Features of Epstein–Barr Virus and Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Acute Leukemia Patients After Haplo-HCT With Myeloablative ATG-Containing Conditioning Regimen

BACKGROUND: Haploidentical donor hematopoietic cell transplantation (haplo-HCT) has become a preferred option for patients without HLA-matched donors, but it increases the risk of viral reactivations. Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) are common viruses post-HCT, but limited data have been reported in the setting of haplo-HCT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study enrolling acute leukemia patients who received haplo-HCT with myeloablative conditioning regimen employing ATG in our center from July 2014 to July 2017. All the patients enrolled were EBV-IgM and EBV-DNA negative but EBV-IgG positive, and so were their donors. The same went for CMV as well. RESULTS: In total, 602 patients were recruited consisting of 331 with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and 271 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). One-year cumulative incidences of EBV (22.9% ± 2.4% vs. 27.4% ± 2.8%, P = 0.169) and CMV (24.7% ± 2.4% vs. 29.4% ± 2.8%, P = 0.190) reactivation were comparable between AML and ALL. EBV and CMV were independent risk factors for each other. In the AML group, male recipients [HR = 1.275, 95% CI (1.001–1.624), P = 0.049] and acute graft-versus-host disease [HR = 1.592, 95% CI (1.001–2.533), P = 0.049] were independent risk factors for EBV reactivation and CMV reactivation, respectively. CMV rather than EBV reactivation was related to a trend of worsened treatment-related mortality (TRM) (15.6% ± 0.1% vs. 10.2% ± 0.0%, P = 0.067) and progression-free survival (PFS) (60.6% ± 4.1% vs. 70.3% ± 2.3%, P = 0.073), while significant impacts were revealed only in the subgroup analysis. CMV reactivation resulted in a remarkable inferior 2-year overall survival (OS) (64.2% ± 5.7% vs. 77.6% ± 3.2%, P = 0.038) and PFS (55.0% ± 5.9% vs. 71.9% ± 3.4%, P = 0.042) in ALL patients. On the other hand, in the EBV+/CMV− subgroup, relapse was lower in ALL patients (8.2% ± 0.2% vs. 32.4% ± 0.8%, P = 0.010) compared with AML patients, which led to a superior 2-year OS (82.0% ± 6.2% vs. 60.3% ± 8.8%, P = 0.016) and PFS (74.5% ± 7.0% vs. 57.5% ± 8.4%, P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: We concluded that EBV and CMV reactivations were frequent in acute leukemia patients after haplo-HCT, with possibly distinctive risk factors from HLA-matched HCT. There could be a potential interaction between EBV and CMV, but impacts on transplant outcomes remained complex.