4.7 Article

Intensive chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for refractory and recurrent primary CNS and intraocular lymphoma: Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle Osseuse-Therapie Cellulaire

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 15, 页码 2512-2518

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.5533

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The prognosis of relapsing primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) is poor. We report the results of a prospective multicenter trial of intensive chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell rescue (IC + HCR) in immunocompetent adult patients with PCNSL or intraocular lymphoma (IOL) after failure of high-dose methotrexate-based treatment. Patients and Methods Salvage treatment consisted of two cycles of high-dose cytarabine and etoposide (CYVE). Intensive chemotherapy combined thiotepa, busulfan, and cyclophosphamide. Forty-three patients (median age, 52 years; range, 23 to 65 years) were included, with relapse (n = 22), refractory disease (n = 17), or a partial response to first-line treatment (n = 4). The response to CYVE was not assessable in three cases because of treatment-related death. Twenty patients (47%) were chemosensitive to CYVE: 15 of them proceeded to IC + HCR. IC + HCR was also administered to 12 patients who did not respond to CYVE. All but one of the 27 patients who underwent IC + HCR entered complete remission. Results With a median follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival was 18.3 months in the overall population, and 58.6 months among patients who completed IC + HCR. The respective median progression-free survival (PFS) times after IC + HCR were 11.6 and 41.1 months. The 2-year overall survival probability was 45% in the whole population and 69% among the 27 patients who received IC + HCR. The 2-year PFS probability was 43% among all the patients and 58% in the IC + HCR subpopulation. Conclusion IC + HCR is an effective treatment for refractory and recurrent PCNSL.

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