4.5 Article

Factors affecting mortality following myeloablative cord blood transplantation in adults: a pooled analysis of three international registries

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 70-76

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2010.83

关键词

4cord blood transplantation; registry; leukemia; mortality

资金

  1. Gamida-Teva JV
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U24CA076518, R01CA061508] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A retrospective analysis was conducted to examine factors affecting early mortality after myeloablative, single-unit cord blood transplantation (CBT) for hematological malignancies in adolescents and adults. Data were collected from the three main CBT registries pooling 514 records of unrelated, single, unmanipulated, first myeloablative allogeneic CBTs conducted in North America or Europe from 1995 to 2005, with an HLA match >= 4/6 loci, in patients aged 12-55. Overall 100-day, 180-day and 1-year survival (Kaplan-Meier method) were 56, 46 and 37%, respectively, with no significant heterogeneity across registries. Multivariate analysis showed cell dose <2.5 x 10(7)/kg (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, P<0.0001), older age (P = 0.002), advanced disease (P = 0.02), positive CMV sero-status (OR 1.37 P = 0.11), female gender (OR 1.43, P = 0.07) and limited CBT center experience (<10 records contributed, OR 2.08, P = 0.0003) to be associated with higher 100-day mortality. A multivariate model predictive of 1-year mortality included similar prognostic factors except female gender. Transplant year did not appear as a significant independent predictor. This is the first analysis to pool records from three major CBT registries in the United States and Europe. In spite of some differences in practice patterns, survival was remarkably homogeneous. The resulting model may contribute to better understanding factors affecting CBT outcomes. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2011) 46, 70-76; doi:10.1038/bmt.2010.83; published online 3 May 2010

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

4.5
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