| 2. |
- Oran, Betul, et al.
(författare)
-
Fludarabine and Melphalan Compared with Reduced Doses of Busulfan and Fludarabine Improve Transplantation Outcomes in Older Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. - : Elsevier. - 2666-6375 .- 2666-6367. ; 27:11, s. 921.e1-921.e10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens developed to extend the use of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) to older patients have resulted in encouraging outcomes. We aimed to compare the 2 most commonly used RIC regimens, i.v. fludarabine with busulfan (FluBu) and fludarabine with melphalan (FluMel), in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Through the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), we identified 1045 MDS patients age >= 60 years who underwent first HSCT with a matched related or matched (8/8) unrelated donor using an RIC regimen. The CIBMTR's definition of RIC was used: a regimen that incorporated an i.v. busulfan total dose <= 7.2 mg/kg or a low-dose melphalan total dose <= 150 mg/m(2). The 2 groups, recipients of FluBu (n = 697) and recipients of FluMel (n = 448), were comparable in terms of disease- and transplantation-related characteristics except for the more frequent use of antithymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab in the FluBu group (39% versus 31%). The median age was 67 years in both groups. FluMel was associated with a reduced relapse incidence (RI) compared with FluBu, with a 1-year adjusted incidence of 26% versus 44% (P <=.0001). Transplantation-related mortality (TRM) was higher in the FluMel group (26% versus 16%; P <= .0001). Because the magnitude of improvement with FluMel in RI was greater than the improvement in TRM with FluBu, disease-free survival (DFS) was better at 1 year and beyond with FluMel compared with FluBu (48% versus 40% at 1 year [P =.02] and 35% versus 27% at 3 years [P =.01]). Overall survival was comparable in the 2 groups at 1 year (63% versus 61%; P =.4) but was significantly improved with FluMel compared with FluBu at 3 years (46% versus 39%; P =.03). Our results suggest that FluMel is associated with superior DFS compared with FluBu owing to reduced RI in older patients with MDS patients.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
