4.7 Article

Bone Marrow Versus Mobilized Peripheral Blood Stem Cells in Haploidentical Transplants Using Posttransplantation Cyclophosphamide

期刊

CANCER
卷 124, 期 7, 页码 1428-1437

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31228

关键词

haploidentical transplantation; posttransplantation cyclophosphamide; stem cell source; acute leukemia; acute graft-versus-host disease

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in haploidentical bone marrow (BM) transplants using posttransplantion cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) is low, whereas GVHD using mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) ranges between 30% and 40%. METHODS: To evaluate the effect of stem cell source in haploidentical transplantation with PT-Cy, we analyzed 451 patients transplanted for acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia reported to the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. RESULT: SBM was used in 260 patients, and PBSC were used in 191 patients. The median follow-up was 21 months. Engraftment was lower in BM (92% vs 95%, P < 0.001). BM was associated with a lower incidence of stage II-IV and stage III-IV acute GVHD (21% vs 38%, P .01; and 4% vs 14%, P < .01, respectively). No difference in chronic GVHD, relapse, or nonrelapse mortality were found for PBSC or BM. The 2-year overall survival (OS) was 55% versus 56% (P = .57) and leukemia-free survival (LFS) was 49% versus 54% (P = .74) for BM and PBSC, respectively. On multivariate analysis, PBSC were associated with an increased risk of stage II-IV (hazard ratio [HR], 2.1; P < .001) and stage III-IV acute GVHD (HR, 3.8; P < .001). For LFS and OS, reduced intensity conditioning was the only factor associated with treatment failure (LFS: HR, 1.40; P = .04) and relapse (HR, 1.62; P = .02). CONCLUSION: In patients with acute leukemia in first or second remission receiving haploidentical transplantation with PT-Cy, the use of PBSC increases the risk of acute GVHD, whereas survival outcomes are comparable. (C) 2018 American Cancer Society.

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