Studies examining matched vs partially matched donors in the setting of PTCy
| Reference . | Study . | Findings . |
|---|---|---|
| Sanz et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2020:13:46 | EBMT compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT with PTCy for AML CR1 | No difference in LFS by donor type (MSDs, MUDs, or haplos) |
| Sanz et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2021:14:4 | EBMT compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT with PTCY for ALL CR1 | No difference in LFS by donor type (MSDs, MUDs, or haplos) |
| Gooptu et al7 | CIBMTR compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT with PTCy for AML/MDS | NRM, OS, and DFS better with MUDs for RIC alloBMT but same for MAC alloBMT |
| Ambinder et al8 | Reanalysis of Gooptu et al CIBMTR data set using propensity score matching and including donor age | No difference in NRM, OS, or DFS between MUDs and haplos for RIC or MAC |
| Mussetti et al. Transplant Cell Ther. 2023;29:184.e1-184.e9 | EBMT/CIBMTR compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT for ALL CR1 with PTCy | NRM, OS, and DFS better with MUDs |
| Mehta et al. Blood Adv. 2024;8:5306-5314 | Single-institution retrospective comparison of haplos and MSDs with PTCy | Haplo and MSDs had similar outcomes. Young B-leader–matched haplo donors had better OS than older MSD donors. |
| Sanz et al3 | EBMT analysis of donor factors that can affect outcomes of MUD and mMUD alloBMT with PTCy. | Donor age was most important characteristic and might be prioritized over HLA match. |
| Shaffer et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42:3277-3286 | CIBMTR analysis of MUDs and mMUDs with PTCy | Use of PTCy results in comparable OS and GRFS for MUDs and mMUDs |
| Nath et al1 | CIBMTR compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT with PTCy with older MSDs and young alternative donors | OS was comparable for MSDs, MUDs, haplos, and mMUD. Young MUDs showed better DFS. |
| Reference . | Study . | Findings . |
|---|---|---|
| Sanz et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2020:13:46 | EBMT compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT with PTCy for AML CR1 | No difference in LFS by donor type (MSDs, MUDs, or haplos) |
| Sanz et al. J Hematol Oncol. 2021:14:4 | EBMT compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT with PTCY for ALL CR1 | No difference in LFS by donor type (MSDs, MUDs, or haplos) |
| Gooptu et al7 | CIBMTR compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT with PTCy for AML/MDS | NRM, OS, and DFS better with MUDs for RIC alloBMT but same for MAC alloBMT |
| Ambinder et al8 | Reanalysis of Gooptu et al CIBMTR data set using propensity score matching and including donor age | No difference in NRM, OS, or DFS between MUDs and haplos for RIC or MAC |
| Mussetti et al. Transplant Cell Ther. 2023;29:184.e1-184.e9 | EBMT/CIBMTR compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT for ALL CR1 with PTCy | NRM, OS, and DFS better with MUDs |
| Mehta et al. Blood Adv. 2024;8:5306-5314 | Single-institution retrospective comparison of haplos and MSDs with PTCy | Haplo and MSDs had similar outcomes. Young B-leader–matched haplo donors had better OS than older MSD donors. |
| Sanz et al3 | EBMT analysis of donor factors that can affect outcomes of MUD and mMUD alloBMT with PTCy. | Donor age was most important characteristic and might be prioritized over HLA match. |
| Shaffer et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42:3277-3286 | CIBMTR analysis of MUDs and mMUDs with PTCy | Use of PTCy results in comparable OS and GRFS for MUDs and mMUDs |
| Nath et al1 | CIBMTR compared outcomes of adult patients undergoing alloBMT with PTCy with older MSDs and young alternative donors | OS was comparable for MSDs, MUDs, haplos, and mMUD. Young MUDs showed better DFS. |
ALL, acute lymphocytic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CR1, first complete remission; EBMT, European Society for Blood and Marrow Research; GRFS, GVHD-free, relapse-free survival; LFS, leukemia-free survival; MAC, myeloablative conditioning; RIC, reduced intensity conditioning.