All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit Know ALL.

The ALL Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

Introducing

Now you can personalise
your ALL Hub experience!

Bookmark content to read later

Select your specific areas of interest

View content recommended for you

Find out more
  TRANSLATE

The ALL Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the ALL Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The ALL Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
2021-12-21T09:34:40.000Z

HLA (mis)matching in haploidentical transplantation

Dec 21, 2021
Share:

Bookmark this article

To reduce the risk of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) 8/8 human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching is preferred, however the chance of finding a perfect match is low especially for some ethnic groups. By using haploidentical (haplo) transplants, the donor pool is greatly expanded and may allow much more rapid transplantation to be performed.

The use of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) after transplant has dramatically reduced the incidence of acute and chronic GvHD. However, the ideal pattern of HLA (mis)matching is unclear and was investigated in a paper by Fuchs et al.1

Study design

Data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) of 1,434 patients who underwent a haplo transplant and the patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Patient characteristics were well balanced between the different subgroups. In the whole study men were more likely to be included with a median age of 54 years. The majority (58%) of patients were diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics1

Characteristic

Total (N = 1434)

HLA-B leader matched (n = 878)

HLA-B-leader mismatched (n = 556)

HLA-DRB1 matched (n = 217)

HLA-DRB1 mismatched (n = 1215)

Recipient age at transplant

 

 

 

 

 

Median (range)

54 (1−78)

55 (1-78)

53 (1-78)

57 (1-78)

53 (1-78)

Sex (%)

 

 

 

 

 

Female

40

40

40

39

40

Disease (%)

 

 

 

 

 

AML

58

58

58

63

57

ALL

23

23

23

19

24

MDS

19

19

19

18

19

Disease risk

 

 

 

 

 

Low

4

4

4

2

4

Intermediate*

51

52

50

53

50

High

26

27

25

27

26

Very High

3

3

3

2

3

Missing or N/A

16

15

19

15

17

Ethnicity (%)

 

 

 

 

 

Caucasian-non-Hispanic

57

57

56

58

56

African American

16

15

17

20

15

Asian

6

7

5

7

6

Hispanic

15

14

15

9

16

Other

1

1

1

1

1

Graft type

 

 

 

 

 

Bone marrow

43

44

41

38

44

Peripheral blood

57

56

59

62

56

*Including intermediate – cytogenetics not collected.

ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; MDS, myelodysplastic syndrome

Results

GvHD and survival outcomes

For the entire cohort the Day 100 cumulative incidence of acute GvHD was:

  • Grades II-IV 34.7%
  • Grades III-IV 9.3%

Chronic GvHD at 1-year was 25.8%.

The three-year cumulative incidence of:

  • Relapse 39.1%
  • NRM 19.7%

Three-year overall survival (OS) was 52.5% while disease free survival (DFS) was 41.3%.

HLA mismatching and association with clinical outcome

Most of the patients in the study were 5/10 (65%) or 6/10 (22%) matched for HLA-A, B, C, DRB1 and DQB1.

The association between number of mismatches and outcome was assessed. Patients with 5/10 matches compared with patients with 6/10 matched showed a hazard ratio (HR) for relapse of 1.06 (95% CI, 0.87−1.28). Compared with patients 5/10 matched, the HR was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.08 - 1.69) for ≥7/10 HLA matched.

The risk of GvHD, DFS, transplant related mortality or overall mortality were not significantly associated with the total number of matched alleles.

Locus specific risks

The clinical outcome of matching at HLA-A, B, C, DRB1 and DQB1 individually, was assessed. HLA-B was examined in terms of classical matching and leader matching. No significant association was seen with any endpoint for mismatches at HLA-A,-B or -DQB1 alone.

HLA-B leader mismatching however was associated with a significantly decreased OS (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 - 2.18; p = 0.004) and increase transplant-related mortality (TRM; HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 - 1.82; p = 0.003) compared with leader matching. Comparing HLA-B matched (whole sequence matched including leader) with leader matched there was not a significant increase in mortality or TRM, indicating HLA-B leader matching is more clinically relevant.

A significantly reduced risk of relapse was found for HLA-DRB1 mismatching in the GvHD direction versus matching (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; p < 0.0001).

Relative to HLA-DRB1-T-cell epitopes (TCE)-permissive matches, mismatches were associated with significantly increased OS s (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.82; p = 0.002).

The risk of acute GvHD was not associated with (mis)matching at any locus. However, the risk of chronic GvHD was increased when HLA-C was mismatched compared to matched (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.17 - 1.83, p = 0.0008).

Mismatching at 2-loci

HLA-B leader mismatching

HLA-B leader mismatching was examined with HLA-DRB1. HLA-B leader matching and HLA-DRB1 mismatching was additive for patients with this combination who comprised >1/2 of the group (Figure 1) and had improved DFS and a reduced relapse rate compared to patients with HLA-B leader mismatch/HLA-DRB1 match status.

Figure 1.  HLA-B leader and HLA-DRB1 (mis)matching1  

HLA, human leukocyte antigen
HLA-B leader matching/ HLA-DPB1 non-permissive mismatching compared to any other combination of (mis)matching at these two alleles showed longest survival. 

HLA-DRB1 and -DQB1 mismatching

Mismatching at both HLA-DRB1 and -DQB1 was favored due to linkage disequilibrium with a mismatch at only one locus occurring less often. The proportion of matched/ mismatched alleles are shown in Figure 2 and are consistent with the expected genetic relationship. The longest DFS was seen in patients with HLA-DRB1-mismatched/DQB1-matched status.

Figure 1. HLA-DQB1 and HLA-DRB1 (mis)matching1  

HLA, human leukocyte antigen 

Optimal donor selection

From this study the optimal haploidentical donor with respect to improved DFS was found to be:

  • HLA-B leader-matched,
  • HLA-DRB1-mismatched,
  • HLA-DQB1-matched, and
  • HLA-DPB1 TCE-non-permissive mismatched.

For patients who are cytomegalovirus negative, a negative donor is preferred.

Conclusion

Using haplo-donors increases the speed at which patients can receive a transplant as most patients may have more than one haplo donor available to them. A novel association of HLA-C and B with survival outcomes following haplo-HSCT + PTCy was identified. For patients treated with PTCy following a haplo-HSCT the ideal donor was HLA-B leader-matched, HLA-DRB1-mismatched and HLA-DQB1-matched, and nonpermissive TCE HLA-DPB1 mismatched.

  1. Fuchs EJ, McCurdy RM, Solomon RS, et al; HLA Informs Risk Predictions after Haploidentical Stem Cell Transplantation with Post-transplantation Cyclophosphamide. Blood 2021; blood.2021013443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2021013443

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to ALL delivered to your inbox