Outcomes with allogeneic stem cell transplant using cryopreserved versus fresh hematopoietic progenitor cell products.

Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) is a mainstay of treatment for hematologic malignancies such as acute leukemias and aggressive lymphomas. Historically, fresh hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) products have been preferred to cryopreserved products (cryo-HPC) due to concerns of loss of stem cell viability and number with the cryopreservation procedure.
Objective: We aimed to analyze the outcomes of patients who received cryo-HPCs during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare this against historical cohorts that received fresh HPC.
Study Design: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all adult patients who received a peripheral blood alloHSCT in British Columbia, Canada between June 2017 and November 2021. Baseline characteristics, Kaplan-Meier (KM) overall survival (OS), engraftment, and incidences of acute and chronic graft versus host disease were compared between patients who received cryo-HPCs and fresh HPCs. Univariable analysis followed by multivariable analysis was performed using a backward stepwise selection procedure to generate predictors of OS, cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and primary and secondary graft failure.
Results: Three hundred eighty-three patients were included in the analysis, with cryo-HPC representing 40%. Median viability was higher in the fresh-HPC group at 99.2% (IQR 98.3-99.5) versus cryo-HPCs at 97.0% (96.0, 98.6) (P < 0.01). The 12-month actuarial survivals were 77% in the fresh HPC and 75% in the cryo-HPC groups (P = 0.21). There were no differences between cryo-HPCs and fresh HPCs on univariable analysis of OS, CIR, or NRM. There was a shorter median time to platelet engraftment in patients receiving fresh HPC at 17 days (IQR 16, 20) versus cryo-HPC at 21 days (IQR 18, 29), P < 0.001. There was a shorter median time to neutrophil engraftment in the fresh HPC group at 17 days (IQR 14, 20) versus 20 days (17, 23), P < 0.001. Cryo-HPC accounted for 5 out of 6 cases of primary graft failure (P = 0.04), and 3 out of five cases of secondary graft failure (P = 0.39). There were no significant differences in acute GVHD between the fresh HPC and cryo-HPC groups (P = 0.34). The incidence of moderate or severe chronic GVHD was 32% in the fresh-HPC group and 17% in the cryo-HPC group (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, cryopreservation did not emerge as an independent predictor of OS, CIR, NRM, primary GF or secondary GF. However, viability <90% on arrival at our center was a significant predictor of OS (HR 5.3, 2.3-12.3, P < 0.01), primary graft failure (OR 36.3, 5.4-210.2, P < 0.01), and secondary graft failure (OR 18.4, 1.7-121.1, P < 0.01).
Conclusions: Patients who received cryo-HPCs had similar OS and relapse rates to those who received fresh-HPCs but typically took 2-3 days longer to achieve engraftment of platelets or neutrophils and were associated increased primary graft failure. However, after accounting for multiple variables, cryopreservation was no longer a significant predictor of survival or engraftment while viability <90% emerged as an important predictor of OS, primary graft failure, and secondary graft failure. If confirmed, this suggests that viability on arrival at the infusion center may be a good quality control indicator used to identify HPC products that may warrant recollection if the risk of graft failure is sufficiently increased.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The following authors have financial disclosures as outlined in the following: David Sanford, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees (Abbvie, Astellas); Kevin Song, honoraria (Janssen, Sanofi, BMS, Forus, Amgen, GSK, Gilead, Novartis); Shanee Chung, Consultancy & honoraria (Takeda), Honoraria (Astella Pharma, Novartis, Paladin, Pfizer); Ryan Stubbins, Honoraria (AbbVie, Pfizer, Jazz, Takeda), Advisory board (AbbVie), Research funding (Jazz); Heather Sutherland, Honoraria (Amgen, Forus, BMS); Kevin Hay, research funding (Janssen), Honoraria (BMS, Kite/Gilead, Novartis). The remaining authors have no competing interests or financial disclosures.
(Copyright © 2024 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. All rights reserved.)