B-D and C-D at 100 days were 59% (95% CI, 57%-61%) and 32% (95% CI, 30%-34%), respectively. Figure 2A shows the cumulative incidences of grades B-D AGVHD stratified by transplant treatment category. In multivariate analysis, MA + TBI + BM (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56%-0.91%; P = .006), MA + nonTBI + BM (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40%-0.75%; P = .0001) and RIC + BM (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29%-0.76%; P = .002) were significantly associated with lower odds of grades B-D AGVHD compared with MA + TBI + PBSCs. Tacrolimus plus methotrexate-based GVHD prophylaxis (OR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.67%-0.94%; P = .008) also was associated with lower odds of grades B-D AGVHD. Patients with CML had significantly higher odds of grades B-D AGVHD (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.14%-1.99%; P = .004), as did recipients of transplants from a 7/8 HLA-mismatched donor (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05%-1.54%; P = .02).

Figure 2

Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades in URD cohorts. (A) Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades B-D in URD cohort stratified by treatment category. (B) Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades C-D in URD cohort stratified by treatment category.

Figure 2

Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades in URD cohorts. (A) Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades B-D in URD cohort stratified by treatment category. (B) Cumulative incidence of AGVHD grades C-D in URD cohort stratified by treatment category.

Close modal

Figure 2B shows the cumulative incidences of grades C-D AGVHD after URD transplantation stratified by transplant treatment category. MA + TBI + BM (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62%-1.0%; P = .05), MA + nonTBI + BM (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48%-0.93%; P = .02), and RIC + BM (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28%-0.83%; P = .009) were all associated with significantly lower odds of grades C-D AGVHD compared with MA + TBI + PBSCs. Type of AGVHD prophylaxis was not significantly associated with grade C-D AGVHD risk. However, patients with CML had significantly higher odds of grades C-D AGVHD (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14%-2.01%; P = .004) as did recipients of transplants from 7/8 HLA-mismatched donors (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12%-1.66%; P = .002) or ≤ 6/8 HLA-mismatched donors (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.16%-2.08%; P = .003).

Transplant-related mortality and overall survival risk factors

Multivariate analyses of risk factors associated with transplant-related mortality and overall survival in SD and URD cohorts are outlined in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

Table 5

Multivariate analyses of risk factors for transplant-related mortality

VariableSD
URD
nRR95% CIPnRR95% CIP
Treatment category    .005    .0006 
    1: MA + TBI + PBSC 709 1.00   534 1.00   
    2: MA + TBI + BM 245 0.84 0.62-1.12 .23 733 1.16 0.97-1.39 .11 
    3: MA + nonTBI + PBSC 1017 1.16 0.96-1.40 .13 350 .94 0.75-1.18 .61 
    4: MA + nonTBI + BM 492 0.82 0.65-1.05 .11 265 0.90 0.70-1.16 .41 
    5: RIC + PBSC 622 0.87 0.69-1.09 .22 405 0.74 0.58-0.94 .01 
    6: RIC + BM 67 0.67 0.37-1.20 .18 83 0.88 0.59-1.33 .55 
GVHD prophylaxis    < .0001     
    CSA + MTX ± other 2645 1.00       
    Tacrolimus ± MTX ± other 484 0.60 0.49-0.75 < .0001     
    Other 23 1.43 0.71-2.88 .32     
Recipient age, y    < .0001    .0005 
    20-39 1342 1.00   940 1.00   
    40-49 866 1.42 1.19-1.70 < .0001 644 1.27 1.08-1.50 .004 
    50+ 944 2.05 1.73-2.44 < .0001 786 1.38 1.16-1.65 .0003 
Donor age, y         
    18-29     710 1.00   
    ≥ 30     1669 1.33 1.14-1.54 .0003 
KPS    < .0001    .0006 
    < 80 256 1.00   216 1.00   
    80-100 2789 0.61 0.47-0.77 < .0001 1906 0.72 0.58-0.91 .005 
    Unknown 107 0.82 0.54-1.24 .35 248 0.54 0.39-0.74 .0001 
Disease    < .0001     
    ALL 505 1.00-       
    AML 1362 0.61 0.49-0.75 < .0001     
    CML 828 0.67 0.53-0.84 .0006     
    MDS 457 0.62 0.46-0.82 .001     
Disease status at transplant    < .0001    < .0001 
    Early 1750 1.00   907 1.00   
    Intermediate 520 1.30 1.07-1.57 .007 568 1.12 0.94-1.34 .21 
    Advanced 666 1.67 1.38-2.02 < .0001 707 1.63 1.38-1.92 < .0001 
    Unknown 216 1.50 1.10-2.07 .01 188 1.71 1.33-2.20 < .0001 
Sex mismatch (D/R)    .0003    .02 
    M/M, M/F, F/F 2397 1.00   1947 1.00   
    F/M 746 1.35 1.16-1.57 <0.0001 423 1.21 1.03-1.42 .02 
    Missing 0.55 0.08-3.93 .55     
R/D CMV serostatus        < .0001 
    NN     738 1.00   
    NP/PN/PP     1586 1.36 1.17-1.59 < .0001 
    Missing     46 2.26 1.35-3.77 .002 
ABO match        .01 
    Match     988 1.00   
    Mismatch     1370 1.18 1.03-1.35 .02 
    Missing     12 0.37 0.11-1.27 .11 
HLA match        < .0001 
    8/8 matched     1532 1.00   
    7/8 matched     614 1.44 1.24-1.68 < .0001 
    ≤ 6/8 matched     224 2.07 1.69-2.53 < .0001 
VariableSD
URD
nRR95% CIPnRR95% CIP
Treatment category    .005    .0006 
    1: MA + TBI + PBSC 709 1.00   534 1.00   
    2: MA + TBI + BM 245 0.84 0.62-1.12 .23 733 1.16 0.97-1.39 .11 
    3: MA + nonTBI + PBSC 1017 1.16 0.96-1.40 .13 350 .94 0.75-1.18 .61 
    4: MA + nonTBI + BM 492 0.82 0.65-1.05 .11 265 0.90 0.70-1.16 .41 
    5: RIC + PBSC 622 0.87 0.69-1.09 .22 405 0.74 0.58-0.94 .01 
    6: RIC + BM 67 0.67 0.37-1.20 .18 83 0.88 0.59-1.33 .55 
GVHD prophylaxis    < .0001     
    CSA + MTX ± other 2645 1.00       
    Tacrolimus ± MTX ± other 484 0.60 0.49-0.75 < .0001     
    Other 23 1.43 0.71-2.88 .32     
Recipient age, y    < .0001    .0005 
    20-39 1342 1.00   940 1.00   
    40-49 866 1.42 1.19-1.70 < .0001 644 1.27 1.08-1.50 .004 
    50+ 944 2.05 1.73-2.44 < .0001 786 1.38 1.16-1.65 .0003 
Donor age, y         
    18-29     710 1.00   
    ≥ 30     1669 1.33 1.14-1.54 .0003 
KPS    < .0001    .0006 
    < 80 256 1.00   216 1.00   
    80-100 2789 0.61 0.47-0.77 < .0001 1906 0.72 0.58-0.91 .005 
    Unknown 107 0.82 0.54-1.24 .35 248 0.54 0.39-0.74 .0001 
Disease    < .0001     
    ALL 505 1.00-       
    AML 1362 0.61 0.49-0.75 < .0001     
    CML 828 0.67 0.53-0.84 .0006     
    MDS 457 0.62 0.46-0.82 .001     
Disease status at transplant    < .0001    < .0001 
    Early 1750 1.00   907 1.00   
    Intermediate 520 1.30 1.07-1.57 .007 568 1.12 0.94-1.34 .21 
    Advanced 666 1.67 1.38-2.02 < .0001 707 1.63 1.38-1.92 < .0001 
    Unknown 216 1.50 1.10-2.07 .01 188 1.71 1.33-2.20 < .0001 
Sex mismatch (D/R)    .0003    .02 
    M/M, M/F, F/F 2397 1.00   1947 1.00   
    F/M 746 1.35 1.16-1.57 <0.0001 423 1.21 1.03-1.42 .02 
    Missing 0.55 0.08-3.93 .55     
R/D CMV serostatus        < .0001 
    NN     738 1.00   
    NP/PN/PP     1586 1.36 1.17-1.59 < .0001 
    Missing     46 2.26 1.35-3.77 .002 
ABO match        .01 
    Match     988 1.00   
    Mismatch     1370 1.18 1.03-1.35 .02 
    Missing     12 0.37 0.11-1.27 .11 
HLA match        < .0001 
    8/8 matched     1532 1.00   
    7/8 matched     614 1.44 1.24-1.68 < .0001 
    ≤ 6/8 matched     224 2.07 1.69-2.53 < .0001 

Pairwise comparisons significant for the treatment categories were as follows for SD, treatment category 2 versus treatment category 3 (P = .03), treatment category 3 versus treatment category 4 (P = .002), treatment category 3 versus treatment category 5 (P = .006); and for URD, treatment category 2 versus treatment category 4 (P = .04), treatment category 2 versus treatment category 5 (P = .0001).

RR indicates relative risk; KPS, Karnofsky performance score; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; D, donor; R, recipient; M, male; F, female; N, negative; P, positive; CSA, cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; and MA, myeloablative.

Table 6

Multivariate analyses of risk factors for overall survival

VariableSD
URD
nRR95% CIPnRR95% CIP
Treatment category    .02     
    1: MA + TBI + PBSC 709 1.00       
    2: MA + TBI + BM 245 0.79 0.63-1.00 .05     
    3: MA + nonTBI + PBSC 1017 1.02 0.88-1.18 .81     
    4: MA + nonTBI + BM 492 0.78 0.65-0.94 .01     
    5: RIC + PBSC 622 0.97 0.83-1.14 .73     
    6: RIC + BM 67 0.85 0.57-1.26 .42     
GVHD prophylaxis    .04     
    CSA + MTX ± other 2645 1.00       
    Tacrolimus ± MTX ± other 484 0.83 0.72-0.96 .01     
    Other 23 1.07 0.6-1.90 .82     
Recipient age, y    < .0001    .0002 
    20-39 1342 1.00   940 1.00   
    40-49 866 1.28 1.12-1.46 .0004 644 1.24 1.09-1.42 .001 
    50+ 944 1.59 1.39-1.82 < .0001 786 1.29 1.13-1.46 .0001 
Donor age, y         
    18-29     710 1.00   
    ≥ 30     1669 1.19 1.07-1.34 .002 
KPS    < .0001    < .0001 
    < 80 256 1.00   216 1.00   
    80-100 2789 0.52 0.45-0.61 < .0001 1906 0.68 0.58-0.81 < .0001 
    Unknown 107 0.64 0.47-0.86 .004 248 0.59 0.47-0.74 < .0001 
Disease    < .0001    .02 
    ALL 505 1.00   446 1.00   
    AML 1362 0.68 0.59-0.80 < .0001 1044 0.87 0.75-1.00 .05 
    CML 828 0.58 0.48-0.70 < .0001 463 0.81 0.68-0.97 .02 
    MDS 457 0.53 0.43-0.66 < .0001 417 0.74 0.60-0.91 .005 
Disease status at transplant    < .0001    < .0001 
    Early 1750 1.00   907 1.00   
    Intermediate 520 1.51 1.31-1.75 < .0001 568 1.28 1.11-1.47 .0007 
    Advanced 666 2.23 1.95-2.55 < .0001 707 2.15 1.88-2.46 < .0001 
    Unknown 216 1.56 1.22-2.00 .0004 188 1.74 1.35-2.24 < .0001 
Sex mismatch (D/R)    .0008     
    M/M, M/F, F/F 2397 1.00       
    F/M 746 1.25 1.11-1.40 .0002     
    Missing 0.69 0.17-2.78 .60     
R/D CMV serostatus        .003 
    NN     738 1.00   
    NP/PN/PP     1586 1.19 1.06-1.33 .003 
    Missing     46 1.57 1.03-2.37 .03 
ABO match        .02 
    Match     988 1.00   
    Mismatch     1370 1.17 1.05-1.30 .004 
    Missing     12 1.00 0.48-2.12 .99 
HLA match        < .0001 
    8/8 matched     1532 1.00   
    7/8 matched     614 1.23 1.09-1.38 .0006 
    ≤ 6/8 matched     224 1.68 1.42-1.98 < .0001 
VariableSD
URD
nRR95% CIPnRR95% CIP
Treatment category    .02     
    1: MA + TBI + PBSC 709 1.00       
    2: MA + TBI + BM 245 0.79 0.63-1.00 .05     
    3: MA + nonTBI + PBSC 1017 1.02 0.88-1.18 .81     
    4: MA + nonTBI + BM 492 0.78 0.65-0.94 .01     
    5: RIC + PBSC 622 0.97 0.83-1.14 .73     
    6: RIC + BM 67 0.85 0.57-1.26 .42     
GVHD prophylaxis    .04     
    CSA + MTX ± other 2645 1.00       
    Tacrolimus ± MTX ± other 484 0.83 0.72-0.96 .01     
    Other 23 1.07 0.6-1.90 .82     
Recipient age, y    < .0001    .0002 
    20-39 1342 1.00   940 1.00   
    40-49 866 1.28 1.12-1.46 .0004 644 1.24 1.09-1.42 .001 
    50+ 944 1.59 1.39-1.82 < .0001 786 1.29 1.13-1.46 .0001 
Donor age, y         
    18-29     710 1.00   
    ≥ 30     1669 1.19 1.07-1.34 .002 
KPS    < .0001    < .0001 
    < 80 256 1.00   216 1.00   
    80-100 2789 0.52 0.45-0.61 < .0001 1906 0.68 0.58-0.81 < .0001 
    Unknown 107 0.64 0.47-0.86 .004 248 0.59 0.47-0.74 < .0001 
Disease    < .0001    .02 
    ALL 505 1.00   446 1.00   
    AML 1362 0.68 0.59-0.80 < .0001 1044 0.87 0.75-1.00 .05 
    CML 828 0.58 0.48-0.70 < .0001 463 0.81 0.68-0.97 .02 
    MDS 457 0.53 0.43-0.66 < .0001 417 0.74 0.60-0.91 .005 
Disease status at transplant    < .0001    < .0001 
    Early 1750 1.00   907 1.00   
    Intermediate 520 1.51 1.31-1.75 < .0001 568 1.28 1.11-1.47 .0007 
    Advanced 666 2.23 1.95-2.55 < .0001 707 2.15 1.88-2.46 < .0001 
    Unknown 216 1.56 1.22-2.00 .0004 188 1.74 1.35-2.24 < .0001 
Sex mismatch (D/R)    .0008     
    M/M, M/F, F/F 2397 1.00       
    F/M 746 1.25 1.11-1.40 .0002     
    Missing 0.69 0.17-2.78 .60     
R/D CMV serostatus        .003 
    NN     738 1.00   
    NP/PN/PP     1586 1.19 1.06-1.33 .003 
    Missing     46 1.57 1.03-2.37 .03 
ABO match        .02 
    Match     988 1.00   
    Mismatch     1370 1.17 1.05-1.30 .004 
    Missing     12 1.00 0.48-2.12 .99 
HLA match        < .0001 
    8/8 matched     1532 1.00   
    7/8 matched     614 1.23 1.09-1.38 .0006 
    ≤ 6/8 matched     224 1.68 1.42-1.98 < .0001 

Pairwise comparisons significant for the treatment categories were as follows for SD, treatment category 2 versus treatment category 3 (P = .03), treatment category 3 versus treatment category 4 (P = .003) and treatment category 4 versus treatment category 5 (P = .03); and for URD, none.

RR, relative risk; KPS, Karnofsky performance score; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome; D, donor; R, recipient; M, male; F, female; N, negative; P, positive; CSA, cyclosporine; MTX, methotrexate; and MA, myeloablative.

SD cohort

The cumulative incidences of transplant-related mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years were 21% (95% CI, 20%-23%), 28% (95% CI, 27%-30%), and 31% (95% CI, 29%-33%), respectively. Treatment strategy was significantly associated with transplant-related mortality (overall P value, .005; Table 5). Transplant-related mortality risk did not differ by treatment strategy when comparing each of the 5 strategies to the reference group. However, when evaluating pairwise comparisons, 3 comparisons were significantly different (MA + nonTBI + PBSCs vs MA + TBI + BM [P = .03], MA + nonTBI + PBSCs vs MA + non TBI + BM [P = .002], and MA + non TBI + PBSCs vs RIC + PBSCs [P = .006]). GVHD prophylaxis with tacrolimus plus methotrexate was associated with a lower risk of transplant-related mortality as was a diagnosis other than ALL and a higher Karnofsky performance score at transplantation. Older recipient but not donor age was associated with a significant increase in the risk of transplant-related mortality as was intermediate or advanced disease status at transplantation and use of a female donor for a male recipient.

The probabilities of overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after SD transplantation were 64% (95% CI, 62%-66%), 51% (95% CI, 49%-53%), and 46% (95% CI, 44%-49%), respectively. MA + TBI + BM and MA + nonTBI + BM were associated with higher probabilities of survival compared with MA + TBI + PBSCs as was tacrolimus- plus methotrexate-based GVHD prophylaxis. Diseases other than ALL and Karnofsky performance score ≥ 80 also were associated with better survival. Older recipient age, intermediate or advanced disease status, and transplantation from a female donor to a male recipient were associated with a significantly worse survival.

URD cohort

The cumulative incidences of transplant-related mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years were 31% (95% CI, 30%-33%), 37% (95% CI, 35%-39%), and 40% (95% CI, 37%-42%), respectively. RIC + PBSCs was associated with a lower risk of transplant-related mortality compared with MA + TBI + PBSCs. GVHD prophylaxis was not associated with transplant-related mortality. Older recipient age, older donor age, transplantation from a female donor to a male recipient, transplantation from an HLA-mismatched donor, serologic evidence of prior CMV infection in recipient or donor, presence of ABO mismatch, and advanced disease status at transplant were all associated with a significantly increased risk of transplant-related mortality. Higher Karnofsky performance score was associated with less transplant-related mortality.

Probabilities of overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years were 51% (95% CI, 49%-53%), 38% (95% CI, 35%-40%), and 33% (95% CI, 31%-35%), respectively. Neither treatment category nor GVHD prophylaxis regimen correlated with survival after URD transplantation. Older recipient age, older donor age, intermediate or advanced disease status, transplantation from an HLA-mismatched or ABO mismatched donor, and CMV seropositivity in donor or recipient were associated with significantly lower survival rates. Diseases other than ALL and higher Karnofsky performance score were associated with better survival.

Table 7 summarizes all the risk factors associated with AGVHD (grades B-D and grades C-D), transplant-related mortality, and overall survival for the SD and URD cohorts.

Table 7

Summary of risk factors for AGVHD, transplantation-related mortality, and overall mortality for SD and URD cohorts

Variable*AGVHD grades B-D
AGVHD grades C-D
Transplantation-related mortality
Overall mortality
SDURDSDURDSDURDSDURD
MA + TBI + PBSC Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref 
MA + TBI + BM — ↓ — ↓ — — ↓ — 
MA + nonTBI + PBSC — — — — — — ↓ — 
MA + nonTBI + BM ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ — — — — 
RIC + PBSC ↓ ↓ — — — ↓ — — 
RIC + BM — ↓ — ↓ — — — — 
Tacrolimus-based GVHD prophylaxis ↓ ↓ ↓ — ↓ — ↓ — 
Older recipient age — — — — ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ 
Older donor age — — — — — ↑ — ↑ 
Higher KPS — — — — ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ 
Disease type other than ALL — ↑ — ↑ ↓ — ↓ ↓ 
Disease status other than early — — ↑ — ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ 
Female donor for male recipient —  ↑ — ↑ ↑ ↑ — 
CMV other than NN — — — — — ↑ — ↑ 
ABO mismatch — — — — — ↑ — ↑ 
HLA mismatch NA ↑ — ↑ NA ↑ NA ↑ 
Variable*AGVHD grades B-D
AGVHD grades C-D
Transplantation-related mortality
Overall mortality
SDURDSDURDSDURDSDURD
MA + TBI + PBSC Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref 
MA + TBI + BM — ↓ — ↓ — — ↓ — 
MA + nonTBI + PBSC — — — — — — ↓ — 
MA + nonTBI + BM ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ — — — — 
RIC + PBSC ↓ ↓ — — — ↓ — — 
RIC + BM — ↓ — ↓ — — — — 
Tacrolimus-based GVHD prophylaxis ↓ ↓ ↓ — ↓ — ↓ — 
Older recipient age — — — — ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ 
Older donor age — — — — — ↑ — ↑ 
Higher KPS — — — — ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ 
Disease type other than ALL — ↑ — ↑ ↓ — ↓ ↓ 
Disease status other than early — — ↑ — ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ 
Female donor for male recipient —  ↑ — ↑ ↑ ↑ — 
CMV other than NN — — — — — ↑ — ↑ 
ABO mismatch — — — — — ↑ — ↑ 
HLA mismatch NA ↑ — ↑ NA ↑ NA ↑ 

NN indicates negative/negative serostatus; MA, myeloablative; —, no association; Ref, reference; NA, not applicable; ↑, increased risk/odd of association with outcome; and ↓, decreased risk/odd of association with outcome.

*

See individual tables of multivariate analyses for reference groups.

The impact of various components of a transplant (namely, regimen intensity, graft source, use of TBI) has historically been studied as distinct entities. Patients receive a preparative regimen as a package and needs to be analyzed as such. These 3 variables can be modified to optimize transplant outcome. Because of the correlation and potential differential effects of graft types with type of conditioning regimen, we created 6 categories to characterize the treatment strategies used in these patients. Using this approach, we report the impact of risk factors on AGVHD incidence and severity, survival, and transplant-related mortality in a large cohort of patients receiving transplants from SD or URD. Most prior studies were not only restricted to transplants done with MA regimens but also focused on one disease, donor, or graft type. In contrast to prior studies of GVHD prognostic factors, ∼ 25% of the transplants in this cohort were done with RIC. We also looked for interactions between treatment category and all significant variables affecting the incidence of AGVHD, and no significant interactions were noted.

Table 7 summarizes the association of all analyzed risk factors with grades B-D AGVHD, grades C-D AGVHD, transplant-related mortality, and overall mortality for the SD and URD cohorts. Some risk factors are differentially associated with outcomes of SD versus URD transplantation. Although many of these risk factors are nonmodifiable, graft source, use of TBI, regimen intensity, and GVHD prophylaxis are therapeutic choices.

In our study, all patients were diagnosed with acute GVHD before day 100. This study cohort included patients during the time period before National Institutes of Health consensus conference (1999-2005).22  Because late acute GVHD was not captured in this era, some patients diagnosed with acute GVHD after day 100 would have been reported as CGVHD. Hence, to ensure accurate data, we have restricted the data regarding acute GVHD at day 100.

Effect of graft source (PBSCs vs marrow) on HCT outcomes has been evaluated in several studies and has been most consistently associated with chronic GVHD.2,23-33  Increased risk of AGVHD with use of PBSCs as a graft source has been less frequently reported.29,31  Our study did not evaluate the graft source independently, but it did evaluate this risk when this was given as a package associated with type of conditioning and use of TBI. The use of PBSCs + TBI + MA conditioning in HLA-identical sibling donor transplant and PBSCT + MA conditioning in URD transplants was associated with a higher risk of acute GVHD, indicating that consideration toward modification of the “regimen packages” used will probably lead to lower incidence. Further comparative studies testing components of treatment packages in more homogenous cohorts are needed.

Multiple studies have analyzed the impact of regimen intensity on both acute and chronic GVHD.34-36  In this study, consistent with prior reports, the risk of AGVHD was significantly lower with RIC.

We studied the impact of another modifiable factor, namely, GVHD prophylaxis. Calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) plus methotrexate remains the standard for GVHD prophylaxis after HCT with MA regimens. A randomized phase 3 study in URD BM HCT showed that tacrolimus-based prophylaxis is associated with lower cumulative incidence of grades 2-4 AGVHD than cyclosporine-based prophylaxis, without any impact on survival.37  Similarly, tacrolimus based GVHD prophylaxis was associated with lower incidence of grade 2-4 AGVHD without any difference in disease-free or overall survival in patients with nonadvanced disease after SD BM SCT.38  In the current study, tacrolimus plus methotrexate prophylaxis was associated with lower odds of grades B-D and grades C-D AGVHD in both the SD and the URD cohort. Tacrolimus plus methotrexate was associated with significantly lower transplant-related mortality and higher survival in the SD cohort but not in the URD cohort. The exact mechanism of the beneficial effect of tacrolimus compared with cyclosporine, and the differential impact on survival in SD and URD group is not clear. It is known that tacrolimus, allows for proliferation of human T-regulatory cells, in contrast to cyclosporine, which inhibits T-regulatory cells.39,40  It can be hypothesized that tacrolimus based GVHD prophylaxis facilitates tolerance.

We performed comprehensive analyses of other nonmodifiable factors that have previously been identified to influence AGVHD. A prior study identified female donor–male recipient, parity of female donors, and older recipient age as significant risk factors for AGVHD in recipients of SD transplants for severe aplastic anemia and leukemia.4  In our study, recipient and donor age and sex mismatch between donor and recipient were not significantly correlated with grades B-D AGVHD. However, transplants from female donors to male recipients were associated with higher odds of grades C-D AGVHD, worse survival, and increased transplant-related mortality in the SD and URD cohorts. Older recipient age also correlated with transplant-related mortality and overall mortality after both SD and URD transplants. An influence of donor age on these endpoints was seen only in URD transplants, similar to a previous study.41  The influence of donor age on outcomes of SD transplants is difficult to study because recipient and donor age are highly correlated. Although Karnofsky performance score (≥ 80) was not associated with AGVHD incidence, contrary to a previous IBMTR study, higher Karnofsky performance score (≥ 80) was associated with lower transplant-related mortality and better survival.29 

CML was associated with a higher risk of grades B-D and C-D AGVHD than other diseases only after URD transplants. This contrasts with a prior IBMTR SD study of patients receiving non-RIC regimens where CML diagnosis correlated with a higher odds ratio of grade 2-4 and 3-4 AGVHD.29  Diagnosis of ALL was associated with worse survival after both URD and SD transplants. Advanced disease state at transplantation correlated with worse survival and increased transplant-related mortality after SD and URD transplants. There was no significant correlation between CMV serologic status and AGVHD, survival, or transplant-related mortality in the SD cohort. In the URD cohort, CMV seropositivity in donor or recipient correlated with worse survival and more transplant-related mortality, but it had no effect on AGVHD incidence. This is consistent with some prior studies,42,43  but contrasts with a study that analyzed a cohort of URD transplants from 1987 to 1999. In that study, CMV serologic status did not correlate with overall survival or transplant-related mortality.41  Similarly, ABO-mismatch correlated with worse survival and increased transplant-related mortality in the URD cohort in our analysis.

Although differences in outcomes between URD and SD HCT are decreasing, some studies show that outcomes continue to be inferior after URD transplantation especially with greater degrees of HLA mismatch.44  In another study of patients with standard-risk hematologic malignancy undergoing HCT with MA conditioning using TBI, outcome after 10/10 HLA allele–matched URD HCT was similar to outcome after HLA-identical SD HCT.43  In our study, we did not compare SD to URD transplantation. Within the URD cohort, HLA mismatch (< 8/8) was associated with higher odds of grades B-D AGVHD, grades C-D AGVHD, transplant-related mortality, and all cause mortality.

In summary, we report a comprehensive analysis of both modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors for AGVHD, survival and transplant-related mortality after both SD and URD transplants. Our study population reflects current practices: only 20% to 25% of transplants were for CML, and there were a substantial proportion of RIC transplants. Several of our findings in this study differ from older studies and may reflect changes in outcomes and prognostic factors from introduction of newer treatment strategies. In fact, the predominant determinants of AGVHD risk in this study were the intensity of conditioning, type of graft and GVHD prophylaxis regimen. We were able to study these variables as a package and show the differential impact of these treatment groups. These results can help guide a more rational selection of treatment strategies to optimize outcomes after HCT.

An Inside Blood analysis of this article appears at the front of this issue.

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734.

The CIBMTR is supported by Public Health Service grant/cooperative agreement U24-CA76518 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); grant/cooperative agreement 5U01HL069294 from NHLBI and NCI; contract HHSH234200637015C with Health Resources and Services Administration; grants N00014-06-1-0704 and N00014-08-1-0058 from the Office of Naval Research; and grants from Allos Inc; Amgen Inc; Angioblast; Anonymous donation to the Medical College of Wisconsin; Ariad; Be the Match Foundation; Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Buchanan Family Foundation; CaridianBCT; Celgene Corporation; CellGenix, GmbH; Children's Leukemia Research Association; Fresenius-Biotech North America Inc; Gamida Cell Teva Joint Venture Ltd; Genentech Inc; Genzyme Corporation; GlaxoSmithKline; Kiadis Pharma; The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society; The Medical College of Wisconsin; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc; Milliman USA Inc; Miltenyi Biotec Inc; National Marrow Donor Program; Optum Healthcare Solutions Inc; Otsuka America Pharmaceutical Inc; Seattle Genetics; Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals; Soligenix Inc; Swedish Orphan Biovitrum; THERAKOS Inc; and Wellpoint Inc.

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Institutes of Health, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

National Institutes of Health

Contribution: M.J., M.A., N.C., P.L.M., and T.H. designed the study and wrote the manuscript; M.A., M.D.H., and M.-J.Z. analyzed data and provided statistical input; and M.E.D.F., C.S.C., A.U.-I., S.Z.P., J.H.A., B.J.B., C.B., J.-Y.C., M.C., R.P.G., V.G., S.J.L., M.L., D.J.W., and M.M.H. reviewed and provided critical input for the manuscript.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Correspondence: Madan Jagasia, Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation Section, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 3973 The Vanderbilt Clinic, Nashville, TN 37232-5505; e-mail: [email protected].

1
Anasetti
 
C
Beatty
 
PG
Storb
 
R
et al. 
Effect of HLA incompatibility on graft-versus-host disease, relapse, and survival after marrow transplantation for patients with leukemia or lymphoma.
Hum Immunol
1990
, vol. 
29
 
2
(pg. 
79
-
91
)
2
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).
Blood
2000
, vol. 
95
 
12
(pg. 
3702
-
3709
)
3
Eisner
 
MD
August
 
CS
Impact of donor and recipient characteristics on the development of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease following pediatric bone marrow transplantation.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1995
, vol. 
15
 
5
(pg. 
663
-
668
)
4
Gale
 
RP
Bortin
 
MM
van Bekkum
 
DW
et al. 
Risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease.
Br J Haematol
1987
, vol. 
67
 
4
(pg. 
397
-
406
)
5
Hägglund
 
H
Bostrom
 
L
Remberger
 
M
Ljungman
 
P
Nilsson
 
B
Ringden
 
O
Risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease in 291 consecutive HLA-identical bone marrow transplant recipients.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1995
, vol. 
16
 
6
(pg. 
747
-
753
)
6
Jacobsen
 
N
Badsberg
 
JH
Lonnqvist
 
B
et al. 
Graft-versus-leukaemia activity associated with CMV-seropositive donor, post-transplant CMV infection, young donor age and chronic graft-versus-host disease in bone marrow allograft recipients. The Nordic Bone Marrow Transplantation Group.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1990
, vol. 
5
 
6
(pg. 
413
-
418
)
7
Michallet
 
M
Perrin
 
MC
Belhabri
 
A
et al. 
Impact of cyclosporine and methylprednisolone dose used for prophylaxis and therapy of graft-versus-host disease on survival and relapse after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1999
, vol. 
23
 
2
(pg. 
145
-
150
)
8
Nash
 
RA
Pepe
 
MS
Storb
 
R
et al. 
Acute graft-versus-host disease: analysis of risk factors after allogeneic marrow transplantation and prophylaxis with cyclosporine and methotrexate.
Blood
1992
, vol. 
80
 
7
(pg. 
1838
-
1845
)
9
Oh
 
H
Loberiza
 
FR
Zhang
 
MJ
et al. 
Comparison of graft-versus-host-disease and survival after HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplantation in ethnic populations.
Blood
2005
, vol. 
105
 
4
(pg. 
1408
-
1416
)
10
Przepiorka
 
D
Shapiro
 
S
Schwinghammer
 
TL
et al. 
Cyclosporine and methylprednisolone after allogeneic marrow transplantation: association between low cyclosporine concentration and risk of acute graft-versus-host disease.
Bone Marrow Transplant
1991
, vol. 
7
 
6
(pg. 
461
-
465
)
11
Storb
 
R
Prentice
 
RL
Buckner
 
CD
et al. 
Graft-versus-host disease and survival in patients with aplastic anemia treated by marrow grafts from HLA-identical siblings. Beneficial effect of a protective environment.
N Engl J Med
1983
, vol. 
308
 
6
(pg. 
302
-
307
)
12
Wojnar
 
J
Giebel
 
S
Krawczyk-Kulis
 
M
et al. 
Acute graft-versus-host disease. The incidence and risk factors.
Ann Transplant
2006
, vol. 
11
 
1
(pg. 
16
-
23
)
13
Yee
 
GC
Self
 
SG
McGuire
 
TR
Carlin
 
J
Sanders
 
JE
Deeg
 
HJ
Serum cyclosporine concentration and risk of acute graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic marrow transplantation.
N Engl J Med
1988
, vol. 
319
 
2
(pg. 
65
-
70
)
14
Giralt
 
S
Ballen
 
K
Rizzo
 
D
et al. 
Reduced-intensity conditioning regimen workshop: defining the dose spectrum. Report of a workshop convened by the center for international blood and marrow transplant research.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
2009
, vol. 
15
 
3
(pg. 
367
-
369
)
15
Cahn
 
JY
Klein
 
JP
Lee
 
SJ
et al. 
Prospective evaluation of 2 acute graft-versus-host (GVHD) grading systems: a joint Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle et Therapie Cellulaire (SFGM-TC), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), and International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR) prospective study.
Blood
2005
, vol. 
106
 
4
(pg. 
1495
-
1500
)
16
Rowlings
 
PA
Przepiorka
 
D
Klein
 
JP
et al. 
IBMTR Severity Index for grading acute graft-versus-host disease: retrospective comparison with Glucksberg grade.
Br J Haematol
1997
, vol. 
97
 
4
(pg. 
855
-
864
)
17
Kaplan
 
EL
Meier
 
P
Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations.
J Am Stat Assoc
1958
, vol. 
53
 (pg. 
457
-
481
)
18
Gooley
 
TA
Leisenring
 
W
Crowley
 
J
Storer
 
BE
Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators.
Stat Med
1999
, vol. 
18
 
6
(pg. 
695
-
706
)
19
Klein
 
JP
Logan
 
B
Harhoff
 
M
Andersen
 
PK
Analyzing survival curves at a fixed point in time.
Stat Med
2007
, vol. 
26
 
24
(pg. 
4505
-
4519
)
20
Klein
 
JP
Andersen
 
PK
Regression modeling of competing risks data based on pseudovalues of the cumulative incidence function.
Biometrics
2005
, vol. 
61
 
1
(pg. 
223
-
229
)
21
Andersen
 
P
Klein
 
J
Rosthoj
 
S
Generalized linear models for correlated pseudo observations, with application to multi-state models [abstract].
Biometrika
2003
, vol. 
90
 (pg. 
15
-
27
)
22
Filipovich
 
AH
Weisdorf
 
D
Pavletic
 
S
et al. 
National Institutes of Health consensus development project on criteria for clinical trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease: I. Diagnosis and staging working group report.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
2005
, vol. 
11
 
12
(pg. 
945
-
956
)
23
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 Med
2001
, vol. 
344
 
3
(pg. 
175
-
181
)
24
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 Transplant
1998
, vol. 
22
 
12
(pg. 
1145
-
1151
)
25
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 Transplant
1998
, vol. 
21
 
10
(pg. 
995
-
1003
)
26
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 Oncol
2000
, vol. 
18
 
3
(pg. 
537
-
546
)
27
Powles
 
R
Mehta
 
J
Kulkarni
 
S
et al. 
Allogeneic blood and bone-marrow stem-cell transplantation in haematological malignant diseases: a randomised trial.
Lancet
2000
, vol. 
355
 
9211
(pg. 
1231
-
1237
)
28
Schmitz
 
N
Eapen
 
M
Horowitz
 
MM
et al. 
Long-term outcome of patients given transplants of mobilized blood or bone marrow: a report from the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry and the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
Blood
2006
, vol. 
108
 
13
(pg. 
4288
-
4290
)
29
Hahn
 
T
McCarthy
 
PL
Zhang
 
MJ
et al. 
Risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease after human leukocyte antigen-identical sibling transplants for adults with leukemia.
J Clin Oncol
2008
, vol. 
26
 
35
(pg. 
5728
-
5734
)
30
Schrezenmeier
 
H
Passweg
 
JR
Marsh
 
JC
et al. 
Worse outcome and more chronic GVHD with peripheral blood progenitor cells than bone marrow in HLA-matched sibling donor transplants for young patients with severe acquired aplastic anemia.
Blood
2007
, vol. 
110
 
4
(pg. 
1397
-
1400
)
31
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 Transplant
2007
, vol. 
13
 
12
(pg. 
1461
-
1468
)
32
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 Oncol
2005
, vol. 
23
 
22
(pg. 
5074
-
5087
)
33
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.
Blood
2001
, vol. 
98
 
6
(pg. 
1739
-
1745
)
34
Couriel
 
DR
Saliba
 
RM
Giralt
 
S
et al. 
Acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease after ablative and nonmyeloablative conditioning for allogeneic hematopoietic transplantation.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant
2004
, vol. 
10
 
3
(pg. 
178
-
185
)
35
Mielcarek
 
M
Martin
 
PJ
Leisenring
 
W
et al. 
Graft-versus-host disease after nonmyeloablative versus conventional hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
Blood
2003
, vol. 
102
 
2
(pg. 
756
-
762
)
36
Sorror
 
ML
Maris
 
MB
Storer
 
B
et al. 
Comparing morbidity and mortality of HLA-matched unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation after nonmyeloablative and myeloablative conditioning: influence of pretransplantation comorbidities.
Blood
2004
, vol. 
104
 
4
(pg. 
961
-
968
)
37
Nash
 
RA
Antin
 
JH
Karanes
 
C
et al. 
Phase 3 study comparing methotrexate and tacrolimus with methotrexate and cyclosporine for prophylaxis of acute graft-versus-host disease after marrow transplantation from unrelated donors.
Blood
2000
, vol. 
96
 
6
(pg. 
2062
-
2068
)
38
Ratanatharathorn
 
V
Nash
 
RA
Przepiorka
 
D
et al. 
Phase III study comparing methotrexate and tacrolimus (prograf, FK506) with methotrexate and cyclosporine for graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis after HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplantation.
Blood
1998
, vol. 
92
 
7
(pg. 
2303
-
2314
)
39
Coenen
 
JJ
Koenen
 
HJ
van Rijssen
 
E
Hilbrands
 
LB
Joosten
 
I
Rapamycin, and not cyclosporin A, preserves the highly suppressive CD27+ subset of human CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells.
Blood
2006
, vol. 
107
 
3
(pg. 
1018
-
1023
)
40
Kogina
 
K
Shoda
 
H
Yamaguchi
 
Y
et al. 
Tacrolimus differentially regulates the proliferation of conventional and regulatory CD4(+) T cells.
Mol Cells
2009
, vol. 
28
 
2
(pg. 
125
-
130
)
41
Kollman
 
C
Howe
 
CW
Anasetti
 
C
et al. 
Donor characteristics as risk factors in recipients after transplantation of bone marrow from unrelated donors: the effect of donor age.
Blood
2001
, vol. 
98
 
7
(pg. 
2043
-
2051
)
42
Meijer
 
E
Dekker
 
AW
Rozenberg-Arska
 
M
Weersink
 
AJ
Verdonck
 
LF
Influence of cytomegalovirus seropositivity on outcome after T cell-depleted bone marrow transplantation: contrasting results between recipients of grafts from related and unrelated donors.
Clin Infect Dis
2002
, vol. 
35
 
6
(pg. 
703
-
712
)
43
Yakoub-Agha
 
I
Mesnil
 
F
Kuentz
 
M
et al. 
Allogeneic marrow stem-cell transplantation from human leukocyte antigen-identical siblings versus human leukocyte antigen-allelic-matched unrelated donors (10/10) in patients with standard-risk hematologic malignancy: a prospective study from the French Society of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cell Therapy.
J Clin Oncol
2006
, vol. 
24
 
36
(pg. 
5695
-
5702
)
44
Arora
 
M
Weisdorf
 
DJ
Spellman
 
SR
et al. 
HLA-identical sibling compared with 8/8 matched and mismatched unrelated donor bone marrow transplant for chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia.
J Clin Oncol
2009
, vol. 
27
 
10
(pg. 
1644
-
1652
)
Sign in via your Institution