cancers Article Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in Mantle Cell Lymphoma; Insights into Its Potential Role in the Era of New Immunotherapeutic and Targeted Therapies: The GETH/GELTAMO Experience Antonio Gutierrez 1, * , Leyre Bento 1 , Silvana Novelli 2 , Alejandro Martin 3 , Gonzalo Gutierrez 4 , Maria Queralt Salas 4 , Mariana Bastos-Oreiro 5 , Ariadna Perez 6 , Rafael Hernani 6 , Maria Cruz Viguria 7 , Oriana Lopez-Godino 8 , Juan Montoro 9 , Jose Luis Piñana 9 , Christelle Ferra 10 , Rocio Parody 11 , Carmen Martin 12 , Ignacio Español 13 , Lucrecia Yañez 14 , Guillermo Rodriguez 15 , Joud Zanabili 16 , Pilar Herrera 17 , Maria Rosario Varela 18 , Antonia Sampol 1 , Carlos Solano 6 , Dolores Caballero 3 and on behalf of the Grupo Español de Trasplante de Progenitores Hematopoyéticos (GETH) and Grupo Español de Linfoma y Trasplante Autólogo (GELTAMO) 1 Son Espases University HospitaI, IdISBa, 07120 Palma, Spain; leyre.bento@ssib.es (L.B.); antonia.sampolm@ssib.es (A.S.) 2 Hospital Sant Creu i Sant Pau, Service of Hematology, 08025 Barcelona, Spain; snovelli@santpau.cat 3 Hospital Universitario Salamanca, IBSAL, CIBERONC, 37007 Salamanca, Spain; amartingar@usal.es (A.M.); cabarri@usal.es (D.C.) Citation: Gutierrez, A.; Bento, L.; 4 Hospital Clinic, ICMHO, 08036 Barcelona, Spain; gonguti@clinic.cat (G.G.); mqsalas@clinic.cat (M.Q.S.) Novelli, S.; Martin, A.; Gutierrez, G.; 5 Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, 28007 Madrid, Spain; Queralt Salas, M.; Bastos-Oreiro, M.; marianabeatriz.bastos@salud.madrid.org Perez, A.; Hernani, R.; 6 Hospital Clínico Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain; ariadna_pema@hotmail.com (A.P.); Cruz Viguria, M.; et al. Allogeneic rafa_hm@hotmail.com (R.H.); carlos.solano@uv.es (C.S.) 7 Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, 31008 Pamplona, Spain; mc.viguria.alegria@navarra.es Stem Cell Transplantation in Mantle 8 Hospital Morales Meseguer, 30008 Murcia, Spain; orilopezgodino@gmail.com Cell Lymphoma; Insights into Its 9 Hospital La Fe, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Catolica de Valencia, 46026 Valencia, Spain; Potential Role in the Era of New juanmontorogomez@gmail.com (J.M.); jlpinana@gmail.com (J.L.P.) Immunotherapeutic and Targeted 10 ICO-IJC-Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, 08916 Badalona, Spain; cferra@iconcologia.net Therapies: The GETH/GELTAMO 11 Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO), 08908 L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain; rparody@iconcologia.net Experience. Cancers 2022, 14, 2673. 12 Hospital Reina Sofía, 14004 Córdoba, Spain; carmen.martin.calvo.sspa@juntadeandalucia.es https://doi.org/10.3390/ 13 Hospital Universitario Virgen de Arrixaca, 30120 Murcia, Spain; i.espanol@gmail.com cancers14112673 14 Hospital Marques de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, 39008 Santander, Spain; lucrecia.yanez@scsalud.es 15 Hospital Virgen del Rocío, 41013 Sevilla, Spain; grgarcia@gmail.com Academic Editors: Yvonne A. Efebera 16 Hospital Asturias, 33011 Oviedo, Spain; joudzas88@gmail.com and Nidhi Sharma 17 Hospital Ramón y Cajal, 28034 Madrid, Spain; pherrera.hrc@gmail.com 18 Complejo Hospital Juan Canalejo, 15006 Coruña, Spain; ma.rosario.varela.gomez@sergas.es Received: 17 April 2022 * Correspondence: antoniom.gutierrez@ssib.es Accepted: 25 May 2022 Published: 27 May 2022 Simple Summary: We present the long-term results of patients receiving allogeneic stem cell trans- Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral plantation (allo-SCT) for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL) in the last 25 years in with regard to jurisdictional claims in Spain. We conclude that allo-SCT may be a curative option in R/R MCL with a low cumulative inci- published maps and institutional affil- dence (CI) of relapse, although non-relapse mortality (NRM) is still high, which is mainly secondary iations. to acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD). Results are better for fit patients, using HLA-identical (related or unrelated) or haploidentical related donors and without previous ASCT. However, the arrival of new highly effective and low toxic immunotherapeutic or targeted therapies inevitably will Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. relegate allo-SCT to those fit patients who fail these therapies, being administered far away from the Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. optimal timing. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and Abstract: Allo-SCT is a curative option for selected patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL, but conditions of the Creative Commons with significant NRM. We present the long-term results of patients receiving allo-SCT in Spain from Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// March 1995 to February 2020. The primary endpoints were EFS, OS, and cumulative incidence (CI) creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ of NRM, relapse, and GVHD. We included 135 patients, most (85%) receiving RIC. After a median 4.0/). Cancers 2022, 14, 2673. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14112673 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 2 of 16 follow-up of 68 months, 5-year EFS and OS were 47 and 50%, respectively. Overall and CR rates were 86 and 80%. The CI of relapse at 1 and 3 years were 7 and 12%. NRM at day 100 and 1 year were 17 and 32%. Previous ASCT and Grade 3–4 aGVHD were associated with a higher NRM. Grade 3–4 aGVHD, donor type (mismatch non-related), and the time-period 2006–2020 were independently related to worse EFS. Patients from 1995–2005 were younger, most from HLA-identical sibling donors, and were pretreated less. Our data confirmed that allo-SCT may be a curative option in R/R MCL with low a CI of relapse, although NRM is still high, being mainly secondary to aGVHD. The arrival of new, highly effective and low toxic immunotherapeutic or targeted therapies inevitably will relegate allo-SCT to those fit patients who fail these therapies, far away from the optimal timing of treatment. Keywords: mantle cell lymphoma; allogeneic stem-cell transplantation; non-relapse mortality; acute graft-versus-host disease; graft-versus-lymphoma effect; target therapy; CAR-T cell therapy 1. Introduction Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon B-cell lymphoma that generally has a poor prognosis, with high rates of chemorefractoriness and an advanced median age at diagnosis [1]. For transplant-eligible patients, clinical outcome improves using intensive cytarabine-based induction chemotherapy, followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) [2,3] consolidation. Recently, new approaches with anti-CD20 maintenance [4,5], new target drugs [6,7], or new ways of immunotherapy such as CARTs [8] are changing the front and salvage therapeutic lines. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) is a potential curative option for se- lected patients, mediated by a well-demonstrated graft versus lymphoma (GVL) effect in this lymphoma [9]. However, allo-SCT in MCL has also been associated with signifi- cant non-relapse mortality (NRM) [10,11]. The efficacy and toxicity of allo-SCT should be well-balanced, considering that MCL typically affects an older population with potentially higher rates of comorbidities, and there is an increasing number of emerging effective and manageable alternative therapeutic approaches. For these reasons, there is a need to clarify candidates’ selection, and which is the optimal target population for allo-SCT. We should especially consider that most previously published studies that focused on investigating the role of allo-SCT in MCL are retrospective and conclusions are limited by a reduced sample size of patients. Furthermore, this is particularly important with the outstanding efficacy and manageable toxicity associated with new immunotherapies based on CAR-Ts in relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL [8,12]. Our objective was to analyze the long-term results of MCL patients undergoing allo- SCT in Spain, trying to define better its current role in the era of new immunotherapeutic and targeted therapies, focusing on candidates’ selection. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Design and Patient Eligibility We designed a retrospective multicenter study including all registered patients from centers’ members of the Spanish Group of Hematopoietic Transplantation (GETH)/Spanish Group of Lymphoma (GELTAMO) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) MCL consolidated with allo-SCT. For this purpose, all patients who had undergone an allo-SCT in the above- mentioned centers from March 1995 to February 2020 that was reported to the EBMT registry were eligible. The primary endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were cumulative incidence (CI) of NRM, relapse, and graft versus host disease (GVHD). The study was performed in compliance with the Decla- ration of Helsinki and approved by research ethics committees and institutional review boards at each participating institution. As part of the EBMT registration, all patients signed informed consent. Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 3 of 16 2.2. Data Recovery and Study Definitions The histological diagnosis was based on a local review, and patients were staged according to the Ann Arbor system. Disease status was assessed by the local team ac- cording to the Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphoma [13] and/or Lugano Classification [14]. Myeloablative conditioning was defined as a regimen containing either total body irradiation (TBI) with a dose greater than 6 Gy, a total dose of oral busulfan greater than 8 mg/kg, or a total dose of intravenous busulfan greater than 6.4 mg/kg. All other regimens were defined as reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) [15]. The diagnosis and grading of acute and chronic graft versus host disease (aGVHD and cGVHD) were performed by the transplant centers using the standard criteria [16]. 2.3. Statistical Analysis All outcome measures were assessed from the time of allo-SCT. OS was defined as the time to death. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time to relapse, progression, or death from any cause. NRM was defined as the time to death without previous disease relapse or progression (considering relapse as a competing event). CI of relapse was defined as the time from relapse or progression (considering death without relapse as a competing event). Qualitative or binomial variables are expressed as frequencies and percentages. Com- parisons between qualitative variables were made using the Fisher Exact Test or the Chi- squared test. Comparisons between quantitative and qualitative variables were performed through non-parametric tests (U of Mann–Whitney or Kruskal–Wallis). The binary logistic regression was used to find out the risk factors associated with day 100 complete response (CR) or NRM. Time to event variables were estimated according to the Kaplan–Meier method and comparisons between variables of interest were performed by the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis with the variables that appeared to be significant in the univariate analysis was carried out according to the Cox proportional hazard regression model (step- wise forward likelihood ratio selection). Those variables not available at transplant were included as time-dependent variables. All p values reported were 2-sided, and statistical significance was defined at p < 0.05. To analyze the impact of time periods on the survival of transplanted patients, we segmented the full range of follow-up (1995–2020) of our series using MAXTAT for disease progression or death. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (SPSS version 28.0; IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) and RStudio (Version 1.3.959; RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA, USA). 3. Results 3.1. Patient and Allo-SCT Characteristics A total of 135 patients with R/R MCL that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Table 1 summarizes the main patient and allo-SCT information. Briefly, the median age of the study cohort at the time of the allo-SCT was 56 years (32–70), with 27% of patients being older than 60 years. A proportion of 66% of patients had classic, 27% blastic, and 7% indolent MCL. The median time from diagnosis to allo-SCT was 33 months (3–164), and the median number of previous lines of therapy before allo-SCT was two (one to eight), including previous autologous SCT (ASCT) in 49% of patients. Disease status before allo-SCT was as follows: complete response (CR) in 86 patients (64%), partial response (PR) in 35 (26%) patients, and SD/PD in 13 (10%). Overall, 85% adults underwent RIC allo-SCT, and most patients received grafts from HLA-matched, related and unrelated donors (76%) followed by haploidentical donors (13%), and 9/10 mismatched unrelated donors (10%). Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 4 of 16 Table 1. Main characteristics of patients at diagnostic and before allo-SCT. Characteristics at Diagnosis N (%) Missing Data (%) Median age, years (range) 52 (31–67) 0 (0%) Sex (M/F) 108 (80%)/27 (20%) 0 (0%) Ann Arbor stage: 2 (1%) I–II 8 (6%) - III–IV 125 (94%) - B-symptoms: 44 (38%) 20 (15%) CNS involvement: 2 (2%) 7 (5%) Bone marrow involvement: 98 (75%) 4 (3%) Number of extranodal sites: 7 (5%) 0–1 81 (63%) - >1 47 (37%) - Mantle cell lymphoma histology: 33 (24%) Indolent [17] 7 (7%) - Classic 67 (66%) - Blastic 28 (27%) - Characteristics at allo-SCT - Median previous lines of therapy (range) 2 (1–8) 2 (1%) Previous ASCT 66 (49%) 0 (0%) Previous ibrutinib 19 (14%) 2 (1%) Median months from diagnosis to allo-SCT (range) 33 (3–164) 0 (0%) Median age, years (range) 56 (32–70) 0 (0%) Age >60 years 36 (27%) 0 (0%) Donor type: 0 (0%) HLA-id sibling 74 (55%) - HLA-id unrelated 29 (21%) - Haploidentical 18 (13%) - Mismatch unrelated 14 (10%) - Median donor age (range) 46 (19–72) 2 (1%) Donor sex: 0 (0%) Male 82 (61%) - Female 53 (39%) - ECOG PS: 12 (9%) 0 74 (60%) - 1 43 (35%) - 2–4 6 (5%) - HCT-CI: 11 (8%) 0–1 70 (56%) - 2 28 (23%) - ≥3 26 (21%) - Disease status: 1 (1%) CR 86 (64%) - PR 35 (26%) - SD/PD 13 (10%) - NE 1 (1%) - Conditioning regimen: 0 (0%) Myeloablative 20 (15%) - RIC 115 (85%) - Myeloablative conditioning: 0 (0%) Cy + TBI 10 (50%) - FLUBU 5 (25%) - FLUMEL 1 (5%) - BEAM 1 (5%) - Other 3 (15%) - RIC: 0 (0%) FLUMEL 90 (78%) - FLUBU 15 (13%) - Cy + TBI 4 (4%) - Other 6 (5%) - Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 5 of 16 Table 1. Cont. Characteristics at Diagnosis N (%) Missing Data (%) GVHD prophylaxis: 0 (0%) CsA/Tacro-MTX 45 (33%) - CsA /Tacro-MMF 31 (23%) - Timoglobulin based prophylaxis 24 (18%) - Tacro-sirolimus 19 (14%) - Cy-post 12 (9%) - Other 4 (3%) - CMV recipient/donor relation: 2 (1%) R−/D− 12 (9%) - R−/D+ 11 (8%) - R+/D− 35 (26%) - R+/D− 75 (56%) - Stem cell source: 1 (1%) PB 127 (95%) - BM 5 (4%) - UCB * 2 (2%) - Median CD34 + cells (range) (×106 /kg) 5.1 (0.1–18.1) 5 (4%) M: male, F: female, CNS: central nervous system, allo-SCT: allogeneic stem cell transplantation, ASCT: autologous stem cell transplantation, HLA-id: HLA identical, ECOG PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, HCT-CI: hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index, CR: complete response, PR: partial response, SD/PD: stable disease/progression of disease, NE: not evaluable, RIC: reduced-intensity conditioning, GVHD: graft versus host disease, CsA: cyclosporine A, Tacro: tacrolimus, MTX: methotrexate, MMF: Mofetil mycophenolate, Cy: Cyclophosphamide, CMV: cytomegalovirus, R: receptor, D: donor, PB: peripheral blood, BM: bone marrow, UCB: umbilical cord blood. * Included one as haploidentical and the other as mismatch unrelated. 3.2. Main Outcome Data After a median follow-up of 68 months (2–247), median EFS and OS were 30 (95% CI: 0–72) and 45 (95% CI: 3–86) months, respectively (Figure 1A,B). Eighteen (13%) patients had a progression of lymphoma and 71 (53%) died. Overall and complete response rates (ORR and CR) at day 100 were 84 and 80%, respectively. Most patients (95%) with CR before allo-SCT maintained CR at day 100, while only 2 and 1%, respectively, had a PR or a disease progression. On the other hand, 73 and 50% of patients with previous PR or SD/PD achieved CR at day 100, with only 9 and 17%, respectively, showing progressive disease at day 100. Factors that were significantly associated with CR at day 100 were CR pre-allo-SCT (relative risk (RR) 9.6; 95% CI: 2.9–31.3; p < 0.001) and less than three prior lines (RR 3.1; 95% CI: 1.1–8.9; p = 0.036). The CIs of relapse at 1 and 3 years were 7% (95% CI: 3–12) and 12% (95% CI: 7–18), respectively (Figure 1C). 3.3. GVHD and NRM Seventy-four (55%) patients developed aGVHD (Grade 1–2: 42 (31%) and Grade 3–4: 32 (24%)) at a median of 31 days post-allo-SCT. The CI of overall acute, acute Grade 2-4, and acute Grade 3-4 GVHD at day 100 were 53% (95% CI: 45–62), 48% (95% CI: 39–57), and 29% (95% CI: 62–80), respectively. Forty-eight (36%) patients developed cGVHD (13% mild, 11% moderate, 10% severe). The CIs of overall chronic and chronic moderate/severe GVHD at 3 years were 57% (CI 95%: 45–68) and 42% (CI 95%: 29–55), respectively. The CIs of day 100 and one-year NRM were 17% (95% CI: 11–24) and 32% (95% CI: 24–40), respectively (Figure 1D). When analyzing all pretransplant factors included in Table 1, as well as aGVHD incidence, to assess their contribution to NRM at day 100, we observed that patients having a previous ASCT (RR 3; 95% CI: 1.1–8.1; p = 0.03) and those who developed Grade 3–4 aGVHD (RR 5.4; 95% CI: 2.1–13.7; p < 0.001) were significantly and independently related to a higher NRM. In contrast, the NRM was not influenced by age, ECOG PS, conditioning regimen, or donor type (Table 2). Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 6 of 16 Figure 1. Main outcome data of the patients including event-free survival (A), overall survival (B), CI of relapse (C)and CI of NRM (D). Table 2. Analysis of clinical factors influencing non-relapse mortality. Characteristics Day100-NRM (%) p Age at allo-SCT: 18–56 14 (20%) 1 >56 years 12 (19%) Months from diagnosis to allo-SCT: 0–33 11 (16%) 0.51 >33 15 (22%) Previous lines: 0–2 13 (17%) 0.65 >2 12 (21%) Previous ASCT: No 7 (10%) 0.008 Yes 19 (29%) Donor type: HLA-id sibling 12 (16%) HLA-id unrelated 5 (17%) 0.38 Mismatch unrelated 5 (36%) Haploidentical 4 (22%) Donor type: HLA-id 17 (16%) 0.2 Mismatch related 4 (22%) Mismatch unrelated 5 (36%) Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 7 of 16 Table 2. Cont. Characteristics Day100-NRM (%) p Donor age: 18–46 15 (22%) 0.38 >46 10 (15%) Donor sex: Male 15 (18%) 0.82 Female 11 (21%) ECOG PS at allo-SCT 0–1 21 (18%) 0.31 2–4 2 (33%) Pretransplant HCT-CI: 0–2 18 (18%) 0.58 ≥3 6 (23%) Conditioning regimen: Myeloablative 3 (15%) 0.76 RIC 23 (20%) GVHD prophylaxis: CsA/Tacro-MTX 20 (22%) 0.25 Other 6 (13%) CMV recipient/donor relation: R−/D− 1 (8%) R−/D+ 2 (18%) 0.26 R+/D− 4 (11%) R+/D− 19 (25%) Stem cell source: PB 24 (19%) 0.54 BM 1 (20%) UCB 1 (50%) CD34+ infused cells (range) (×106 /kg): 0.1–5.1 13 (20%) 1 >5.1 13 (20%) aGVHD: No aGVHD or grade 1–2 11 (11%) <0.001 Grade 3–4 15 (43%) NRM: non-relapse mortality, allo-SCT: allogeneic stem cell transplantation, ASCT: autologous stem cell transplan- tation, HLA-id: HLA identical, ECOG PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, HCT-CI: hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index, RIC: reduced-intensity conditioning, GVHD: graft versus host disease, CsA: cyclosporine A, Tacro: tacrolimus, MTX: methotrexate, CMV: cytomegalovirus, R: receptor, D: donor, PB: peripheral blood, BM: bone marrow, UCB: umbilical cord blood, aGVHD: acute GVHD. 3.4. Survival Analysis One and 5-year-EFS were 61% (95% CI: 57–65) and 47% (95% CI: 39–56), respectively. On the other hand, one and 5-year-OS were 63% (95% CI: 59–67) and 50% (95% CI: 41–59), respectively. Univariate analysis showed that EFS and OS were influenced by the type of donor (mismatch), ECOG PS at allo-SCT, pre-transplant response, GVHD prophylaxis, response to allo-SCT, aGVHD, cGVHD, and time-period (Table 3). In the multivariate analysis, three variables showed an independent prognostic value for a worse EFS: grade 3–4 aGVHD, donor type (mismatch non-related), and time period 2006–2020. The main causes of death were associated with NRM: 32 due to GVHD (45%), most of them were grade 3–4, 15 to infections (21%), 2 sinusoidal obstruction syndromes (SOS) (3%), 2 thrombotic microangiopathy (3%) and 8 other causes (11%). Progression of lymphoma was the cause of death in 12 (17%) patients. Most patients suffering NRM were in CR (69%), 8% in PR and 22% died of NRM before response evaluation. Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 8 of 16 Table 3. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis. Univariate Analysis Characteristics 5y-EFS (95% CI) p 5y-OS (95% CI) p Age at allo-SCT: 0–60 50% (40–60) 0.7 52% (42–63) 0.66 >60 39% (21–57) 42% (24–60) Median months from diagnosis to allo-SCT 0–33 51% (39–63) 0.53 52% (40–64) 0.77 >33 44% (31–56) 47% (34–60) Donor type: HLA-id sibling 52% (40–64) 55% (43–67) HLA-id non-related 50% (31–69) 0.032 49% (30–68) 0.2 Mismatch non-related 21% (0–45) 35% (7–63) Haploidentical 44% (21–67) 42% (17–66) Mismatch: Yes 35% (18–52) 0.018 39% (20–57) 0.044 No 51% (41–61) 53% (43–63) ECOG PS at allo-SCT: 0–1 51% (42–60) 0.035 54% (45–63) 0.021 2–4 0% (NA) 0% (NA) HCT-CI: 0–2 49% (39–60) 0.41 52% (42–63) 0.42 3 or more 31% (13–50) 35% (16–54) Previous lines of therapy: 1–2 55% (43–66) 0.11 55% (43–66) 0.4 >2 37% (24–50) 42% (28–56) Previous ASCT: Yes 39% (27–52) 0.061 39% (25–52) 0.02 No 55% (43–67) 59% (48–71) Previous ibrutinib: Yes 44% (18–69) 0.66 28% (0–69) 0.89 No 48% (39–57) 50% (41–60) Conditioning regimen: Myeloablative 48% (26–70) 0.69 48% (25–70) 0.99 RIC 47% (38–57) 50% (40–60) Response pre-allo-SCT: CR 54% (43–65) 58% (47–69) 0.005 0.004 PR 40% (23–57) 43% (25–60) SD/PD 15% (0–35) 15% (0–35) GVHD prophylaxis: CsA/Tacro-MTX 62% (47–76) 0.021 66% (52–80) 0.008 Other 40% (30–51) 41% (30–52) Time-period: 1995–2005 69% (51–87) 0.02 69% (51–87) 0.023 2006–2020 42% (32–52) 45% (35–55) Time-period: 1995–2005 69% (51–87) 69% (51–87) 0.023 0.03 2006–2011 33% (20–47) 38% (24–52) 2012–2020 49% (37–62) 50% (37–64) EFS p OS p Time-dependent variables (univariate) HR (95% CI) HR (95% CI) Grade 3–4 aGVHD 5.1 (3.2–8.1) <0.001 6 (3.7–9.8) <0.001 Chronic GVHD 1 (0.5–2) 0.97 1 (0.5–2) 0.92 Multivariate analysis Grade 3–4 aGVHD: 7.6 (4.5–12.8) <0.001 8.9 (5.1–15.3) <0.001 Mismatch non-related: 3 (1.5–6.2) 0.002 - - Time-period 2006–2020: 2.7 (1.1–6.4) 0.023 3.2 (1.3–8) 0.014 EFS: event-free survival, OS: overall survival, allo-SCT: allogeneic stem cell transplantation, HLA-id: HLA identical, ECOG PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, HCT-CI: hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index, ASCT: autologous stem cell transplantation, RIC: reduced-intensity conditioning, CR: complete response, PR: partial response, SD/PD: stable disease/progression of disease, GVHD: graft versus host disease, CsA: cyclosporine A, Tacro: tacrolimus, MTX: methotrexate, aGVHD: acute GVHD. Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 9 of 16 3.5. Impact in Results of Allo-SCT Candidates’ Selection along Decades We focused on the impact of time periods on the survival of transplanted patients. For this purpose, we segmented the full range of follow-up (1995–2020) of our series using MAXTAT for EFS, obtaining two cutoffs at 15 and 9 years: 2005 and 2011. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, the best outcomes in terms of EFS were obtained from 1995 to 2005; with the worst observed from 2006 to 2011. Since 2012, the results slightly improved again but still did not achieve previous levels. However, the 5-year CIs of relapse were similar between all three time periods from 1995 to 2020: 14, 15, and 19% (p = 0.89). We compared patient characteristics along time periods to discover the causes of these results. As shown in Table 4, patients from 1995 to 2005 were younger, with a much shorter interval from diagnosis to allo-SCT; most of them were from HLA-identical sibling donors and with much less previous therapy. In other words, from 1995 to 2005, patients were much more selected for and transplanted earlier than after 2005. This translated into a lower NRM and a better EFS and OS in these patients (Tables 3 and 4). Table 4. Analysis of patient characteristics according to time periods. 2006–2020 1995–2005 p Characteristics Global Series (N = 135) (N = 109) (N = 26) Median age at allo-SCT, years 56 (32–70) 57 (32–70) 52 (34–68) 0.047 (range) Median months diagnosis to 33 (3–164) 39 (3–164) 13 (5–84) 0.001 allo-SCT (range) Frontline therapy cytarabine-based 93 (70%) 76 (70%) 17 (68%) 0.81 More than 33 months from 67 (50%) 46 (42%) 5 (19%) <0.001 diagnosis to allo-SCT Donor type: HLA-id sibling 74 (55%) 50 (46%) 24 (92%) HLA-id non-related 29 (21%) 28 (26%) 1 (4%) <0.001 Haploidentical 18 (13%) 18 (16%) 0 (0%) Mismatch non-related 14 (10%) 13 (12%) 1 (4%) ECOG PS at allo-SCT: 0–1 117 (95%) 98 (95%) 19 (95%) 1 2–4 6 (5%) 5 (5%) 1 (5%) HCT-CI at allo-SCT: 0–1 70 (56%) 56 (53%) 14 (78%) 0.11 2 28 (23%) 25 (24%) 3 (17%) 3 or more 26 (21%) 25 (24%) 1 (6%) >2 previous lines: 57 (43%) 52 (48%) 5 (20%) 0.013 Previous ASCT: 66 (49%) 61 (56%) 5 (19%) 0.001 Response pre-allo-SCT: CR 86 (64%) 70 (64%) 16 (61%) PR 35 (26%) 28 (26%) 7 (27%) 0.92 SD/PD 13 (10%) 101 (9%) 3 (11%) NE 1 (1%) 1 (1%) Conditioning: Myeloablative 20 (15%) 13 (12%) 7 (27%) 0.067 RIC 115 (85%) 96 (88%) 19 (73%) GVHD prophylaxis: CsA/Tacro-MTX 45 (33%) 81 (74%) 9 (35%) <0.001 Other 90 (67%) 28 (26%) 17 (65%) Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 10 of 16 Table 4. Cont. 2006–2020 1995–2005 p Characteristics Global Series (N = 135) (N = 109) (N = 26) Donor median age (range) 46 (19–72) 45 (19–72) 53 (25–70) 0.052 Stem cell source: PB 127 (95%) 104 (96%) 23 (88%) 0.26 BM 5 (4%) 3 (3%) 2 (8%) UCB 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 1 (4%) Median de CD34 + cells (range) 5.1 (0.1–18.1) 5.1 (0.1–13) 4.3 (2.1–18.1) 0.45 (×106 /kg) aGVHD at + 100: 74 (55%) 70 (64%) 13 (50%) 0.5 aGVHD at + 100: No aGVHD 60 (45%) 39 (36%) 13 (50%) 0.37 1–2 42 (31%) 38 (35%) 8 (31%) 3–4 32 (24%) 32 (29%) 5 (19%) Chronic GVHD (%): 48 (36%) 36 (33%) 12 (46%) 0.26 Chronic GVHD (%): No 87 (64%) 73 (68%) 14 (54%) Mild 17 (13%) 14 (13%) 3 (12%) 0.59 Moderate 15 (11%) 11 (10%) 4 (16%) Severe 14 (10%) 10 (9%) 4 (16%) Overall NRM (%): 61 (45%) 54 (49%) 7 (27%) 0.048 NRM at +100 (%): 27 (20%) 24 (22%) 3 (11%) 0.28 NRM at 1 year (%) 45 (33%) 40 (37%) 5 (19%) 0.11 Causes of death: aGVHD 32 (45%) 30 (49%) 2 (20%) Infection 15 (21%) 11 (18%) 4 (40%) 0.16 Lymphoma 12 (17%) 9 (15%) 3 (30%) Other 12 (17%) 11 (18%) 1 (10%) Response post-allo-SCT: CR 110 (81%) 88 (81%) 22 (85%) PR 6 (4%) 6 (5%) 0 (0%) 0.12 SD/PD 6 (4%) 4 (4%) 2 (8%) NE 13 (10%) 11 (10%) 2 (8%) Allo-SCT: allogeneic stem cell transplantation, HLA-id: HLA identical, ECOG PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, HCT-CI: hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index, ASCT: autolo- gous stem cell transplantation, CR: complete response, PR: partial response, SD/PD: stable disease/progression of disease, NE: not evaluable, RIC: reduced-intensity conditioning, GVHD: graft versus host disease, CsA: cy- closporine A, Tacro: tacrolimus, MTX: methotrexate, PB: peripheral blood, BM: bone marrow, UCB: umbilical cord blood, aGVHD: acute GVHD; NRM: non-relapse mortality. Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 11 of 16 Figure 2. Impact of time-periods in EFS (A) and OS (B) after allo-SCT. 4. Discussion Our study presents real-world evidence from GETH and GELTAMO Spanish centers about the role of allo-SCT in MCL, confirming its efficacy as a potentially curative option but, at the same time, highlighting its major handicap in terms of potential toxicity and high NRM. However, the most important point is that our series provides a great insight Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 12 of 16 into the importance of candidates’ selection for allo-SCT, which limits its current role in the era of new immunotherapeutic and targeted therapies in MCL. Most previously published series about the role of allo-SCT in MCL are retrospective and generally small. Our retrospective series with 135 patients compares favorably with most of them in terms of size. It was obtained from all patients reported to the EBMT registry from Spanish centers, with a 5-year EFS and OS of 47 and 50%, respectively. This is in the range between 30–60% of the previously published studies [9,18,19]. All these works and our series provide convincing evidence of the existence of an allogeneic GVL effect, suggesting a curative potential, although this is weaker than in indolent lymphoma [9,18–20]. This is also illustrated by the better EFS in patients having cGVHD and the high number of responses in our patients: overall 80% CR, which was higher in patients with previous CR (95%) but also in cases with previous PR (73%) or even SD/PD (50%), demonstrating the graft-versus-MCL effect. Furthermore, the incidence of cGVHD was significantly higher in those patients with less than a CR at pretransplant, who then obtained a CR posttransplant (43%), vs those not achieving a CR (0%) (p = 0.027). Other works have reported that chemorefractoriness is not a major risk factor for disease control in MCL after allo-SCT [21]. In our series, the relapse rate was not a major challenge (only 7 and 12% at 1 and 3 years, respectively). This contrasts with other RIC series in which relapse was reported in up to 40% [18]. However, the high rate of NRM might reduce the number of patients at risk of relapse in our series. Most previously published studies in allo-SCT in MCL share high rates of toxicity in terms of 10 to more than 50% of NRM, as well as high rates (30–40%) of acute or chronic GVHD. Of course, the higher rates of NRM have been reported to be associated with myeloab- lative conditioning regimens as well as in more pretreated patients, particularly those failing ASCT [10,11], as was seen in our patients. These high rates of NRM may be lower (below 30%) with a similar efficacy using RIC, as shown in several retrospective [18,19,21–23] or even prospective clinical trials [24]. New strategies of GVHD prophylaxis such as cyclophosphamide post-allo-SCT could also improve NRM results in these patients [25,26]. However, only 9% of our patients received this prophylaxis in some of our last haploidentical transplants. In our series, we had 17 and 32% CI of NRM at 100 days and 1 year, respectively, which was independently associated with Grade 3–4 aGVHD incidence and previous ASCT, but not with other transplant characteristics. This may be influenced by the fact that most of our patients received an RIC regimen (85%). For these reasons, once one demonstrates efficacy, this should be balanced against significant rates of NRM, and is when patient selection and other therapeutic options should be considered. In our series, we observed worse outcome results in terms of EFS and OS in patients with Grade 3–4 aGVHD who were transplanted with unrelated mismatched donors (related mismatched transplants, including haploidentical ones, fared similarly to HLA-identical procedures) and, unexpectedly, in the period 2006 to 2020, this was clearly related to a change in the pattern of candidate selection towards older and more pretreated patients beyond 2006. This is the logical consequence of having much better alternatives to allo-SCT in this population of patients, with also better results. Nowadays, frontline high-dose cytarabine-containing programs followed by ASCT have been considered the standard of care for young and fit patients [3,4]. When comparing the abovementioned time-periods, in the older cohort (1995–2005), less than half of the patients received an ASCT (19 vs. 56% beyond 2006) as the value of frontline ASCT in MCL was first reported in 2005 [2]. Maintenance with rituximab has been shown to prolong PFS and OS, both in fit or unfit patients [4,5]. New, non-cross resistant chemotherapeutic drugs have shown interesting activity in MCL such as oxaliplatin [27–29], bortezomib [30], or bendamustine [31–33]. Targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors [6,34,35] or venetoclax [7,36] obtain impressive results with manageable toxicity, representing good salvage options that may also delay the decision of allo-SCT. Finally, outstanding results have been reported with new immunotherapies with anti-CD19 CAR-T [8,12], which led to the approval of brexucabtagene autoleucel as salvage therapy for R/R MCL patients. Points favoring CAR-T cell therapy are that it is more effective Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 13 of 16 than allo-SCT in patients with active disease, with much lower rates of toxicity and NRM. On the other hand, the follow-up with CAR-T cell therapy is still short when compared with allo-SCT, so it is not known for its long-term curative potential; there is also a relevant economic impact, and limited accessibility. Considering the sequencing of both approaches, if CAR-T cell therapy fails, patients could still receive an allo-SCT but in a more pretreated status that we know would further reduce the efficacy and increase the toxicity of this procedure. The most important updated guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Center of International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation [37], and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend CAR-T cell therapies in MCL from the third line for patients who are intolerant to or relapse after at least one BTKi. NCCN guidelines also recommend considering allo-SCT as consolidation for high-risk, young, and fit responders to a second line. Consequently, if there is an increase in the accessibility of CAR-T cell therapy, we hypothesize that CAR-T cell therapies will probably delay allo-SCT to later lines of therapy, far away from the optimal timing evidenced in our series. Our work has several limitations. First, it is a retrospective study that implies real world evidence but lacks homogeneity in terms of frontline or salvage therapies, supportive care strategies, and GVHD prophylaxis and management. We do not have some important diagnostic or prognostic information, such as molecular high-risk profiles or TP53 mutation status that could modify therapeutic decisions for allo-SCT candidates [38,39]. Addressing the abovementioned lack of some new strategies for GVHD prophylaxis such as cyclophos- phamide post-allo-SCT, we could also mention a few patients receiving ibrutinib before and after allo-SCT, which may provide a benefit in terms of survival [40]. However, in our series, we only had 12 (9%) patients with cyclophosphamide post-allo-SCT prophylaxis and 19 (10%) having received ibrutinib. Of note, while the older cohort (1995–2005) comprised essentially of identical siblings in contrast with the later cohorts, GVHD incidence was not significantly different and Grade 3–4 aGVHD was only 10% lower in the older cohort. This may illustrate the improve- ment in GVHD prophylaxis and therapy with the time. At the same time, in our study there were several patients at a high risk for poor outcomes, in which allo-SCT usually is contraindicated: ECOG PS 2–4 (5%) and pretransplant SD/PD (10%). In our series, 5 y-PFS was respectively 0 and 15%, illustrating the potential for disease control of allo-SCT even in selected cases with active disease at transplant, as well as the need of a good ECOG PS to avoid NRM. 5. Conclusions Taking all this data together, allo-SCT is a feasible and effective therapy in MCL with a well-demonstrated GVL effect favored by cGVHD even in situations of active disease at allo-SCT, but still with high rates of toxicity and NRM. As concluded from our time-period analysis, allo-SCT may be a better approach for young, fit, high-risk patients consolidated early (i.e., second line) that probably is linked to lower rates of severe aGVHD and NRM. Improved outcomes may be obtained using HLA-identical (related or unrelated) or haploidentical related donors, which are better than mismatched, unrelated donors. However, the arrival of new highly effective and low toxic immunotherapeutic or targeted therapies inevitably will relegate allo-SCT to fit patients who fail these treatments, which would then be administered far away from the optimal timing. Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology: A.G., L.B. and D.C.; data curation, A.G., L.B., S.N., A.M., G.G., M.Q.S., M.B.-O., A.P., R.H., M.C.V., O.L.-G., J.M., J.L.P., C.F., R.P., C.M., I.E., L.Y., G.R., J.Z., P.H., M.R.V., A.S., C.S. and D.C.; formal analysis and writing-original draft preparation, A.G., L.B., A.M., M.B.-O., C.S. and D.C. All authors contributed to writing-review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 14 of 16 Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was performed in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by research ethics committees and institutional review boards at each participating institution. While the inclusion of data in the EBMT registry had a different committee for every institution, this study was approved by Comité de Ética de la Investigación de las Islas Baleares, 25 July 2018. Reference: IB 3746/18 EPA. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: We thank Angel Cedillo for his contribution in obtaining the clinical data of the manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Smith, A.; Crouch, S.; Lax, S.; Li, J.; Painter, D.; Howell, D.; Patmore, R.; Jack, A.; Roman, E. Lymphoma incidence, survival and prevalence 2004–2014: Sub-type analyses from the UK’s Haematological Malignancy Research Network. Br. J. Cancer 2015, 112, 1575–1584. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Dreyling, M.; Lenz, G.; Hoster, E.; Van Hoof, A.; Gisselbrecht, C.; Schmits, R.; Metzner, B.; Truemper, L.; Reiser, M.; Steinhauer, H.; et al. Early consolidation by myeloablative radiochemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation in first remission significantly prolongs progression-free survival in mantle-cell lymphoma: Results of a prospective randomized trial of the European. Blood 2005, 105, 2677–2684. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Hermine, O.; Hoster, E.; Walewski, J.; Bosly, A.; Stilgenbauer, S.; Thieblemont, C.; Szymczyk, M.; Bouabdallah, R.; Kneba, M.; Hallek, M.; et al. Addition of high-dose cytarabine to immunochemotherapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients aged 65 years or younger with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL Younger): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma N. Lancet 2016, 388, 565–575. [CrossRef] 4. Le Gouill, S.; Thieblemont, C.; Oberic, L.; Moreau, A.; Bouabdallah, K.; Gyan, E.; Damaj, G.; Ribrag, V.; Feugier, P.; Casasnovas, O.; et al. Rituximab Maintenance after Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation Prolongs Survival in Younger Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Final Results of the Randomized Phase 3 LyMa Trial of the Lysa/Goelams Group. Blood 2016, 128, 145a. [CrossRef] 5. Kluin-Nelemans, H.C.; Hoster, E.; Hermine, O.; Walewski, J.; Trneny, M.; Geisler, C.H.; Stilgenbauer, S.; Thieblemont, C.; Vehling-Kaiser, U.; Doorduijn, J.K.; et al. Treatment of older patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 520–531. [CrossRef] 6. Rule, S.; Jurczak, W.; Jerkeman, M.; Rusconi, C.; Trneny, M.; Offner, F.; Caballero, D.; Joao, C.; Witzens-Harig, M.; Hess, G.; et al. Ibrutinib versus temsirolimus: 3-year follow-up of patients with previously treated mantle cell lymphoma from the phase 3, international, randomized, open-label RAY study. Leukemia 2018, 32, 1799–1803. [CrossRef] 7. Eyre, T.A.; Walter, H.S.; Iyengar, S.; Follows, G.; Cross, M.; Fox, C.P.; Hodson, A.; Coats, J.; Narat, S.; Morley, N.; et al. Efficacy of venetoclax monotherapy in patients with relapsed, refractory mantle cell lymphoma after Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Haematologica 2019, 104, e68–e71. [CrossRef] 8. Wang, M.; Munoz, J.; Goy, A.; Locke, F.L.; Jacobson, C.A.; Hill, B.T.; Timmerman, J.M.; Holmes, H.; Jaglowski, S.; Flinn, I.W.; et al. KTE-X19 CAR T-Cell Therapy in Relapsed or Refractory Mantle-Cell Lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1331–1342. [CrossRef] 9. Sandoval-Sus, J.D.; Faramand, R.; Chavez, J.; Puri, S.; Parra, P.; Sokol, L.; Kharfan-Dabaja, M.A.; Shah, B.; Ayala, E. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is potentially curative in mantle cell lymphoma: Results from a single institution study. Leuk. Lymphoma 2019, 60, 309–316. [CrossRef] 10. Kasamon, Y.L.; Jones, R.J.; Diehl, L.F.; Nayer, H.; Borowitz, M.J.; Garrett-Mayer, E.; Ambinder, R.F.; Abrams, R.A.; Zhang, Z.; Flinn, I.W. Outcomes of autologous and allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation for mantle cell lymphoma. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2005, 11, 39–46. [CrossRef] 11. Tsai, T.; Goodman, S.; Saez, R.; Schiller, G.; Adkins, D.; Callander, N.; Wolff, S.; Freytes, C.O. Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in patients who relapse after autologous transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997, 20, 859–863. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Palomba, M.; Gordon, L.; Siddiqi, T.; Abramson, J.; Kamdar, M.; Lunning, M.; Maloney, D.; Andreadis, C.; Arnason, J.; Ghosh, N.; et al. Safety and Preliminary Efficacy in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma Receiving Lisocabtagene Maraleucel in Transcend NHL 001. Blood 2020, 136, 10–11. [CrossRef] 13. Cheson, B.D.; Pfistner, B.; Juweid, M.E.; Gascoyne, R.D.; Specht, L.; Horning, S.J.; Coiffier, B.; Fisher, R.I.; Hagenbeek, A.; Zucca, E.; et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 579–586. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Cheson, B.D.; Fisher, R.I.; Barrington, S.F.; Cavalli, F.; Schwartz, L.H.; Zucca, E.; Lister, T.A.; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Consortium. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: The Lugano classification. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 3059–3068. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 15 of 16 15. Bacigalupo, A.; Ballen, K.; Rizzo, D.; Giralt, S.; Lazarus, H.; Ho, V.; Apperley, J.; Slavin, S.; Pasquini, M.; Sandmaier, B.M.; et al. Defining the intensity of conditioning regimens: Working definitions. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009, 15, 1628–1633. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Harris, A.C.; Young, R.; Devine, S.; Hogan, W.J.; Ayuk, F.; Bunworasate, U.; Chanswangphuwana, C.; Efebera, Y.A.; Holler, E.; Litzow, M.; et al. International, Multicenter Standardization of Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease Clinical Data Collection: A Report from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016, 22, 4–10. [CrossRef] 17. Orchard, J.; Garand, R.; Davis, Z.; Babbage, G.; Sahota, S.; Matutes, E.; Catovsky, D.; Thomas, P.W.; Avet-Loiseau, H.; Oscier, D. A subset of t(11;14) lymphoma with mantle cell features displays mutated IgVH genes and includes patients with good prognosis, nonnodal disease. Blood 2003, 101, 4975–4981. [CrossRef] 18. Robinson, S.P.; Boumendil, A.; Finel, H.; Peggs, K.S.; Chevallier, P.; Sierra, J.; Finke, J.; Poiré, X.; Maillard, N.; Milpied, N.; et al. Long-term outcome analysis of reduced-intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation in patients with mantle cell lymphoma: A retrospective study from the EBMT Lymphoma Working Party. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018, 53, 617–624. [CrossRef] 19. Vaughn, J.E.; Sorror, M.L.; Storer, B.E.; Chauncey, T.R.; Pulsipher, M.A.; Maziarz, R.T.; Maris, M.B.; Hari, P.; Laport, G.G.; Franke, G.N.; et al. Long-term sustained disease control in patients with mantle cell lymphoma with or without active disease after treatment with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after nonmyeloablative conditioning. Cancer 2015, 121, 3709–3716. [CrossRef] 20. Cook, G.; Smith, G.M.; Kirkland, K.; Lee, J.; Pearce, R.; Thomson, K.; Morris, E.; Orchard, K.; Rule, S.; Russell, N.; et al. Outcome following Reduced-Intensity Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation (RIC AlloSCT) for relapsed and refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL): A study of the British Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010, 16, 1419–1427. [CrossRef] 21. Maris, M.B.; Sandmaier, B.M.; Storer, B.E.; Chauncey, T.; Stuart, M.J.; Maziarz, R.T.; Agura, E.; Langston, A.A.; Pulsipher, M.; Storb, R.; et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after fludarabine and 2 Gy total body irradiation for relapsed and refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Blood 2004, 104, 3535–3542. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 22. Mussetti, A.; Devlin, S.M.; Castro-Malaspina, H.R.; Barker, J.N.; Giralt, S.A.; Zelenetz, A.D.; Sauter, C.S.; Perales, M.-A. Non- myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for adults with relapsed and refractory mantle cell lymphoma: A single-center analysis in the rituximab era. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015, 50, 1293–1298. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Tam, C.S.; Bassett, R.; Ledesma, C.; Korbling, M.; Alousi, A.; Hosing, C.; Kebraei, P.; Harrell, R.; Rondon, G.; Giralt, S.A.; et al. Mature results of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center risk-adapted transplantation strategy in mantle cell lymphoma. Blood 2009, 113, 4144–4152. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Krüger, W.H.; Hirt, C.; Basara, N.; Sayer, H.G.; Behre, G.; Fischer, T.; Grobe, N.; Maschmeyer, G.; Niederwieser, D.; Dölken, G. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation for mantle cell lymphoma—Final report from the prospective trials of the East German Study Group Haematology/Oncology (OSHO). Ann. Hematol. 2014, 93, 1587–1597. [CrossRef] 25. Martínez, C.; Gayoso, J.; Canals, C.; Finel, H.; Peggs, K.; Dominietto, A.; Castagna, L.; Afanasyev, B.; Robinson, S.; Blaise, D.; et al. Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide-Based Haploidentical Transplantation as Alternative to Matched Sibling or Unrelated Donor Transplantation for Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Registry Study of the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marr. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 3425–3432. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Sanz, J.; Galimard, J.-E.; Labopin, M.; Afanasyev, B.; Angelucci, E.; Ciceri, F.; Blaise, D.; Cornelissen, J.J.; Meijer, E.; Diez-Martin, J.L.; et al. Post-transplant cyclophosphamide after matched sibling, unrelated and haploidentical donor transplants in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: A comparative study of the ALWP EBMT. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2020, 13, 46. [CrossRef] 27. Rodríguez, J.; Gutierrez, A.; Palacios, A.; Navarrete, M.; Blancas, I.; Alarcón, J.; Caballero, M.D.; De Mattos, S.F.; Gines, J.; Martínez, J.; et al. Rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin: An effective regimen in patients with refractory and relapsing mantle cell lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2007, 48, 2172–2178. [CrossRef] 28. Obrador-Hevia, A.; Serra-Sitjar, M.; Rodríguez, J.; Belayachi, L.; Bento, L.; García-Recio, M.; Sánchez, J.M.; Villalonga, P.; Gutiérrez, A.; Fernández de Mattos, S. Efficacy of the GemOx-R regimen leads to the identification of Oxaliplatin as a highly effective drug against Mantle Cell Lymphoma. Br. J. Haematol. 2016, 174, 899–910. [CrossRef] 29. Tessoulin, B.; Chiron, D.; Thieblemont, C.; Oberic, L.; Bouadballah, K.; Gyan, E.; Damaj, G.; Ribrag, V.; Gressin, R.; Feugier, P.; et al. Oxaliplatin before autologous transplantation in combination with high-dose cytarabine and rituximab provides longer disease control than cisplatin or carboplatin in patients with mantle-cell lymphoma: Results from the LyMA prospective trial. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021, 56, 1700–1709. [CrossRef] 30. Robak, T.; Huang, H.; Jin, J.; Zhu, J.; Liu, T.; Samoilova, O.; Pylypenko, H.; Verhoef, G.; Siritanaratkul, N.; Osmanov, E.; et al. Bortezomib-based therapy for newly diagnosed mantle-cell lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 944–953. [CrossRef] 31. Rummel, M.; Kaiser, U.; Balser, C.; Stauch, M.; Brugger, W.; Welslau, M.; Niederle, N.; Losem, C.; Boeck, H.-P.; Weidmann, E.; et al. Bendamustine plus rituximab versus fludarabine plus rituximab for patients with relapsed indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 57–66. [CrossRef] 32. Flinn, I.W.; van der Jagt, R.; Kahl, B.; Wood, P.; Hawkins, T.; MacDonald, D.; Simpson, D.; Kolibaba, K.; Issa, S.; Chang, J.; et al. First-Line Treatment of Patients With Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or Mantle-Cell Lymphoma with Bendamustine Plus Rituximab Versus R-CHOP or R-CVP: Results of the BRIGHT 5-Year Follow-Up Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 984–991. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Cancers 2022, 14, 2673 16 of 16 33. Visco, C.; Chiappella, A.; Nassi, L.; Patti, C.; Ferrero, S.; Barbero, D.; Evangelista, A.; Spina, M.; Molinari, A.; Rigacci, L.; et al. Rituximab, bendamustine, and low-dose cytarabine as induction therapy in elderly patients with mantle cell lymphoma: A multicentre, phase 2 trial from Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. Lancet Haematol. 2017, 4, e15–e23. [CrossRef] 34. Song, Y.; Zhou, K.; Zou, D.; Zhou, J.; Hu, J.; Yang, H.; Zhang, H.; Ji, J.; Xu, W.; Jin, J.; et al. Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Mantle-Cell Lymphoma with Zanubrutinib, a Selective Inhibitor of Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 4216–4224. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Witzig, T.E.; Inwards, D. Acalabrutinib for mantle cell lymphoma. Blood 2019, 133, 2570–2574. [CrossRef] 36. Tam, C.S.; Anderson, M.A.; Pott, C.; Agarwal, R.; Handunnetti, S.; Hicks, R.J.; Burbury, K.; Turner, G.; Di Iulio, J.; Bressel, M.; et al. Ibrutinib plus Venetoclax for the Treatment of Mantle-Cell Lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 1211–1223. [CrossRef] 37. Munshi, P.N.; Hamadani, M.; Kumar, A.; Dreger, P.; Friedberg, J.W.; Dreyling, M.; Kahl, B.; Jerkeman, M.; Kharfan-Dabaja, M.A.; Locke, F.L.; et al. American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Center of International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, and European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Clinical Practice Recommendations for Transplantation and Cellular Therapies. Transplant. Cell. Ther. 2021, 27, 720–728. [CrossRef] 38. Lin, R.J.; Ho, C.; Hilden, P.D.; Barker, J.N.; Giralt, S.A.; Hamlin, P.A.; Jakubowski, A.A.; Castro-Malaspina, H.R.; Robinson, K.S.; Papadopoulos, E.B.; et al. Allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation impacts on outcomes of mantle cell lymphoma with TP53 alterations. Br. J. Haematol. 2019, 184, 1006–1010. [CrossRef] 39. Lew, T.E.; Cliff, E.R.S.; Dickinson, M.; Tam, C.S.; Seymour, J.F.; Blombery, P.; Bajel, A.; Ritchie, D.; Khot, A. T-cell replete allogeneic stem cell transplant for mantle cell lymphoma achieves durable disease control, including against TP53-mutated disease. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021, 56, 2857–2859. [CrossRef] 40. Dreger, P.; Michallet, M.; Bosman, P.; Dietrich, S.; Sobh, M.; Boumendil, A.; Nagler, A.; Scheid, C.; Cornelissen, J.; Niederwieser, D.; et al. Ibrutinib for bridging to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or mantle cell lymphoma: A study by the EBMT Chronic Malignancies and Lymphoma Working Parties. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019, 54, 44–52. [CrossRef]