| 1. |
- Kim, Haesook T., et al.
(författare)
-
Prognostic Score and Cytogenetic Risk Classification for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients : Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Report
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cancer Research. - : AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH. - 1078-0432 .- 1557-3265. ; 25:16, s. 5143-5155
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To develop a prognostic model and cytogenetic risk classification for previously treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) undergoing reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT).Experimental Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes of 606 patients with CLL who underwent RIC allogeneic HCT between 2008 and 2014 reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.Results: On the basis of multivariable models, disease status, comorbidity index, lymphocyte count, and white blood cell count at HCT were selected for the development of prognostic model. Using the prognostic score, we stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk [4-year progression-free survival (PFS) 58%, 42%, 33%, and 25%, respectively, P < 0.0001; 4-year overall survival (OS) 70%, 57%, 54%, and 38%, respectively, P < 0.0001]. We also evaluated karyotypic abnormalities together with del(17p) and found that del(17p) or >= 5 abnormalities showed inferior PFS. Using a multivariable model, we classified cytogenetic risk into low, intermediate, and high (P < 0.0001). When the prognostic score and cytogenetic risk were combined, patients with low prognostic score and low cytogenetic risk had prolonged PFS (61% at 4 years) and OS (75% at 4 years).Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with previously treated CLL who underwent RIC HCT, we developed a robust prognostic scoring system of HCT outcomes and a novel cytogenetic-based risk stratification system. These prognostic models can be used for counseling patients, comparing data across studies, and providing a benchmark for future interventions. For future study, we will further validate these models for patients receiving targeted therapies prior to HCT.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bejanyan, Nelli, et al.
(författare)
-
Myeloablative Conditioning for Allogeneic Transplantation Results in Superior Disease-Free Survival for Acute Myelogenous Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes with Low/Intermediate but not High Disease Risk Index : A Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. - : Elsevier. - 2666-6375 .- 2666-6367. ; 27:1, s. 68.e1-68.e9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Compared with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC), myeloablative conditioning (MAC) is generally associated with lower relapse risk after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, disease-specific risk factors in AML/MDS can further inform when MAC and RIC may yield differential outcomes. We analyzed HCT outcomes stratified by the Disease Risk Index (DRI) in 4387 adults (age 40 to 65 years) to identify the impact of conditioning intensity. In the low/ intermediate-risk DRI cohort, RIC was associated with lower nonrelapse mortality (NRM) (hazard ratio [HR],.74; 95% confidence interval [CI],.62 to.88; P <.001) but significantly greater relapse risk (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.76; P <.001) and thus inferior disease-free survival (DFS) (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.33; P =.001). In the high/ very high-risk DRI cohort, RIC was associated with marginally lower NRM (HR,.83; 95% CI,.68 to 1.00; P =.051) and significantly higher relapse risk (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.41; P =.002), leading to similar DFS using either RIC or MAC. These data support MAC over RIC as the preferred conditioning intensity for patients with AML/MDS with low/intermediate-risk DRI, but with a similar benefit as RIC in high/very high-risk DRI. Novel MAC regimens with less toxicity could benefit all patients, but more potent antineoplastic approaches are needed for the high/ very-high risk DRI group.
|
|
