Table 2

Recent studies of alloHSCT using haploidentical donors in AML

First author, year of study, study group, type of studyAML patients characteristicsOutcome, by donor typeStudy conclusions
Age at diagnosis (y) (range)AML in CR1 (%)Median follow-up, moConditioningStem cell sourceGVHD preventionDonor type and No.NRMRelapseLFS
Ciceri, 2008, retrospective, multicentric9636 (16-66)1447Myeloablative, 100%PBSCEx vivo T-cell depletion, 100%; ATG, 89%Haploidentical, 860.360.160.48The choice between haploidentical and UCB transplantation may be based on center expertise, policy, costs of the procedures, and the availability of clinical trials.
Ruggeri, 2015 EBMT, retrospective, multicentric9545 (18-72)3424Myeloablative, 61%BM; PBSCPT-HDCy, 32%UCB, 5580.300.320.38Cumulative incidence of relapse was not different between the 2 groups; adjusted LFS and OS were comparable.
Haploidentical, 3600.270.410.32
Wang, 2015, prospective, multicentric10128 (15-57)10032Myeloablative, 100%BM + PBSCATG, 100%MSD, 2190.080.150.78This comparison suggests that outcome after haploidentical HSCT (with ATG) is comparable to matched sibling alloHSCT.
Haploidentical, 2310.130.150.74
Ciurea, 2015, IBMTR, retrospective, multicentric9757 (21-70)4730-39Myeloablative, 54%BMPT-HDCy, 100%MAC MUD, 1245;0.200.390.42These data suggest that OS after haploidentical HSCT with PT-HDCy is comparable to MUD alloHSCT.
Haploidentical, 1040.140.440.41
RIC MUD, 7370.230.420.37
Haploidentical, 880.090.580.35
  • BM, bone marrow; LFS, leukemia-free survival; MSD, matched sibling donor; MUD, matched unrelated donor; UCB, unrelated cord blood.