4.6 Article

Improvements in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes for adults with ALL over the past 3 decades

期刊

BLOOD ADVANCES
卷 6, 期 15, 页码 4558-4569

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022008032

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [JP 20K08730]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) has shown improved outcomes for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) over the past 30 years. However, challenges remain in preventing relapse in patients not in complete remission and those with high-risk chromosomal abnormalities.
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a promising treatment for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), an intractable hematological malignancy. The trends in allo-HCT outcomes over the past 30 years were examined to verify the efficacy of evolving treatment methods and to identify further challenges. We analyzed data from a registry database that included 8467 adult ALL patients who underwent their first allo-HCT between 1990 and 2019. The period was divided into three 10-year intervals for analysis. Five-year overall survival improved from 48.2% to 70.2% in the first complete remission (CR1), from 25.6% to 44.1% in subsequent CR, and from 10.0% to 22.7% in non-CR. Nonrelapse mortality improved over the 3 decades in each disease stage. However, the relapse rate only improved in CR1 every decade (26.3% to 15.9% in CR1, 33.4% to 32.8% in subsequent CR, and 53.6% to 54.8% in non-CR). Although there were continual improvements in adjusted survival for Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive patients, the improvement was inadequate for Ph- patients with t(4;11), t(8;14), t(14;18), or hypodiploidy. Allo-HCT outcomes for adults with ALL have improved over the past 30 years. Improved outcomes in the future will require more effective prevention of relapse in patients with ALL not in CR1 and in those with high-risk chromosomal abnormalities.

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