4.7 Article

Conditioning regimens for allotransplants for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: myeloablative or reduced intensity?

期刊

BLOOD
卷 120, 期 20, 页码 4256-4262

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-06-436725

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [5U01HL069294]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
  3. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [U24-CA76518]
  4. NHLBI
  5. Health Resources and Services Administration [HHSH234200637015C]
  6. Office of Naval Research [N00014-06-1-0704, N00014-08-1-0058]
  7. Allos Inc
  8. Amgen Inc
  9. Angioblast

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The best conditioning regimen before allogeneic transplantation for high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains to be clarified. We analyzed data from 396 recipients of allotransplants for DLBCL receiving myeloablative (MAC; n = 165), reduced intensity (RIC; n = 143), or nonmyeloablative conditioning (NMAC; n = 88) regimens. Acute and chronic GVHD rates were similar across the groups. Five-year nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was higher in MAC than RIC and NMAC (56% vs 47% vs 36%; P = .007). Five-year relapse/progression was lower in MAC than in RIC/NMAC (26% vs 38% vs 40%; P = .031). Five-year progression-free survival (15%-25%) and overall survival (18%-26%) did not differ significantly between the cohorts. In multivariate analysis, NMAC and more recent transplant year were associated with lower NRM, whereas a lower Karnofsky performance score (< 90), prior relapse resistant to therapy, and use of unrelated donors were associated with higher NRM. NMAC transplants, no prior use of rituximab, and prior relapse resistant to therapy were associated with a greater risk of relapse/progression. In conclusion, allotransplantation with RIC or NMAC induces long-term progressionfree survival in selected DLBCL patients with a lower risk of NRM but with higher risk of lymphoma progression or relapse. (Blood. 2012; 120(20): 4256-4262)

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