4.3 Article

Augmented high-dose regimen of cyclophosphamide, carmustine, and etoposide with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

期刊

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
卷 46, 期 10, 页码 1477-1487

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10428190500158466

关键词

Lymphoma; intermediate-grade; aggressive; transformed; autologous transplantation

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR00750-310698, M01 RR750, M01 RR00750-310649] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Progressive disease is the major cause of treatment failure after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. An augmented high-dose regimen of cyclophosphamide 7,200 mg/m(2), carmustine 300-400 mg/m(2), and etoposide 2,400 mg/m(2) (CBV) was developed in an attempt to improve disease control post-transplant. Sixty-seven adult patients received augmented CBV followed by infusion of unpurged autologous peripheral blood stem cells. Thirty seven patients had relapsed after standard chemotherapy, 28 patients had primary refractory disease, and 2 patients had transformed lymphoma in first partial response. Treatment-related mortality was 4%. Actuarial four year overall survival and progression-free survival were 46 +/- 8% and 36 +/- 6%, respectively. Risk factors for disease progression were histologic involvement of marrow by lymphoma and infusion of increased numbers of CD34+ cells per kg in the stem cell autograft. The outcome for patients with relatively chemorefractory disease (defined as 25-49% reduction in tumor volume after salvage chemotherapy) was no different than that for patients with chemosensitive disease. Compared to standard high-dose CBV regimens, augmented CBV does not appear to have substantially improved disease control. Prospective study of the association between inferior progression-free survival and infusion of higher CD34+ cell doses in stem cell autografts 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

4.3
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