| 1. |
- Zhou, Zheng, et al.
(författare)
-
Reduced intensity conditioning for acute myeloid leukemia using melphalan- vs busulfan-based regimens : a CIBMTR report
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Blood Advances. - : American Society of Hematology. - 2473-9529 .- 2473-9537. ; 4:13, s. 3180-3190
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There is a lack of large comparative study on the outcomes of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transplantation using fludarabine/busulfan (FB) and fludarabine/melphalan (FM) regimens. Adult AML patients from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research who received first RIC allo-transplant between 2001 and 2015 were studied. Patients were excluded if they received cord blood or identical twin transplant, total body irradiation in conditioning, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with in vitro T-cell depletion. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and GVHD. Multivariate survival model was used with adjustment for patient, leukemia, and transplant-related factors. A total of 622 patients received FM and 791 received FB RIC. Compared with FB, the FM group had fewer transplant in complete remission (CR), fewer matched sibling donors, and less usage of anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. More patients in the FM group received marrow grafts and had transplantation before 2005. OS was significantly lower within the first 3 months posttransplant in the FM group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, P < .001), but was marginally superior beyond 3 months (HR = 0.87, P = .05). LFS was better with FM compared with FB (HR = 0.89, P = .05). NRM was significantly increased in the FM group during the first 3 months of posttransplant (HR = 3.85, P < .001). Long-term relapse was lower with FM (HR = 0.65, P < .001). Analysis restricted to patients with CR showed comparable results. In conclusion, compared with FB, the FM RIC showed a marginally superior long-term OS and LFS and a lower relapse rate. A lower OS early posttransplant within 3 months was largely the result of a higher early NRM.
|
|
| 2. |
- Tay, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Pre-transplant marital status and hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Current Oncology. - : MULTIMED INC. - 1198-0052 .- 1718-7729. ; 27:6, s. E596-E606
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Evidence about the impact of marital status before hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) on outcomes after HCT is conflicting. Methods We identified patients 40 years of age and older within the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry who underwent HCT between January 2008 and December 2015. Marital status before HCT was declared as one of: married or living with a partner, single (never married), separated or divorced, and widowed. We performed a multivariable analysis to determine the association of marital status with outcomes after HCT. Results We identified 10,226 allogeneic and 5714 autologous HCT cases with, respectively, a median follow-up of 37 months (range: 1-102 months) and 40 months (range: 1-106 months). No association between marital status and overall survival was observed in either the allogeneic (p = 0.58) or autologous (p = 0.17) setting. However, marital status was associated with grades 2-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), p < 0.001, and chronic GVHD, p = 0.04. The risk of grades 2-4 acute GVHD was increased in separated compared with married patients [hazard ratio (FIR): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03 to 1.24], and single patients had a reduced risk of grades 2-4 acute GVHD (FIR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.98). The risk of chronic GVHD was lower in widowed compared with married patients (FIR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.99). Conclusions Overall survival after HCT is not influenced by marital status, but associations were evident between marital status and grades 2-4 acute and chronic GVHD. To better appreciate the effects of marital status and social support, future research should consider using validated scales to measure social support and patient and caregiver reports of caregiver commitment, and to assess health-related quality of life together with health care utilization.
|
|
