4.5 Article

EBMT risk score can predict the outcome of leukaemia after unmanipulated haploidentical blood and marrow transplantation

Journal

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 49, Issue 7, Pages 927-933

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2014.80

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [81230013]
  2. Scientific Research Foundation for Capital Medicine Development [2011-4022-08]
  3. Chang Jiang Scholars Program
  4. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission [Z121107002612035, Z111107067311070, Z121107002812033]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Systematic, standardised pretransplant risk assessment is an important tool for predicting patient outcomes following allogeneic haematopoietic SCT (HSCT). To assess the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) risk score capacities for predicting patient outcomes following unmanipulated haploidentical blood and marrow transplantation (HBMT), we analysed 502 leukaemia patients who received transplants at our centre between 2008 and 2010. The cohort OS and leukaemia-free survival (LFS) were 72.1% and 68.1%, whereas the cumulative non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse incidences were 16.5% and 16.1%. According to univariate analysis, the values for OS, LFS and NRM were worse for an EBMT risk score of 6 (40.0, 40.0, 50.0%) than a score of 1 (83.1, 78.3, 8.4%). Hazard ratios steadily increased for each additional score point. Likewise, a higher EBMT risk score was associated with an increased relapse incidence. Importantly, the EBMT risk score prognostic value regarding OS, LFS, NRM and relapse was maintained in the multivariate analysis. Moreover, we also made a haploidentical EBMT (haplo-EBMT) risk score, which used number of HLA disparity instead of donor type, and the haplo-EBMT risk scores can also be used to predict patient outcomes following unmanipulated HBMT.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available