4.2 Article

A Meta-Analysis of Unrelated Donor Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation versus Unrelated Donor Bone Marrow Transplantation in Acute Leukemia Patients

期刊

BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 1164-1173

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.01.015

关键词

Cord blood transplantation; Bone marrow transplantation; Unrelated donor; Acute leukemia; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Umbilical cord blood has emerged as an alternative stem cell source to bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells. Umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) is also potentially curative for acute leukemia. However, the effect of unrelated donor bone marrow transplantation (UBMT) and UCBT on the outcome of patients with acute leukemia has not been systematically reviewed. In the present meta-analysis, we systematically searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CNKI up to May 2011. Two reviewers extracted data independently. Seven studies totaling 3389 patients have been assessed. Pooled results found that the incidence of engraftment failure and transplantation-related mortality were higher in UCBT than in UBMT, and relative risks (RRs) were 4.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.94-6.21) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.01-1.59), respectively. The rates of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in the UCBT group were significantly lower than that in the UBMT group, and RRs were 0.71(95% CI, 0.65-0.79) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.52-0.91), respectively. The relapse rate was similar between the UCBT and UBMT group. The leukemia-free survival (LFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly lower in the UCBT group than in the UBMT group; RRs were 1.14 (95% CI, 1.07-1.22) and hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.31 (95% CI, 1.16-1.48), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the survival was similar between UCBT and UBMT. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 18: 1164-1173 (2012) (C) 2012 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