| 1. |
- Mehta, Rohtesh S., et al.
(författare)
-
Composite GRFS and CRFS Outcomes After Adult Alternative Donor HCT
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - : American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 38:18, s. 2062-2076
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE There is no consensus on the best choice of an alternative donor (umbilical cord blood [UCB], haploidentical, one-antigen mismatched [7/8]-bone marrow [BM], or 7/8-peripheral blood [PB]) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for patients lacking an HLA-matched related or unrelated donor.METHODS We report composite end points of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD)-free relapse-free survival (GRFS) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD)-free relapse-free survival (CRFS) in 2,198 patients who underwent UCB (n = 838), haploidentical (n = 159), 7/8-BM (n = 241), or 7/8-PB (n = 960) HCT. All groups were divided by myeloablative conditioning (MAC) intensity or reduced intensity conditioning (RIC), except haploidentical group in which most received RIC. To account for multiple testing, P < .0071 in multivariable analysis and P < .00025 in direct pairwise comparisons were considered statistically significant.RESULTS In multivariable analysis, haploidentical group had the best GRFS, CRFS, and overall survival (OS). In the direct pairwise comparison of other groups, among those who received MAC, there was no difference in GRFS or CRFS among UCB, 7/8-BM, and 7/8-PB with serotherapy (alemtuzumab or antithymocyte globulin) groups. In contrast, the 7/8-PB without serotherapy group had significantly inferior GRFS, higher cGVHD, and a trend toward worse CRFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.69; P = .002) than the 7/8-BM group and higher cGVHD and trend toward inferior CRFS (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.63; P = .0006) than the UCB group. Among patients with RIC, all groups had significantly inferior GRFS and CRFS compared with the haploidentical group.CONCLUSION Recognizing the limitations of a registry retrospective analysis and the possibility of center selection bias in choosing donors, our data support the use of UCB, 7/8-BM, or 7/8-PB (with serotherapy) grafts for patients undergoing MAC HCT and haploidentical grafts for patients undergoing RIC HCT. The haploidentical group had the best GRFS, CRFS, and OS of all groups.
|
|
| 2. |
- Nikiforow, Sarah, et al.
(författare)
-
Upper gastrointestinal acute graft-versus-host disease adds minimal prognostic value in isolation or with other graft-versus-host disease symptoms as currently diagnosed and treated.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Haematologica. - : Ferrata Storti Foundation (Haematologica). - 0390-6078 .- 1592-8721. ; 103:10, s. 1708-1719
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Upper gastrointestinal acute graft-versus-host disease is reported in approximately 30% of hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients developing acute graft-versus-host disease. Currently classified as Grade II in consensus criteria, upper gastrointestinal acute graft-versus-host disease is often treated with systemic immunosuppression. We reviewed the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database to assess the prognostic implications of upper gastrointestinal acute graft-versus-host disease in isolation or with other acute graft-versus-host disease manifestations. 8567 adult recipients of myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant receiving T-cell replete grafts for acute leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome between 2000 and 2012 were analyzed. 51% of transplants were from unrelated donors. Reported upper gastrointestinal acute graft-versus-host disease incidence was 12.1%; 2.7% of recipients had isolated upper gastrointestinal acute graft-versus-host disease, of whom 95% received systemic steroids. Patients with isolated upper gastrointestinal involvement had similar survival, disease-free survival, transplant-related mortality, and relapse as patients with Grades 0, I, or II acute graft-versus-host disease. Unrelated donor recipients with isolated upper gastrointestinal acute graft-versus-host disease had less subsequent chronic graft-versus-host disease than those with Grades I or II disease (P=0.016 and P=0.0004, respectively). Upper gastrointestinal involvement added no significant prognostic information when present in addition to other manifestations of Grades I or II acute graft-versus-host disease. If upper gastrointestinal symptoms were reclassified as Grade 0 or I, 425 of 2083 patients (20.4%) with Grade II disease would be downgraded, potentially impacting the interpretation of clinical trial outcomes. Defining upper gastrointestinal acute graft-versus-host disease as a Grade II entity, as it is currently diagnosed and treated, is not strongly supported by this analysis. The general approach to diagnosis, treatment and grading of upper gastrointestinal symptoms and their impact on subsequent acute graft-versus-host disease therapy warrants reevaluation.
|
|
