4.6 Article

Haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as individual treatment option in pediatric patients with very high-risk sarcomas

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1064190

关键词

haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; pediatric sarcoma; Ewing sarcoma; soft tissue sarcoma; rhabdomyosarcoma

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Haplo-HSCT shows potential for improving prognosis in some high-risk pediatric sarcomas, but not for the majority of patients. Further research is needed to evaluate its use as a basis for subsequent immunotherapies.
BackgroundPrognosis of children with primary disseminated or metastatic relapsed sarcomas remains dismal despite intensification of conventional therapies including high-dose chemotherapy. Since haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT) is effective in the treatment of hematological malignancies by mediating a graft versus leukemia effect, we evaluated this approach in pediatric sarcomas as well. MethodsPatients with bone Ewing sarcoma or soft tissue sarcoma who received haplo-HSCT as part of clinical trials using CD3+ or TCR alpha/beta+ and CD19+ depletion respectively were evaluated regarding feasibility of treatment and survival. ResultsWe identified 15 patients with primary disseminated disease and 14 with metastatic relapse who were transplanted from a haploidentical donor to improve prognosis. Three-year event-free survival (EFS) was 18,1% and predominantly determined by disease relapse. Survival depended on response to pre-transplant therapy (3y-EFS of patients in complete or very good partial response: 36,4%). However, no patient with metastatic relapse could be rescued. ConclusionHaplo-HSCT for consolidation after conventional therapy seems to be of interest for some, but not for the majority of patients with high-risk pediatric sarcomas. Evaluation of its future use as basis for subsequent humoral or cellular immunotherapies is necessary.

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