IMPACT OF PRETRANSPLANT DONOR AND RECIPIENT CYTOMEGALOVIRUS SEROSTATUS ON OUTCOME FOR MULTIPLE MYELOMA PATIENTS UNDERGOING REDUCED INTENSITY CONDITIONING ALLOGENEIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION.

Abstract

To investigate the impact of pre-transplant CMV serostatus of donor or recipient on outcome of patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Allo-SCT) for Multiple Myeloma (MM). To our knowledge no data are available in the literature about this issue.We retrospectively followed 99 consecutive patients who underwent reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) Allo-SCT for MM in our cancer centre at Marseille between January 2000 and January 2012. Based upon CMV serostatus, patients were classified as low risk (donor [D]-/recipient [R]-) 17 patients (17.1%), intermediate risk (D+/R) 14 patients (14.1%), or high risk – either (D-/R+) 31 patients (31.3%) or (D+/R+), 37 patients (37.3%).Cumulative incidence of CMV reactivation was 39% with a median time of 61 days (26–318). Three patients (3%) developed CMV disease. Two factors were associated with CMV reactivation: CMV serostatus group (low: 0% vs intermediate: 29% vs high: 50%; p=0.001) and the presence of grade II–IV acute GvHD (Hazard Ratio: HR=2.1 [1.1–3.9]). Thirty-six of the 39 patients (92%) with CMV reactivation did not present positive detection of CMV after a 21-day median duration preemptive treatment with ganciclovir. Cumulative incidence of day 100 grade II–IV acute GvHD, 1-year chronic GvHD and day 100 transplantation related mortality (TRM) were 37%, 36% and 9%, respectively. CMV reactivation and serostatus were not associated with increased GvHD and TRM or short survival. Only the presence of acute GvHD as a time dependent variable was significantly associated with increased TRM (p=0.005). Two-year overall and progression free survival were 56% and 34%, respectively.Donor and recipient CMV serostatus and acute GvHD are independent factors for increased CMV reactivation in high-risk MM patients undergoing RIC Allo-SCT. However, we did not find any influence of CMV reactivation on post transplantation outcome. CMV monitoring and pre-emptive treatment strategy could in part explain these results. Novel prophylactic measures such as immunotherapy and drug prophylaxis need to be considered in this specific group of patients, warranting further prospective studies.