For example, HCT-CI score predicted mortality risk in patients with aplastic anemia (HRs of 1.00, 1.19, and 2.06 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), and in patients with immune deficiency (HRs of 1.00, 1.37, and 1.87 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), and the distribution of comorbidities in patients in these two disease categories was similar to that of the overall cohort.
However, HCT-CI score did not predict mortality risk in those undergoing HCT for hemoglobinopathies (HRs of 1.00, 0.46, and 0.59 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), Dr. Broglie said, noting that these patients had overall high survival rates regardless of HCT-CI scores, and they had comorbidities that differed from the overall cohort.
HCT is a curative treatment strategy for many patients with nonmalignant diseases but transplant-related mortality remains a concern, she said. While HCT-CI has been shown to be useful for discriminating the risks of nonrelapse and overall survival among patients with hematologic malignancies who undergo allogeneic HCT, its usefulness in patients undergoing HCT for nonmalignant diseases has been less clear.
The distinction is important, as patients with nonmalignant diseases have different pretransplant exposures and may have comorbidities specific to their underlying disease. Furthermore, transplantation approaches – including conditioning regimens and intensities – differ, she said.