4.7 Article

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation provides durable disease control in poor-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia: long-term clinical and MRD results of the German CLL Study Group CLL3X trial

期刊

BLOOD
卷 116, 期 14, 页码 2438-2447

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-03-275420

关键词

-

资金

  1. Roche
  2. Novartis
  3. Bayer
  4. Amgen
  5. Celgene
  6. Glaxo Smith-Kline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this prospective multicenter phase 2 trial was to investigate the long-term outcome of reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) in patients with poor-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Conditioning was fludarabine/cyclophosphamide-based. Longitudinal quantitative monitoring of minimal residual disease (MRD) was performed centrally by MRD-flow or real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. One hundred eligible patients were enrolled, and 90 patients proceeded to alloSCT. With a median follow-up of 46 months (7-102 months), 4-year nonrelapse mortality, event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 23%, 42%, and 65%, respectively. Of 52 patients with MRD monitoring available, 27 (52%) were alive and MRD negative at 12 months after transplant. Four-year EFS of this subset was 89% with all event-free patients except for 2 being MRD negative at the most recent assessment. EFS was similar for all genetic subsets, including 17p deletion (17p-). In multivariate analyses, uncontrolled disease at alloSCT and in vivo T-cell depletion with alemtuzumab, but not 17p-, previous purine analogue refractoriness, or donor source (human leukocyte antigen-identical siblings or unrelated donors) had an adverse impact on EFS and OS. In conclusion, alloSCT for poor-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia can result in long-term MRD-negative survival in up to one-half of the patients independent of the underlying genomic risk profile. This trial is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00281983. (Blood. 2010;116(14):2438-2447)

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