4.1 Article

High-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in peripheral T-cell lymphoma: treatment outcome and prognostic factor analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 99, 期 1, 页码 69-78

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s12185-013-1465-y

关键词

High-dose therapy; Autologous stem cell transplantation; Peripheral T-cell lymphoma

资金

  1. National Key Technologies Research and Development Program of China [A201996103 96-906-01-12]
  2. Ministry of Education Doctor Foundation of China [20010023018, 20050023045, 200800230019]
  3. Ying Dong Fok Foundation for Young College Teacher [B231996001]
  4. General Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [30873012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) carries a poor prognosis with conventional treatment. We retrospectively analyzed data from 45 patients with PTCL who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) from 1990 to 2008 in our center. Eighteen patients underwent HDT/ASCT in complete remission to induction chemotherapy (CR1), and 27 patients underwent HDT/ASCT in other disease statuses. The median follow-up was 113.5 months (range 52.6-261.0) for surviving patients. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 64 and 60 %, respectively. The 5-year OS for patients in CR1 and in other disease statuses was 89 and 47 %, respectively (P = 0.002), and 5-year PFS was 83 and 43 % (P = 0.007). In the subgroup excluding anaplastic large cell lymphoma, patients transplanted in CR1 also had significantly better 5-year OS (82 vs. 37 %, P = 0.009) and PFS (82 vs. 33 %, P = 0.008) than those transplanted in other disease statuses. Multivariate analysis showed that CR1 status was the only significant prognostic factor for OS (P = 0.040) and PFS (P = 0.040). These results support the use of HDT/ASCT consolidation in CR1 for PTCL patients. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm the efficacy of this approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据