4.2 Article

Increased survival due to lower toxicity for high-risk T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients in two consecutive pediatric-inspired PETHEMA trials

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 79-86

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13178

关键词

acute lymphoblastic leukemia; pediatric-inspired; T-cell ALL

资金

  1. Generalitat de Catalunya [2017 SGR288 (GRC)]
  2. CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya
  3. Fundacio Internacional Josep Carreras
  4. la Caixa Foundation
  5. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias [PI14/01971]
  6. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FIS16/01433]
  7. PERIS 2018-2020 from Generalitat de Catalunya [BDNS357800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective and methods Pediatric-inspired regimens have been adopted by several groups as the treatment strategy for adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Whether subsequent modifications of these protocols have led to an improvement in the outcome of patients is uncertain, especially in T-cell ALL. We analyzed 169 patients with high-risk T-cell ALL included in two consecutive trials of the PETHEMA Group (HR-ALL03 [n = 104] and the more contemporary HR-ALL11 [n = 65]). Results Patients and disease characteristics were balanced between both groups. Regarding efficacy, we observed a similar complete remission (CR) rate, relapse and disease-free survival (DFS) between both protocols. Patients included in the HR-ALL11 trial had better 2-year overall survival (OS) compared with the HR-ALL03 (65% [95% CI 51%-79%] vs 44% [95% CI 34%-54%], P = 0.026). Regarding toxicity, we observed a better safety profile in the HR-11 protocol. Irrespective of the protocol, patients with good measurable residual disease (MRD) clearance had a promising outcome without allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) in CR1, with 2-year OS of 67%. Conclusion Patients with T-cell ALL included in the HR-11 trial showed better OS than patients in the HR-03, mostly driven by a reduction of NRM.

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