4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Matched Unrelated or Matched Sibling Donors Result in Comparable Survival After Allogeneic Stem-Cell Transplantation in Elderly Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Report From the Cooperative German Transplant Study Group

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 32, 页码 5183-5191

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.5184

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose In patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), differential indications for matched sibling and unrelated hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HCT) are considered, and arbitrary age limits for HCT exist. We sought to determine whether donor type is a prognostic factor in elderly patients in the era of high-resolution DNA-based HLA typing. Patients and Methods We performed univariate and multivariate analyses of event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients older than 50 years with standard-or high-risk AML who had received an allogeneic HCT between 1995 and 2005. Available DNA from donors and recipients of unrelated HCT was retyped so that the HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1 alleles could be characterized in detail. Unrelated donors (UDs) were classified as matched (8/8), possibly matched (matched, but incomplete information), partially matched (one mismatch), or poorly matched (two or more mismatches) according to the final typing results. Results Data from 368 patients with a median age of 57 years (range, 50 to 73 years) were included. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that patients' disease status at HCT (P < .001) and the cytogenetic risk (P < .001) highly significantly predicted EFS and OS. Compared with patients with matched sibling donors, the adjusted relative risk of EFS was 0.7 (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.1) for patients with matched UDs and 1.0 (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.6) for patients with partially matched UDs. Conclusion Donor type is not a major prognostic factor for HCT in elderly patients with standard-or high-risk AML.

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

4.7
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