在首次完全缓解的急性髓性白血病患者中,与使用双单位脐带血相比,使用不匹配的非亲属捐献者进行移植并在移植后使用环磷酰胺预防移植物抗宿主病,可获得更高的存活率:欧洲血液和骨髓移植学会急性白血病工作组的一项研究

IF 10.1 1区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
Frédéric Baron, Myriam Labopin, Jurjen Versluis, Jan Vydra, Peter A. von dem Borne, Emma Nicholson, Didier Blaise, Rachel Protheroe, Alexander Kulagin, Claude Eric Bulabois, Montserrat Rovira, Patrice Chevallier, Edouard Forcade, Jenny Byrne, Jaime Sanz, Annalisa Ruggeri, Mohamad Mohty, Fabio Ciceri
{"title":"在首次完全缓解的急性髓性白血病患者中,与使用双单位脐带血相比,使用不匹配的非亲属捐献者进行移植并在移植后使用环磷酰胺预防移植物抗宿主病,可获得更高的存活率:欧洲血液和骨髓移植学会急性白血病工作组的一项研究","authors":"Frédéric Baron, Myriam Labopin, Jurjen Versluis, Jan Vydra, Peter A. von dem Borne, Emma Nicholson, Didier Blaise, Rachel Protheroe, Alexander Kulagin, Claude Eric Bulabois, Montserrat Rovira, Patrice Chevallier, Edouard Forcade, Jenny Byrne, Jaime Sanz, Annalisa Ruggeri, Mohamad Mohty, Fabio Ciceri","doi":"10.1002/ajh.27466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The best donor option for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients lacking an HLA-matched donor has remained intensively debated. We herein report the results of a large retrospective registry study comparing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) outcomes between double-unit umbilical cord blood transplantation (dCBT, <i>n</i> = 209) versus 9/10 HLA-matched unrelated donor (UD) with posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis (UD 9/10, <i>n</i> = 270) in patients with AML in first complete remission (CR1). Inclusion criteria consisted of adult patient, AML in CR1 at transplantation, either peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) from UD 9/10 with PTCy as GVHD prophylaxis or dCBT without PTCy, transplantation between 2013 and 2021, and no in vivo T-cell depletion. The 180-day cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was 29% in UD 9/10 versus 44% in dCBT recipients (<i>p</i> = .001). After adjustment for covariates, dCBT recipients had a higher non-relapse mortality (HR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.23–4.48; <i>p</i> = .01), comparable relapse incidence (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.67–1.86; <i>p</i> = .66), lower leukemia-free survival (HR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.01–2.23; <i>p</i> = .047), and lower overall survival (HR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.08–2.55; <i>p</i> = .02) compared with patients receiving UD 9/10 HCT. In summary, our results suggest that transplantation outcomes are better with UD 9/10 with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis than with dCBT for AML patients in CR1. These data might support the use of UD 9/10 with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis over dCBT in AML patients lacking an HLA-matched donor.","PeriodicalId":7724,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hematology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Higher survival following transplantation with a mismatched unrelated donor with posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis than with double unit umbilical cord blood in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission: A study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation\",\"authors\":\"Frédéric Baron, Myriam Labopin, Jurjen Versluis, Jan Vydra, Peter A. von dem Borne, Emma Nicholson, Didier Blaise, Rachel Protheroe, Alexander Kulagin, Claude Eric Bulabois, Montserrat Rovira, Patrice Chevallier, Edouard Forcade, Jenny Byrne, Jaime Sanz, Annalisa Ruggeri, Mohamad Mohty, Fabio Ciceri\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ajh.27466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The best donor option for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients lacking an HLA-matched donor has remained intensively debated. We herein report the results of a large retrospective registry study comparing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) outcomes between double-unit umbilical cord blood transplantation (dCBT, <i>n</i> = 209) versus 9/10 HLA-matched unrelated donor (UD) with posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis (UD 9/10, <i>n</i> = 270) in patients with AML in first complete remission (CR1). Inclusion criteria consisted of adult patient, AML in CR1 at transplantation, either peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) from UD 9/10 with PTCy as GVHD prophylaxis or dCBT without PTCy, transplantation between 2013 and 2021, and no in vivo T-cell depletion. The 180-day cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was 29% in UD 9/10 versus 44% in dCBT recipients (<i>p</i> = .001). After adjustment for covariates, dCBT recipients had a higher non-relapse mortality (HR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.23–4.48; <i>p</i> = .01), comparable relapse incidence (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.67–1.86; <i>p</i> = .66), lower leukemia-free survival (HR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.01–2.23; <i>p</i> = .047), and lower overall survival (HR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.08–2.55; <i>p</i> = .02) compared with patients receiving UD 9/10 HCT. In summary, our results suggest that transplantation outcomes are better with UD 9/10 with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis than with dCBT for AML patients in CR1. These data might support the use of UD 9/10 with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis over dCBT in AML patients lacking an HLA-matched donor.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Hematology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Hematology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.27466\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.27466","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于缺乏 HLA 匹配供体的急性髓性白血病(AML)患者的最佳供体选择一直存在激烈的争论。我们在此报告一项大型回顾性登记研究的结果,该研究比较了首次完全缓解(CR1)的急性髓性白血病患者接受双单位脐带血移植(dCBT,n = 209)与移植后使用环磷酰胺(PTCy)预防移植物抗宿主病(GVHD)的9/10 HLA匹配非亲属供体(UD)(UD 9/10,n = 270)的造血细胞移植(HCT)结果。纳入标准包括成年患者、移植时为CR1的急性髓细胞性白血病患者、UD 9/10的外周血干细胞(PBSC)与作为GVHD预防措施的PTCy或不含PTCy的dCBT、移植时间在2013年至2021年之间、体内无T细胞耗竭。UD 9/10的II-IV级急性GVHD 180天累积发生率为29%,而dCBT受者为44%(p = .001)。调整协变量后,dCBT 受者的非复发死亡率更高(HR = 2.35,95% CI:1.23-4.48;p = .01),复发率相当(HR = 1.12,95% CI:0.67-1.86;p = .66),与接受 UD 9/10 HCT 的患者相比,无白血病生存率较低(HR = 1.5,95% CI:1.01-2.23;p = .047),总生存率较低(HR = 1.66,95% CI:1.08-2.55;p = .02)。总之,我们的研究结果表明,对于CR1的急性髓细胞白血病患者,接受UD 9/10和基于PTCy的GVHD预防治疗比接受dCBT的移植效果更好。这些数据可能支持在缺乏 HLA 匹配供体的急性髓细胞性白血病患者中使用 UD 9/10 和基于 PTCy 的 GVHD 预防疗法,而不是 dCBT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Higher survival following transplantation with a mismatched unrelated donor with posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis than with double unit umbilical cord blood in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission: A study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation
The best donor option for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients lacking an HLA-matched donor has remained intensively debated. We herein report the results of a large retrospective registry study comparing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) outcomes between double-unit umbilical cord blood transplantation (dCBT, n = 209) versus 9/10 HLA-matched unrelated donor (UD) with posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis (UD 9/10, n = 270) in patients with AML in first complete remission (CR1). Inclusion criteria consisted of adult patient, AML in CR1 at transplantation, either peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) from UD 9/10 with PTCy as GVHD prophylaxis or dCBT without PTCy, transplantation between 2013 and 2021, and no in vivo T-cell depletion. The 180-day cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was 29% in UD 9/10 versus 44% in dCBT recipients (p = .001). After adjustment for covariates, dCBT recipients had a higher non-relapse mortality (HR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.23–4.48; p = .01), comparable relapse incidence (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.67–1.86; p = .66), lower leukemia-free survival (HR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.01–2.23; p = .047), and lower overall survival (HR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.08–2.55; p = .02) compared with patients receiving UD 9/10 HCT. In summary, our results suggest that transplantation outcomes are better with UD 9/10 with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis than with dCBT for AML patients in CR1. These data might support the use of UD 9/10 with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis over dCBT in AML patients lacking an HLA-matched donor.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
363
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Hematology offers extensive coverage of experimental and clinical aspects of blood diseases in humans and animal models. The journal publishes original contributions in both non-malignant and malignant hematological diseases, encompassing clinical and basic studies in areas such as hemostasis, thrombosis, immunology, blood banking, and stem cell biology. Clinical translational reports highlighting innovative therapeutic approaches for the diagnosis and treatment of hematological diseases are actively encouraged.The American Journal of Hematology features regular original laboratory and clinical research articles, brief research reports, critical reviews, images in hematology, as well as letters and correspondence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信