4.7 Article

Comparative Analysis of the Value of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation in Acute Myeloid Leukemia With Monosomal Karyotype Versus Other Cytogenetic Risk Categories

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 17, Pages 2140-2146

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.6499

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To determine to what extent allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (alloHSCT) quantitatively reduces relapse in acute myeloid leukemia with monosomal karyotype (MK-AML) compared with alternative postremission therapy and how it compares with other cytogenetic subcategories. Patients and Methods Of 2,560 patients (younger than age 61 years) without core-binding factor abnormalities including 305 patients with MK-AML receiving first-line induction treatment, 1,975 patients (77%) achieved remission, and 1,588 received consolidation in the first complete remission (CR1) after two induction cycles. Consolidation treatment of 107 patients with MK-AML consisted of alloHSCT (n = 45), chemotherapy (n = 48), or autologous HSCT (n = 14). Results The 5-year overall survival after start of consolidation was 19% for patients with MK-AML who received alloHSCT and 9% for those who received chemotherapy or autoHSCT (P = .02). Relapse-free survival (RFS) at 5 years was 17% versus 7% (P = .003). Cox regression analysis was performed with alloHSCT as a time-dependent covariate. Hazard ratios (HRs) associated with alloHSCT for relapse and RFS were 0.30 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.37; P = .001), and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.62; P < .001), respectively. HRs were similar in MK-AML and the other cytogenetic subgroups. Conclusion AlloHSCT, applied as consolidation in CR1, is associated with a significant reduction of relapse and improvement of survival in MK-AML, with the same relative reduction of relapse or death as in other cytogenetic risk categories.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available