4.2 Article

Allografting after nonmyeloablative conditioning as a treatment after a failed conventional hematopoietic cell transplant

期刊

出版社

CARDEN JENNINGS PUBL CO LTD
DOI: 10.1053/bbmt.2003.50014

关键词

second hematopoietic cell allografts nonmyeloablative conditioning

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA078902, CA78902, CA18221, CA15704, K23CA92058] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL36444] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Outcomes with conventional allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) after failed HCT are typically poor. To reduce transplantation-related mortality (TRM), 55 patients (median age, 43 years; range, 18-69 years) who had failed conventional autologous (n = 49), allogeneic (n = 4), or syngeneic (n = 2) HCT received human leukocyte antigen-matched related (n 31) or unrelated (n = 24) donor allografts after nomnyeloablative conditioning with 2 Gy of total body irradiation or 2 Gy of total body irradiation and 90 mg/m(2) of fludarabine. Postgrafting inununosuppression consisted of cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil. One rejection occurred. Thirty-three patients died a median of 127 days (range, 7-834 days) after HCT: 21 of relapse, 11 of TRM, and 1 of suicide. The TRM rate on day 100 was 11 % with an estimated 1-year TRM rate of 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9% to 3 1 %). The median follow-up among the 22 survivors is 368 days (range, 173-796 days). Seventeen of 22 survivors are progression-free. One-year estimates of overall and progression-free survival rates are 49% (95% CI, 35% to 62%) and 28% (95% CI, 16% to 41%), respectively. Untreated disease at the time of allografting after nomnyeloablative conditioning increased the risk of death (hazard ratio = 2.4; P = .04). Although the length of follow-up is still short, it appears that encouraging outcomes can be achieved with nomnyeloablative conditioning in patients expected to have poor outcomes with conventional allografting. (C) 2003 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

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

4.2
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