4.6 Article

Post-chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for 52 cases with refractory/relapsed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 189, 期 1, 页码 146-152

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.16339

关键词

chimeric antigen receptor T cells; refractory; relapsed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia; allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; overall survival; event-free survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) targeted at CD19 or CD22 have achieved high complete remission (CR) in refractory/relapsed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL), it is uncertain if allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) should be performed after CAR-T therapy to accomplish a sustainable remission. Fifty-two cases with relapsed/refractory B-ALL who underwent allo-HSCT after CR by CD19 or CD22 CAR-T were enrolled. The median time from CAR-T infusion to allo-HSCT was 50 (34-98) days. Myeloablative reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) with total body irradiation/fludarabine-based or busulfan/fludarabine-based regimens was used. Incidences of grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) and severe aGVHD were 23 center dot 1% and 5 center dot 8% respectively. Of 48 evaluable cases, 16 developed chronic GVHD (cGVHD) and in three of them the pattern was extensive. With a median follow-up of 334 (41-479) days, one-year overall survival and event-free survival (EFS) were 87 center dot 7% and 73 center dot 0%. One-year relapse rate and transplant-related mortality (TRM) were 24 center dot 7% and 2 center dot 2% respectively. With quick bridge to allo-HSCT after CAR-T therapy, high EFS for refractory/relapsed B-ALL has been achieved in this relatively large cohort. Our myeloablative RIC regimens have resulted in low incidences of aGVHD, cGVHD, viral reactivation and very low TRM even majority of transplants from haploidentical donors. Long-term follow-up is warranted.

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

4.6
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