| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Olszewski, Adam J., et al.
(författare)
-
Burkitt Lymphoma International Prognostic Index
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X. ; 39:10, s. 1129-1138
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: Burkitt lymphoma (BL) has unique biology and clinical course but lacks a standardized prognostic model. We developed and validated a novel prognostic index specific for BL to aid risk stratification, interpretation of clinical trials, and targeted development of novel treatment approaches. METHODS: We derived the BL International Prognostic Index (BL-IPI) from a real-world data set of adult patients with BL treated with immunochemotherapy in the United States between 2009 and 2018, identifying candidate variables that showed the strongest prognostic association with progression-free survival (PFS). The index was validated in an external data set of patients treated in Europe, Canada, and Australia between 2004 and 2019. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort of 633 patients with BL, age ≥ 40 years, performance status ≥ 2, serum lactate dehydrogenase > 3× upper limit of normal, and CNS involvement were selected as equally weighted factors with an independent prognostic value. The resulting BL-IPI identified groups with low (zero risk factors, 18% of patients), intermediate (one factor, 36% of patients), and high risk (≥ 2 factors, 46% of patients) with 3-year PFS estimates of 92%, 72%, and 53%, respectively, and 3-year overall survival estimates of 96%, 76%, and 59%, respectively. The index discriminated outcomes regardless of HIV status, stage, or first-line chemotherapy regimen. Patient characteristics, relative size of the BL-IPI groupings, and outcome discrimination were consistent in the validation cohort of 457 patients, with 3-year PFS estimates of 96%, 82%, and 63% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk BL-IPI, respectively. CONCLUSION: The BL-IPI provides robust discrimination of survival in adult BL, suitable for use as prognostication and stratification in trials. The high-risk group has suboptimal outcomes with standard therapy and should be considered for innovative treatment approaches.
|
|
