Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 51, 96–102 © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 0268-3369/16 www.nature.com/bmt
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Risk factors and prognosis of hepatic acute GvHD after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation Y Arai1, J Kanda2, H Nakasone2,3, T Kondo1, N Uchida4, T Fukuda5, K Ohashi6, K Kaida7, K Iwato8, T Eto9, Y Kanda2, H Nakamae10, T Nagamura-Inoue11, Y Morishima12, M Hirokawa13, Y Atsuta14,15 and M Murata16 on behalf of the GVHD working group of the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Hepatic acute GvHD (aGvHD) is associated with high mortality owing to poor response to immunosuppressive therapy. The pathogenesis of hepatic aGvHD differs from that of other lesions, and specific risk factors related to pre-transplant liver conditions should be determined. We conducted a cohort study by using a Japanese transplant registry database (N = 8378). Of these subjects, 1.5% had hepatitis C virus Ab (HCV-Ab) and 9.4% had liver dysfunction (elevated transaminase or bilirubin levels) before hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). After HCT, the cumulative incidence of hepatic aGvHD was 6.7%. On multivariate analyses, HCV-Ab positivity (hazard ratio (HR), 1.93; P = 0.02) and pre-transplant liver dysfunction (HR, 1.85; Po 0.01), as well as advanced HCT risk, unrelated donors, HLA mismatch and cyclosporine as GvHD prophylaxis, were significant risk factors for hepatic aGvHD, whereas hepatitis B virus surface Ag was not. Hepatic aGvHD was a significant risk factor for low overall survival and high transplant-related mortality in all aGvHD grades (P o 0.01). This study is the first to show the relationship between pre-transplant liver conditions and hepatic aGvHD. A prospective study is awaited to validate the results of this study and establish a new strategy especially for high-risk patients. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 51, 96–102; doi:10.1038/bmt.2015.205; published online 14 September 2015 INTRODUCTION Acute GvHD (aGvHD) is a frequent and sometimes unpredictably severe inflammatory complication occurring after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT).1 To improve HCT prognosis, various strategies are considered for patients with previously identified aGvHD risk factors, such as patient age and sex, underlying disease, unrelated donors, mismatch in HLA and ABO blood type, stem cell sources or dosage, conditioning regimens and GvHD prophylaxis.2–8 Although aGvHD is a systemic inflammatory condition, its presentation differs greatly according to the organ involved. In hepatic aGvHD, pathogenetic mechanisms other than those involving the skin or the gut are suspected,9 suggesting the existence of organ-specific risk factors (especially related to pre-transplant liver conditions) in addition to common risk factors mentioned previously. The incidence of hepatic aGvHD is far lower than that of skin or gut aGvHD, and risk factors for hepatic aGvHD may have been overlooked in previous analyses of aGvHD as a whole; therefore, analyses focused on hepatic aGvHD are necessary. If specific risk factors for hepatic aGvHD are confirmed, a new strategy—including modified donor selection and/or GvHD prophylaxis—may reduce hepatic aGvHD incidence and improve prognosis. Hepatic aGvHD often 1
results in HCT-related mortality because of poor response to conventional treatment.10,11 Previous studies have shown that certain pre-transplant liver conditions are related to higher risk of overall transplant-related mortality (TRM) after HCT; these conditions include chronic hepatitis B or C virus (HBV or HCV) infection,12,13 pre-transplant liver dysfunction after previous therapies14 or severe iron overload from multiple transfusions.15 However, it has not yet been determined whether these conditions are related to hepatic aGvHD. Therefore, we conducted a cohort study to identify the specific risk factors for hepatic aGvHD focusing on pre-transplant liver conditions, and to determine its cumulative incidence and effects on prognosis after HCT by using the Japanese transplant registry database.
PATIENTS AND METHODS Inclusion and exclusion criteria Data for 8443 adult patients (age ⩾ 16 years) with hematological malignancies who underwent a first allogeneic HCT without T-cell depletion using bone marrow from related or unrelated donors, peripheral blood from relatives or a single cord blood unit between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2012, were obtained from the Transplant Registry Unified
Department of Hematology and Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; 2Division of Hematology, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan; 3Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, School of Medicine, Stanford University, California, USA; 4Department of Hematology, Federation of National Public Service Personnel Mutual Aid Associations Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; 5Division of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; 6Hematology Division, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center, Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; 7Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan; 8Department of Hematology, Hiroshima Red Cross Hospital & Atomic-bomb Survivors Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan; 9Department of Hematology, Hamanomachi Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan; 10Department of Hematology, Osaka City University, Osaka, Japan; 11Department of Cell Processing and Transfusion, Research Hospital, The Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; 12Division of Epidemiology and Prevention, Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute, Aichi, Japan; 13Department of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Akita University, Akita, Japan; 14 Japanese Data Center for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Aichi, Japan; 15Department of Healthcare Administration, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan and 16Department of Hematology and Oncology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan. Correspondence: Dr T Kondo, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54, Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan. E-mail:
[email protected] Received 15 April 2015; revised 19 July 2015; accepted 24 July 2015; published online 14 September 2015
Risk factors for hepatic acute GvHD Y Arai et al
97 Management Program in Japan.16 Patients who underwent HCT using peripheral blood from unrelated donors or a double cord blood unit were excluded because of their small number in our cohort. Patients for whom data for the hematopoietic cell transplant co-morbidity index (including pretransplant liver dysfunction)17 was not available were also excluded (N = 65), and thereby 8378 patients were included in this study. Our protocol complied with the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by the Transplant Registry Unified Management Program Data Management Committee and the Ethics Committee of Kyoto University, where this study was performed. Written informed consent to be included in any future retrospective database study was obtained from each patient at each institution.
Data collection and definition of each covariate From the registry database, we extracted data on pre-transplant liver conditions, such as hepatitis viral infection (surface Ags for HBV (HBsAg) and antibodies for HCV (HCV-Ab)), previous history of multiple erythrocyte transfusions (⩾20 packs) and hematopoietic cell transplant co-morbidity index scores (that included information on pre-transplant hepatic function), in addition to basic characteristics about HCT. Pre-transplant liver dysfunction was defined as an elevation of transaminase and/or bilirubin levels above the upper normal limit. Extreme elevation of transaminase (42.5 × upper normal limit) or bilirubin levels (41.5 × upper normal limit), or the presence of cirrhosis were regarded as severe liver dysfunction, according to the criteria for hematopoietic cell transplant co-morbidity index.17 Patients were divided into standard- and advanced-risk groups according to the previous criteria of disease risk.18 HCT risk was determined as high if hematopoietic cell transplant co-morbidity index total points were three or higher.17 HLA disparity in HLA-A, B and DR Ags was determined at serologic (in bone marrow from related, peripheral blood from relatives and cord blood unit) or genomic levels (in unrelated bone marrow). Definitions of myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) were consistent with those established in the RIC regimen workshop.19 The diagnosis and classification of aGvHD were carried out by attending physicians at each center based on traditional criteria;20,21 the GvHD guidelines published by the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation22 recommend that hepatic aGvHD should be diagnosed after excluding such differential diagnoses as viral infection, veno-occlusive disease, drug-induced liver injury and thrombotic microangiopathy by using any available modalities including peripheral blood testing, ultrasonography, computed tomography scan or biopsy.
Statistical analyses The probability of developing aGvHD was estimated on the basis of cumulative incidence curves, considering early death and relapse as competing risks23 (that is, any aGvHD diagnosed after relapse was not included) in accordance with the statistical guidelines from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.24 Univariate analyses of the cumulative incidence of hepatic aGvHD ( ⩾ stage 1) were performed using Gray’s method.25 Factors with significance or borderline significance (Po 0.1) in the univariate analyses and those related to pre-transplant liver conditions (HBsAg, HCV-Ab, liver dysfunction and multiple erythrocyte transfusions) were subjected to a multivariate analysis using Fine-Gray proportional hazards models.26 Overall survival (OS) was calculated with the Kaplan–Meier method after the landmark of 60 days from HCT and compared by using log-rank tests; this landmark was set at the time-point when 480% of all aGvHD episodes had been observed. OS was also analyzed with regard to hepatic aGvHD complication as a time-dependent covariate. TRM was analyzed after the same landmark, considering relapse as a competing risk. It should be noted that TRM in our study may not include regimen-related mortality, which usually occurs immediately after HCT. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effect of hepatic aGvHD and other confounding variables on OS; the Fine-Gray proportional hazards model was used for TRM. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata (version 13.1, Stata Corp LP, College Station, TX, USA). The alpha level of all tests or the P-value was set at 0.05.
RESULTS Patient characteristics We evaluated 8378 patients aged 16–80 years (median, 49 years) (Table 1). HBsAg and HCV-Ab were positive in 3.5% and 1.5% of patients, respectively. About a quarter of the patients (26.9%) had © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited
Table 1.
Patients characteristics
Variables Variables related to pre-transplant liver condition HbsAg (−) (+) HCV-Ab (−) (+) Multiple transfusion (−) (+) Unknown Liver dysfunction (−) (+) Other variables Age (years), median (range) Sex Female Male CMV serostatus Negative Positive Unknown Diagnosis AML MDS ALL NHL ATL CML MPD Disease risk Standard Advanced Unknown HCT risk Standard Advanced HCT type Rel-BM Rel-PB UR-BM CB Sex mismatch Matched M to F F to M ABO mismatch Matched Minor Major Major–minor HLA disparity Matched Mismatched Conditioning MAC RIC GvHD prophylaxis CyA-based Tac-based HCT year –2010 2011– Follow-up of survivor (d), median (range)
N = 8378
%
8087 291
96.5 3.5
8254 124
98.5 1.5
4635 2256 1487
55.3 26.9 17.8
7594 784
90.6 9.4
49
(16–80)
3476 4902
41.5 58.5
1619 6295 464
19.3 75.2 5.5
3877 1029 1601 909 536 240 186
46.2 12.3 19.1 10.9 6.4 2.9 2.2
4234 4070 74
50.5 48.6 0.9
7242 1136
86.4 13.6
1105 1757 3864 1652
13.2 21.0 46.1 19.7
4437 2005 1936
53.0 23.9 23.1
4278 1725 1586 789
51.1 20.6 18.9 9.4
4861 3517
58.0 42.0
5852 2526
69.8 30.2
3251 5127
38.8 61.2
4770 3608 760
56.9 43.1 (31–2075)
Abbreviations: ATL = adult T-cell leukemia; CB = cord blood; CyA = cyclosporine; F to M = female to male; HBsAg = surface Ag for hepatitic B virus; HCT = hematopoietic cell transplantation; HCV-Ab = Ab for HCV; M to F = male to female; MAC = myeloablative conditioning; MDS = myelodysplastic syndrome; MPD = myeloproliferative disorder; NHL = non-Hodgkin lymphoma; Rel-BM = bone marrow from relative donor, peripheral blood from relatives, peripheral blood from relative donor; RIC = reducedintensity conditioning; Tac = tacrolimus; UR-BM = bone marrow from unrelated donor. Standard-risk criteria were: (1) AML in the first or second CR phase, (2) ALL or adult T-cell leukemia (ATL) in the first CR phase, (3) CML in the first chronic phase, (4) de novo refractory anemia and ringed sideroblasts among patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), (5) myeloproliferative disorder (MPD) in the CR or PR phase or (6) nonHodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the CR or the first PR phase. All other patients were considered to be at advanced risk.
Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 96 – 102
Risk factors for hepatic acute GvHD Y Arai et al
98 undergone multiple erythrocyte transfusions (20 packs or more) before HCT. Pre-transplant liver dysfunction was observed in 9.4% of patients; severe cases comprised 1.5% of the cohort. The median follow-up period for survivors was 760 days (range, 31–2075 days) after HCT. Cumulative incidence of hepatic aGvHD The cumulative incidence of hepatic aGvHD in all stages was 6.7% (95% confidence interval (CI), 6.1–7.3%; Figure 1a), and the median
time of occurrence was 34 days after HCT. More than 80% of hepatic aGvHD episodes (83.2%) occurred within 60 days after HCT. Among all hepatic aGvHD patients, 33.9% were stage 1, 23.1% were stage 2, 22.2% were stage 3 and 20.8% were stage 4. On the other hand, skin (stage 3–4) and gut (stage 1 or higher) aGvHD were observed more frequently (cumulative incidence, 23.3%; 95% CI, 22.4–24.2%; and 22.9%; 95% CI, 22.0–23.8%, respectively), and were more common targets (skin, 83.0%; gut, 56.7%) of grade II–IV aGvHD (cumulative incidence, 40.5%;
a
Grade II - IV aGVHD N = 3356 (100%)
b
Liver 1.6% 2.0%
0.15
Gut
0.1
c
0.05
0
50
100
150
200
37.9% Skin
60 Stage 1 2 3 4 40
36.6
11.6
20 9.3
13.1
0
Days after transplantation
Incidence of hepatic aGVHD
32.6%
13.4%
0
d
3.8% 8.7%
Proportion of hepatic aGVHD (%)
Incidence of hepatic aGVHD
0.2
6.5 3.9
6.1
5.0
Grade II
Grade III Grade IV aGVHD
0.2 Unadjusted HR 1.86 (P = 0.02)
Unadjusted HR 1.92 (P < 0.01)
Adjusted HR 1.93 (P = 0.02)
Adjusted HR 1.85 (P < 0.01)
0.15 HCV-Ab (+)
Liver dysfunction (+)
0.1 HCV-Ab (−)
Liver dysfunction (−)
0.05
0 0
50
100
150
200
0
50
100
150
200
Days after transplantation
Figure 1. Cumulative incidence and distribution of hepatic aGvHD. (a) Cumulative incidence of hepatic aGvHD. The probability of developing aGvHD was estimated on the basis of cumulative incidence curves, considering early death and relapse as competing risks. The cumulative incidence of hepatic aGvHD in all stages was 6.7% (95% CI, 6.1–7.3%), and the median day of occurrence was 34 days after HCT. More than 80% of hepatic aGvHD episodes (83.2%) occurred within 60 days after HCT. (b) Distribution of aGvHD lesions to each organ among those with grade II–IV aGvHD. Grade II–IV aGvHD was observed in 3356 patients (cumulative incidence, 40.5%; 95% CI, 39.4–41.6%). Among them, skin lesions (stage 1 or higher) was observed in 83.0%, gut (stage 1 or higher) in 56.7%, and liver (stage 1 or higher) in 16.1%. Only 1.6% of grade II–IV aGvHD was composed of a liver lesion alone. (c) Proportion of hepatic aGvHD and its stage according to each grade of aGvHD. Higher stages of hepatic aGvHD were observed in proportion to the higher grades of aGvHD. (d) Difference in cumulative incidence of hepatic aGvHD according to risk factors. The cumulative incidence curves (unadjusted with other confounders) were compared according to pre-transplant HCV-Ab positivity and pre-transplant liver function. Cumulative incidence of hepatic aGvHD was 11.9% in patients with HCV-Ab (in comparison with 6.7% in those without HCV-Ab) and 11.6% in patients with liver dysfunction (in comparison with 6.2% in those with normal liver function). Unadjusted HR was 1.86 and 1.92, and adjusted HR was 1.93 and 1.85, respectively (shown in Table 2). Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 96 – 102
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited
Risk factors for hepatic acute GvHD Y Arai et al
99 Table 2.
Risk factors for hepatic aGvHD
Variables
Univariate analysis HR
Variables related to pre-transplant liver condition HBsAg (−) 1.00 (+) 0.66 HCV-Ab (−) 1.00 (+) 1.86 Multiple transfusion (−) 1.00 (+) 1.16 Liver dysfunction (−) 1.00 (+) 1.92 Other variables Age 49 50 Sex Female Male CMV serostatus Negative Positive Diagnosis AML MDS ALL NHL ATL CML MPD Disease risk Standard Advanced HCT risk Standard Advanced HCT type Rel-BM Rel-PB UR-BM CB Sex mismatch Matched M to F F to M ABO mismatch Matched Minor Major Major–minor HLA disparity Matched Mismatched Conditioning MAC RIC GvHD prophylaxis CyA-based Tac-based HCT year –2010 2011–
95% CI
Multivariate analysis P-value
HR
95% CI
P-value
(Reference) (0.38–1.15)
0.14
1.00 0.64
(Reference) (0.36–1.14)
0.13
(Reference) (1.09–3.17)
0.02a
1.00 1.93
(Reference) (1.10–3.38)
0.02a
(Reference) (0.97–1.41)
0.11
1.00 1.08
(Reference) (0.89–1.32)
0.44
1.00 1.85
(Reference) (1.45–2.36)
1.00 1.13
(Reference) (0.94–1.37)
0.19
0.85 0.69 0.14 0.21 0.68 0.75
(Reference) (1.53–2.40)
o0.01a
o 0.01a
1.00 0.91
(Reference) (0.77–1.07)
0.26
1.00 1.69
(Reference) (0.98–1.38)
0.09
1.00 0.94
(Reference) (0.76–1.15)
0.54
1.00 1.01 0.90 1.31 0.85 1.19 1.15
(Reference) (0.78–1.32) (0.71–1.14) (1.02–1.69) (0.58–1.24) (0.74–1.93) (0.67–1.97)
0.93 0.37 0.04a 0.41 0.47 0.61
1.00 1.03 1.05 1.24 0.75 1.11 1.12
(Reference) (0.77–1.37) (0.82–1.36) (0.93–1.66) (0.48–1.18) (0.67–1.86) (0.55–2.28)
1.00 1.45
(Reference) (1.22–1.72)
o0.01a
1.00 1.40
(Reference) (1.14–1.72)
o 0.01a
1.00 1.18
(Reference) (0.92–1.52)
0.18
1.00 1.53 1.19 1.07
(Reference) (1.13–2.07) (0.90–1.57) (0.77–1.47)
0.01a 0.24 0.69
1.00 1.51 1.45 0.83
(Reference) (1.09–2.11) (1.03–2.03) (0.56–1.23)
0.02a 0.03a 0.34
1.00 0.91 1.03
(Reference) (0.74–1.12) (0.84–1.27)
0.37 0.76
1.00 1.03 0.81 0.76
(Reference) (0.84–1.28) (0.64–1.02) (0.55–1.05)
0.76 0.08 0.09
1.00 1.06 0.81 0.80
(Reference) (0.84–1.34) (0.63–1.05) (0.57–1.13)
0.62 0.11 0.21
1.00 1.27
(Reference) (1.08–1.50)
0.01a
1.00 1.61
(Reference) (1.30–2.00)
o 0.01a
1.00 0.94
(Reference) (0.79–1.12)
0.47
1.00 0.76
(Reference) (0.64–0.90)
1.00 0.62
(Reference) (0.50–0.77)
o 0.01a
1.00 0.97
(Reference) (0.82–1.14)
o0.01a 0.69
Abbreviations: HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval. Other abbreviations are explained in Table 1. aIndicates statistically significant.
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited
Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 96 – 102
Risk factors for hepatic acute GvHD Y Arai et al
100
Risk factors for hepatic aGvHD The univariate analyses showed that HCV-Ab positivity, pre-transplant liver dysfunction, patient sex (male), underlying disease (non-Hodgkin lymphoma), advanced disease risk, donor sources (peripheral blood from relatives), ABO major mismatch, HLA mismatch and GvHD prophylaxis with cyclosporine were risk factors of significance (P o 0.05) or borderline significance (P o 0.1) (Table 2). The multivariate analyses showed that HCV-Ab positivity (hazard ratio (HR), 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10–3.38; P = 0.02) and pre-transplant liver dysfunction (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.45–2.36; Po 0.01) were significant risk factors for hepatic aGvHD along with advanced disease risk, peripheral blood from relatives or unrelated bone marrow, HLA mismatch and use of cyclosporine (Table 2 and Figure 1d). Severity of pre-transplant liver dysfunction was not related to the risk of hepatic aGvHD (data not shown), partially because of the small number of patients with severe liver dysfunction before HCT. HBsAg and multiple erythrocyte transfusions were NS risk factors. The interaction between HCV-Ab positivity and pre-transplant liver dysfunction on the incidence of hepatic aGvHD reached borderline significance (P = 0.06). Therefore, we established a new categorical variable indicating the presence or absence of HCV-Ab with or without liver dysfunction and carried out multivariate analyses with this new variable and other variables listed previously (Supplementary Table 1). As a result, compared with the reference group (normal liver function without HCV-Ab), pre-transplant liver dysfunction was a significant risk factor for development of hepatic aGvHD in HCV-Ab negative patients (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.34–2.24; P o0.01) as well as HCV-Ab positive patients (HR, 6.87; 95% CI, 3.23–14.6; P o 0.01). However, HCV-Ab positivity with normal liver function was not a significant risk factor (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.44–2.65; P = 0.87). These two risk factors (HCV-Ab and liver dysfunction) were NS for stage 3–4 skin or gut aGvHD in multivariate analyses, whereas other factors such as disease risk, HCT type, HLA mismatch and GvHD prophylaxis were common risk factors for skin and/or gut aGvHD (Supplementary Table 2). These data indicated that HCV-Ab positivity and liver dysfunction are specific risk factors for hepatic aGvHD. The relationship of conditioning regimens and incidence of hepatic aGvHD was analyzed. HCV-Ab positivity was a significant risk factor both in MAC and in RIC. Pre-transplant liver dysfunction was also a significant risk factor in MAC (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.59– 2.82; P o0.05), although NS in RIC (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.78–2.06; P = 0.34) partially because of the relatively small number of patients. Furthermore, we focused on TBI and fludarabine, because previous studies showed that TBI increased overall aGvHD8 and that fludarabine can be a risk factor for posttransplant liver injury in RIC.27 TBI was used in 63.5% of patients receiving MAC and 63.0% of those receiving RIC regimen. As a result, no significant differences were observed between the regimens with and without TBI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89–1.43; P = 0.32 in MAC; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.67–1.31; P = 0.69 in RIC) or fludarabine (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.97–1.48; P = 0.16 in MAC; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.40–1.44; P = 0.40 in RIC) regarding the incidence of hepatic aGvHD. Any other chemotherapeutic drugs were not significantly related to the incidence of hepatic aGvHD. Impacts of hepatic aGvHD on OS and TRM OS was shown to be poorer in patients with hepatic aGvHD complications by using landmark analysis (unadjusted HR, 2.62; Po 0.01) in comparison with that in patients without hepatic Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 96 – 102
aGvHD. More than 10% (N = 69) of all the patients with hepatic aGvHD (N = 554) died before Day 60 (the landmark), so we confirmed the impact of hepatic aGvHD on OS in the analysis regarding hepatic aGvHD as a time-dependent covariate, and obtained almost the same result (HR, 2.98; P o 0.01). Moreover, hepatic aGvHD complication was the independent factor that worsened OS at each aGvHD grade (Figure 2 and Table 3); OS at 3 years was lower in patients with grade II aGvHD with hepatic lesions than in those without hepatic lesions (44.1% vs 60.3%). Prognosis of grade III aGvHD without hepatic aGvHD was much better than with hepatic aGvHD (42.5% vs 29.3%). Complication with grade IV aGvHD including hepatic lesions showed by far the worst survival (3-year OS, 5.9%; 95% CI, 2.5–11.5%). Lower OS (or higher overall mortality) in those with hepatic aGvHD was mainly from higher TRM. Complications of hepatic aGvHD increased the HR of TRM by about 1.8–3.9 times in each severity grade of aGvHD from II to IV (Table 3). The most common cause of transplantation-related death in patients with hepatic aGvHD was deterioration of aGvHD (30.3%), followed by bacterial infection (16.9%), hemorrhage (7.9%) and thrombotic microangiopathy (4.5%), whereas infection was the most common cause of TRM (15.3%) in patients without hepatic aGvHD. DISCUSSION The present cohort study using a large-scale national registry database in Japan revealed three major findings: (1) the cumulative incidence of total hepatic aGvHD was 6.7%, (2) 1.00
Overall survival
95% CI, 39.4–41.6%) (Figure 1b). Hepatic aGvHD was observed in 16.1% of those with grade II–IV aGvHD: 5.0% with grade II, 30.8% with grade III and 56.3% with grade IV (Figure 1c).
0.75
Grade II Liver(−) Grade I
Grade II Liver(+)
0.50
aGVHD(−) Grade III Liver(−) Grade III Liver(+)
0.25
Grade IV Liver(−)
0.00
Grade IV Liver(+)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Days after transplantation Number at risk aGVHD(−) 3299 Grade I 1702 Grade II Liver(−) 1889 95 Liver(+) Grade III Liver(−) 425 Liver(+) 188 Grade IV 99 Liver(−) Liver(+) 113
2507 1374
1805 990
1348 754
1015 561
795 427
1518 75
1106 50
856 35
661 29
528 14
285 94
195 59
146 39
110 31
77 23
53 21
31 9
17 6
12 5
7 4
Figure 2. OS according to each grade of aGvHD with or without hepatic aGvHD. OS was calculated with the Kaplan–Meier method after the landmark of 60 days from HCT according to the grade of aGvHD and the existence of hepatic aGvHD. The complication of hepatic aGvHD was the independent factor worsening OS at each grade of aGvHD. OS at 3 years was lower in patients with grade II aGvHD with hepatic lesions (44.1%; 95% CI, 32.4–52.3%) than those with grade II aGvHD without hepatic lesions (60.3%; 95% CI, 57.8– 62.8%). Prognosis of grade III aGvHD without hepatic aGvHD (3-year OS, 45.2%; 95% CI, 39.7–50.6%) was much better than that of grade III aGvHD with hepatic aGvHD (3-year OS, 29.3%; 95% CI, 22.5– 36.3%). Complication with grade IV aGvHD including hepatic lesions showed by far the worst survival (3-year OS, 5.9%; 95 % CI, 2.5– 11.5%). Existence of hepatic aGvHD can be a strong prognostic factor in each grade of aGvHD (grade II–IV). © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited
Risk factors for hepatic acute GvHD Y Arai et al
101 Table 3.
Impacts of hepatic aGvHD on OS and TRM
aGvHD (grade)
0 I II III IV
hepatic aGvHD
(−) (−) (−) (+) (−) (+) (−) (+)
Overall mortality
TRM
HR (adjusted)
95% CI
P-value
HR (adjusted)
95% CI
P-value
1.00 0.78 0.82 1.21 1.21 2.23 2.36 6.81
(Reference) (0.71–0.87) (0.74–0.90) (0.92–1.60) (1.03–1.42) (1.77–2.81) (1.73–3.22) (4.98–9.31)
o 0.01 o 0.01 0.17 o 0.01 o 0.01 o 0.01 o 0.01
1.00 0.76 0.92 2.03 2.15 3.97 3.97 15.6
(Reference) (0.64–0.91) (0.79–1.07) (1.38–3.01) (1.75–2.65) (3.06–5.15) (2.82–5.60) (11.6–21.0)
o 0.01 0.28 o 0.01 o 0.01 o 0.01 o 0.01 o 0.01
Abbreviations: same as Table 1. HRs are adjusted with confounding variables (HCV-Ab positivity, pre-transplant liver dysfunction, patient age, sex, CMV serostatus, underlying disease, disease risk, HCT type, sex mismatch, HLA mismatch, conditioning regimens, GvHD prophylaxis and time period of HCT).
HCV-Ab positivity and liver dysfunction before HCT were specific significant risk factors for hepatic aGvHD and (3) the complication of hepatic aGvHD had a significant negative impact on OS, mainly because of higher TRM. Our study succeeded in identifying, for the first time, two specific risk factors for hepatic aGvHD; pre-transplant HCV-Ab positivity and liver dysfunction. These data are valuable from the viewpoint of particular features of hepatic aGvHD. It has been previously shown that local pathogenetic mechanisms underlying liver aGvHD differ from those of the skin and gut, judging from the different composition of infiltrating leukocytes and adhesion molecule expression in the liver.9 Therefore, identifying specific risk factors for hepatic aGvHD is as important as modifying aGvHD treatments to reduce the high incidence of TRM, mainly from aGvHD deterioration and severe infection. Other studies have demonstrated some risk factors for total post-transplant liver dysfunction (comprised of aGvHD, veno-occlusive disease and fulminant liver failure); these risk factors include pre-transplant HCV infection with liver dysfunction,12 HBV infection28 and inclusion of fludarabine in RIC regimens.27 However, these studies could not confirm a significant relationship with each factor and hepatic aGvHD itself, probably because of limited sample sizes (cohort o 400 patients). In addition to determining risk factors for hepatic aGvHD, we have also shown that existence of hepatic aGvHD can be a strong prognostic factor in each grade of aGvHD (grade II–IV). A retrospective cohort study (N = 257)29 supports our findings and shows that hepatic aGvHD increased TRM 2.45 times (95% CI, 1.46–4.12) after patients with all grades of aGvHD were analyzed. Hepatic aGvHD remains an independent risk factor for prognosis 40 years after the initial establishment of the aGvHD grading system by Glucksberg et al.20 These data indicate that to reduce TRM related to hepatic aGvHD, new prophylactic strategies for specific liver conditions should be suggested; for example, monitoring of HCV-RNA can be useful in patients with HCV-Ab because it is a sensitive technique to quantify the systemic viral load,30 which is closely related to liver injury.31 HCV viral load may possibly be an important biomarker to evaluate the risk of hepatic aGvHD; this relationship should be analyzed in the future study. Our study reveals critical aspects of hepatic aGvHD using a large nationwide database in Japan; however, there are some limitations regarding pre-transplant liver dysfunction and the diagnosis of hepatic aGvHD. First, regarding pre-transplant liver dysfunction, our database includes information on HBV or HCV infections and multiple erythrocyte transfusions, whereas the existence of other causes such as liver abscess, suspected drugs and steatohepatitis are unknown. These causes may be common in terms of chronic liver injury or inflammation; however, they should be analyzed separately as candidates for hepatic aGvHD risk factors, not © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited
treated as a whole. Moreover, we have data only on HBsAg, not on HBsAb, HBV core Ab or viral load; this may have prevented the detection of the relationship between HBV infection and hepatic aGvHD in this study. In HCV-Ab-positive patients, our database lacks information on HCV-RNA titer, which is necessary for the determination of HCV-related hepatitis.30 Second, data on diagnostic procedures were not available for some patients (30.5%), and it was assumed that hepatic aGvHD diagnoses were made in some of these patients (the number is unknown) without a pathological examination. As previously stated, the guidelines in Japan recommend the use of various diagnostic tools before confirming hepatic aGvHD, especially when pathological examinations are not possible;22 another recommendation recently published by the liver pathology group of the German-AustrianSwiss working group on GvHD was that hepatic GvHD diagnosis can be made without a liver biopsy if clinical symptoms of hepatic GvHD are present (especially if other organ manifestations are apparent) and the patient responds to GvHD therapy.32 In our cohort, 490% of all hepatic aGvHD cases were accompanied by apparent skin and/or gut aGvHD lesions (Figure 1b). In the sensitivity analyses in which hepatic aGvHD cases diagnosed without biopsies were excluded or treated as cases without hepatic aGvHD, these two liver-specific factors (HCV-Ab and pretransplant liver dysfunction) were recognized as risk factors for hepatic aGvHD. Moreover, analyses including only severe (stage 2–4, or stage 3–4) hepatic aGvHD proposed the same risk factors. We also confirmed that the occurrence of hepatic aGvHD can be a significant risk factor for the subsequent emergence of chronic GvHD in the liver (P o 0.01). These sensitivity and subgroup analyses support the reliability of our main results, including the accuracy of the diagnosis of hepatic aGvHD; however the possibility that post-transplant deterioration of preexisting liver damage was misdiagnosed as hepatic aGvHD cannot completely be excluded especially when skin and/or gut aGvHD were complicated. A prospective study including detailed information on pre-transplant liver function, hepatitis viral status, posttransplant hepatic function and procedures in hepatic aGvHD diagnosis is necessary to overcome these limitations. Data on pathologically-confirmed hepatic aGvHD will be valuable in the validation for our retrospective study. In summary, we analyzed the incidence of hepatic aGvHD, identified specific risk factors (pre-transplant HCV-Ab positivity and liver dysfunction) and determined the effects on patient prognosis after HCT using a national database. A large-scale prospective study is awaited to decide whether the modification of GvHD prophylaxis, donor selection, conditioning and early intervention may improve the prognosis of patients with high-risk factors, such as those indicated in this study. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 96 – 102
Risk factors for hepatic acute GvHD Y Arai et al
102
CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank all the physicians and data managers at the centers who contributed valuable data on transplantation to the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (JSHCT), the Japan Marrow Donor Program (JMDP), the Japan Cord Blood Bank Network (JCBBN) and Transplant Registry Unified Management Program. We also thank the members of the Data Management Committees of JSHCT, JMDP, JCBBN and Transplant Registry Unified Management Program for their assistance. We also thank Dr Fumiaki Nakamura in the University of Tokyo for his critical advice for statistical analyses. This study was supported by research funding from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture in Japan to TK.
REFERENCES 1 Holtan SG, Pasquini M, Weisdorf DJ. Acute graft-versus-host disease: a benchto-bedside update. Blood 2014; 124: 363–373. 2 Hahn T, McCarthy PL Jr, Zhang MJ, Wang D, Arora M, Frangoul H et al. Risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease after human leukocyte antigen-identical sibling transplants for adults with leukemia. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5728–5734. 3 Nagafuji K, Matsuo K, Teshima T, Mori S, Sakamaki H, Hidaka M et al. Peripheral blood stem cell versus bone marrow transplantation from HLA-identical sibling donors in patients with leukemia: a propensity score-based comparison from the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation registry. Int J Hematol 2010; 91: 855–864. 4 Flowers ME, Inamoto Y, Carpenter PA, Lee SJ, Kiem HP, Petersdorf EW et al. Comparative analysis of risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease and for chronic graft-versus-host disease according to National Institutes of Health consensus criteria. Blood 2011; 117: 3214–3219. 5 Jagasia M, Arora M, Flowers ME, Chao NJ, McCarthy PL, Cutler CS et al. Risk factors for acute GVHD and survival after hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood 2012; 119: 296–307. 6 Kanda J, Saji H, Fukuda T, Kobayashi T, Miyamura K, Eto T et al. Related transplantation with HLA-1 Ag mismatch in the GVH direction and HLA-8/8 allele-matched unrelated transplantation: a nationwide retrospective study. Blood 2012; 119: 2409–2416. 7 Romee R, Weisdorf DJ, Brunstein C, Wagner JE, Cao Q, Blazar BR et al. Impact of ABO-mismatch on risk of GVHD after umbilical cord blood transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013; 48: 1046–1049. 8 Harris AC, Ferrara JL, Levine JE. Advances in predicting acute GVHD. Br J Haematol 2013; 160: 288–302. 9 Norton J, al-Saffar N, Sloane JP. Adhesion molecule expression in human hepatic graft-versus-host disease. Bone Marrow Transplant 1992; 10: 153–156. 10 Akpek G, Boitnott JK, Lee LA, Hallick JP, Torbenson M, Jacobsohn DA et al. Hepatitic variant of graft-versus-host disease after donor lymphocyte infusion. Blood 2002; 100: 3903–3907. 11 Tuncer HH, Rana N, Milani C, Darko A, Al-Homsi SA. Gastrointestinal and hepatic complications of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 1851–1860. 12 Strasser SI, Myerson D, Spurgeon CL, Sullivan KM, Storer B, Schoch HG et al. Hepatitis C virus infection and bone marrow transplantation: a cohort study with 10-year follow-up. Hepatology 1999; 29: 1893–1899. 13 Nakasone H, Kurosawa S, Yakushijin K, Taniguchi S, Murata M, Ikegame K et al. Impact of hepatitis C virus infection on clinical outcome in recipients after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Am J Hematol 2013; 88: 477–484.
14 McDonald GB, Frieze D. A problem-oriented approach to liver disease in oncology patients. Gut 2008; 57: 987–1003. 15 Sakamoto S, Kawabata H, Kanda J, Uchiyama T, Mizumoto C, Kondo T et al. Differing impacts of pretransplant serum ferritin and C-reactive protein levels on the incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Int J Hematol 2013; 97: 109–116. 16 Atsuta Y, Suzuki R, Yoshimi A, Gondo H, Tanaka J, Hiraoka A et al. Unification of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation registries in Japan and establishment of the TRUMP System. Int J Hematol 2007; 86: 269–274. 17 Sorror ML, Maris MB, Storb R, Baron F, Sandmaier BM, Maloney DG et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT)-specific comorbidity index: a new tool for risk assessment before allogeneic HCT. Blood 2005; 106: 2912–2919. 18 Arai Y, Yamashita K, Mizugishi K, Watanabe T, Sakamoto S, Kitano T et al. Serum neutrophil extracellular trap levels predict thrombotic microangiopathy after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013; 19: 1683–1689. 19 Giralt S, Ballen K, Rizzo D, Bacigalupo A, Horowitz M, Pasquini M et al. Reduced-intensity conditioning regimen workshop: defining the dose spectrum. Report of a workshop convened by the center for international blood and marrow transplant research. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009; 15: 367–369. 20 Glucksberg H, Storb R, Fefer A, Buckner CD, Neiman PE, Clift RA et al. Clinical manifestations of graft-versus-host disease in human recipients of marrow from HL-A-matched sibling donors. Transplantation 1974; 18: 295–304. 21 Przepiorka D, Weisdorf D, Martin P, Klingemann HG, Beatty P, Hows J et al. 1994 consensus conference on acute GVHD grading. Bone Marrow Transplant 1995; 15: 825–828. 22 Teshima T, Itoh M, Inoue M, Kato K, Taniguchi S, Miyamura K et al. Guideline for hematopoietic cell transplantation - GVHD. In: Differential diagnosis of aGVHD. Tokyo, Japan: Japanse Society for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, 2008, pp 24–27. 23 Gooley TA, Leisenring W, Crowley J, Storer BE. Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators. Stat Med 1999; 18: 695–706. 24 Iacobelli S, Committee ES. Suggestions on the use of statistical methodologies in studies of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013; 48(Suppl 1): S1–37. 25 Gray RJ. A class of κ-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat 1988; 16: 1141–1154. 26 Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999; 94: 496–509. 27 Hogan WJ, Maris M, Storer B, Sandmaier BM, Maloney DG, Schoch HG et al. Hepatic injury after nonmyeloablative conditioning followed by allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a study of 193 patients. Blood 2004; 103: 78–84. 28 McDonald GB. Hepatobiliary complications of hematopoietic cell transplantation, 40 years on. Hepatology 2010; 51: 1450–1460. 29 Robin M, Porcher R, de Castro R, Fisher G, de Latour RP, Ribaud P et al. Initial liver involvement in acute GVHD is predictive for nonrelapse mortality. Transplantation 2009; 88: 1131–1136. 30 Shaheen MA, Idrees M. Evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis, prevention and management of hepatitis C virus disease. World J Hepatol 2015; 7: 616–627. 31 Veldt BJ, Heathcote EJ, Wedemeyer H, Reichen J, Hofmann WP, Zeuzem S et al. Sustained virologic response and clinical outcomes in patients with chronic hepatitis C and advanced fibrosis. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 677–684. 32 Stift J, Baba HA, Huber E, Federmann B, Fischer HP, Schmitt-Graeff A et al. Consensus on the histopathological evaluation of liver biopsies from patients following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Virchows Arch 2014; 464: 175–190.
Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on Bone Marrow Transplantation website (http://www.nature.com/bmt)
Bone Marrow Transplantation (2016) 96 – 102
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited
