Incidence and Kinetics of CMV Infection After T-Cell Depleted and Unmodified Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A 10-Year Experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

III-IV after sUCBT (19%) compared to dUCBT (10%, p1⁄40.06) but increased incidence of grade II aGVHD after dUCBT (28%) compared to 17% after sUCBT (p1⁄40.05). CI of chronic GvHD at 2 years was 21% after dUCBTand 12% after sUCBT (p1⁄40.15). At 2 years, CI of non relapse mortality (NRM) was 28% after dUCBT and 30% after sUCBT (p1⁄40.87). CI of 2y RI was 21% after dUCBT whereas it was 38% after sUCBT (p1⁄40.03). In a multivariate analysis adjusting for the differences between the 2 groups, dUCBT was associated with lower RI compared to sUCBT (HR1⁄40.74, p1⁄40.01). Therefore, there was an improved 2-y LFS after dUCBT (51%) compared to sUCBT (32%; p1⁄40.03). This was confirmed in a multivariate analysis (HR1⁄40.64, p1⁄40.04). Concerning pts transplanted in CR2 (n1⁄4148), there were no differences of outcomes after dUCBT (n1⁄493) or sUCBT (n1⁄455). At 2y, LFS was 40% after dUCBT and 48% after sUCBT (p1⁄40.32). In a subgroup analysis of dUCBT (n1⁄4118) and sUCBT (n1⁄451) recipients using the same conditioning regimen (CYþFLUþTBI2Gy), 2 y LFS were 54% and 33% respectively (p1⁄40.05). In this retrospective comparative based registry analysis, in AL pts transplanted in CR1, neutrophil recovery, GVHD and NRM were not statistically different after RIC-dUCBT or RICsUCBT, however, dUCBT recipients had decreased RI and improved LFS. For AL pts transplanted in CR2, there was no benefit of using dUCBT when compared to sUCBT.