| 1. |
- Munshi, Pashna N., et al.
(författare)
-
Age no bar : A CIBMTR analysis of elderly patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Cancer. - : WILEY. - 0008-543X .- 1097-0142. ; 126:23, s. 5077-5087
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Upfront autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) remains an important therapy in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), a disease of older adults. Methods The authors investigated the outcomes of AHCT in patients with MM who were aged >= 70 years. The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database registered 15,999 patients with MM in the United States within 12 months of diagnosis during 2013 through 2017; a total of 2092 patients were aged >= 70 years. Nonrecurrence mortality (NRM), disease recurrence and/or progression (relapse; REL), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were modeled using Cox proportional hazards models with age at transplantation as the main effect. Because of the large sample size, aPvalue <.01 was considered to be statistically significant a priori. Results An increase in AHCT was noted in 2017 (28%) compared with 2013 (15%) among patients aged >= 70 years. Although approximately 82% of patients received melphalan (Mel) at a dose of 200 mg/m(2)overall, 58% of the patients aged >= 70 years received Mel at a dose of 140 mg/m(2). On multivariate analysis, patients aged >= 70 years demonstrated no difference with regard to NRM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3; 99% confidence interval [99% CI], 1-1.7 [P = .06]), REL (HR, 1.03; 99% CI, 0.9-1.1 [P = 0.6]), PFS (HR, 1.06; 99% CI, 1-1.2 [P = 0.2]), and OS (HR, 1.2; 99% CI, 1-1.4 [P = .02]) compared with the reference group (those aged 60-69 years). In patients aged >= 70 years, Mel administered at a dose of 140 mg/m(2)was found to be associated with worse outcomes compared with Mel administered at a dose of 200 mg/m(2), including day 100 NRM (1% [95% CI, 1%-2%] vs 0% [95% CI, 0%-1%];P = .003]), 2-year PFS (64% [95% CI, 60%-67%] vs 69% [95% CI, 66%-73%];P = .003), and 2-year OS (85% [95% CI, 82%-87%] vs 89% [95% CI, 86%-91%];P = .01]), likely representing frailty. Conclusions The results of the current study demonstrated that AHCT remains an effective consolidation therapy among patients with MM across all age groups.
|
|
| 2. |
- Munshi, Pashna N., et al.
(författare)
-
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 in Mantle Cell Lymphoma
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Transplantation and cellular therapy. - : Elsevier BV. - 2666-6367. ; 27:9, s. 720-728
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Autologous (auto-) and allogeneic (allo-) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are accepted treatment modalities in contemporary treatment algorithms for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy recently received approval for MCL; however, its exact place and sequence in relation to HCT remain unclear. The American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Center of International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation jointly convened an expert panel to formulate consensus recommendations for role, timing, and sequencing of auto-HCT, allo-HCT, and CAR T cell therapy for patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL. The RAND-modified Delphi method was used to generate consensus statements. Seventeen consensus statements were generated, with a few key statements as follows: in the first line setting, auto-HCT consolidation represents standard of care in eligible patients, whereas there is no clear role of allo-HCT or CAR T cell therapy outside of clinical trials. In the R/R setting, the preferential option is CAR T cell therapy, especially in patients with MCL failing or intolerant to at least one Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, while allo-HCT is recommended if CAR T cell therapy fails or is infeasible. Several recommendations were based on expert opinion, where the panel developed consensus statements for important real-world clinical scenarios to guide clinical practice. In the absence of contemporary evidence-based data, the panel found RAND-modified Delphi methodology effective in providing a formal framework for developing consensus recommendations for the timing and sequence of cellular therapies for MCL.
|
|
| 3. |
- Munshi, Pashna N., et al.
(författare)
-
ASTCT, CIBMTR, and EBMT clinical practice recommendations for transplant and cellular therapies in mantle cell lymphoma
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Bone Marrow Transplantation. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0268-3369 .- 1476-5365. ; 56:12, s. 2911-2921
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Autologous (auto-) or allogeneic (allo-) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are accepted treatment modalities for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Recently, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy received approval for MCL; however, its exact place and sequence in relation to HCT is unclear. The ASTCT, CIBMTR, and the EBMT, jointly convened an expert panel to formulate consensus recommendations for role, timing, and sequencing of auto-, allo-HCT, and CAR T-cell therapy for patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL. The RAND-modified Delphi method was used to generate consensus statements. Seventeen consensus statements were generated; in the first-line setting auto-HCT consolidation represents standard-of-care in eligible patients, whereas there is no clear role of allo-HCT or CAR T-cell therapy, outside of a clinical trial. In the R/R setting, the preferential option is CAR T-cell therapy especially in MCL failing or intolerant to at least one Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, while allo-HCT is recommended if CAR T-cell therapy has failed or is not feasible. In the absence of contemporary evidence-based data, the panel found RAND-modified Delphi methodology effective in providing a formal framework for developing consensus recommendations for the timing and sequence of cellular therapies for MCL.
|
|
| 4. |
- Stroncek, David F, et al.
(författare)
-
Donor Experiences of Second Marrow or Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Collection Mirror the First, but CD34+ Yields Are Less
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Biology of blood and marrow transplantation. - : Elsevier BV. - 1083-8791 .- 1523-6536. ; 24:1, s. 175-184
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Little is known about the experiences of individuals donating peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) or marrow for a second time. To study this, unrelated donors making a second donation through the National Marrow Donor Program between 2004 and 2013 were evaluated. Experiences of second-time donors giving marrow (n = 118: first donation was PBSC in 76 and marrow in 42) were compared with those making only 1 marrow donation (n = 5829). Experiences of second-time donors giving PBSCs (n = 602) (first donation was PBSCs in 362; marrow in 240) were compared to first-time PBSC donors (n = 16,095). For donors giving a second PBSC or marrow donation there were no significant differences in maximum skeletal pain, maximum symptoms measured by an established modified toxicity criteria, and recovery time compared with those who donated only once. Notably, the yield of marrow nucleated cells and PBSC CD34+ cells with second donations was less. As previously noted with single first-time donations, female (PBSCs and marrow) and obese donors (PBSCs) had higher skeletal pain and/or toxicity with a second donation. PBSC donors who experienced high levels of pain or toxicity with the first donation also experienced high levels of these symptoms with their second donation and slower recovery times. In conclusion, for most donors second donation experiences were similar to first donation experiences, but CD34+ yields were less. Knowledge of the donor's first experience and stem cell yields may help centers decide whether second donations are appropriate and institute measures to improve donor experiences.
|
|
