4.5 Article

Impact of thiotepa dose-intensity in primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the central nervous system undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant with thiotepa/carmustine conditioning

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41409-023-02071-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study evaluated the impact of thiotepa dose intensity on autologous stem cell transplant outcomes in adult primary central nervous system diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (PCNSL) patients. It was found that the intensity of thiotepa dose did not affect the outcomes of ASCT in PCNSL patients.
Thiotepa/carmustine (TT-BCNU) is a commonly used autologous transplant (ASCT) conditioning regimen for primary DLBCL of the CNS (PCNSL). The total thiotepa dose varies among TT-BCNU recipients, with some centers administering a total dose of 20 mg/kg, while others using 10 mg/kg. We retrospectively assessed the impact of thiotepa dose intensity on ASCT outcomes in 218 adult PCNSL patients who underwent a first ASCT with TT-BCNU conditioning and received either a total thiotepa dose of 10 mg/kg (TT-10 group; N = 90), or 20 mg/kg (TT-20 group; N = 128). The median follow-up of survivors was 22 months. The cumulative incidence of 1-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) for TT-10 and TT-20 cohorts were 6% (95%CI = 2-12%) vs. 4% (95%CI = 1-8%), respectively (p = 0.66). The 3-year cumulative incidence of relapse (15% vs. 13%; p = 0.67), progression-free survival (PFS) (71% vs. 80%; p = 0.25) and overall survival (OS) (79% vs. 83%; p = 0.56) were similar in the TT-10 and TT-20 groups, respectively. On multivariate analysis compared to TT-10, the TT-20 cohort was not associated with significantly different risk of NRM (Hazard ration [HR] = 0.77; p = 0.64), relapse/progression (HR = 0.87; p = 0.74), PFS (HR = 0.80; p = 0.48) or OS (HR = 1.10; p = 0.80). In conclusion thiotepa dose-intensity in TT-BCNU conditioning does not impact ASCT outcomes of PCNSL patients.

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

4.5
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