4.7 Article

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: results of European intergroup randomized trial comparing autografting versus observation

期刊

BLOOD
卷 117, 期 5, 页码 1516-1521

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-09-308775

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC [G0001160, MC_U137686856] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U137686856, G0001160] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G0001160, MC_U137686856] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present results of a phase 3 randomized trial of autografting in chronic lymphocytic leukemia versus observation for responding patients after first-or second-line treatment. The primary objective was to demonstrate that autografting improves the 5-year event-free survival (EFS) from 30% to 50%. There were 223 enrolled patients, 72% men and 28% women, 83% after first and 17% after second-line treatment. Binet stages were progressive A 13%, B 67%, C 20%; at randomization, 59% were in complete remission, and 41% in less than complete remission. Patients were randomized between autografting (n = 112) and observation (n = 111). Median EFS was 24.4 months (range, 16.7-32 months) in the observation group and 51.2 months (39.8-62.5 months) in the autografting group; the 5-year EFS was 24% and 42%, respectively (P < .001). Accordingly, the 5-year relapse incidence was 76% versus 54% (P < .001). Median time to relapse requiring therapy or death was 40 months (25-56 months) in the observation arm and 65 months (59-71 months) after autografting (P = .002). Cox modeling confirmed that autografting significantly improved EFS (hazard ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.65; P < .001). At 5 years, the probability of OS was 85.5% and 84.3% for autografting and observation, respectively (P = .77). In chronic lymphocytic leukemia, consolidating autografting reduces the risk of progression by more than 50% but has no effect on overall survival. (Blood. 2011; 117(5):1516-1521)

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