4.5 Article

Reduced-intensity vs myeloablative conditioning allogeneic hematopoietic SCT for patients aged over 45 years with ALL in remission: a study from the Adult ALL Working Group of the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (JSHCT)

Journal

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 48, Issue 11, Pages 1389-1394

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2013.68

Keywords

ALL; reduced-intensity conditioning; myeloablative conditioning; allogeneic hematopoietic SCT

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
  2. Japanese Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25461443] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, outcomes for 575 adult ALL patients aged >= 45 years who underwent first allo-SCT in CR were analyzed according to the type of conditioning regimen (myeloablative conditioning (MAC) for 369 patients vs reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) for 206 patients). Patients in the RIC group were older (median age, 58 vs 51 years, P<0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in 3-year OS, disease-free survival (DFS) and non-relapse mortality (NRM): 51% vs 53%, 47% vs 39% and 38% vs 36%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that CR2 and HLA mismatching were associated with poor OS (P = 0.002 and P = 0.019, respectively). HLA mismatching was associated with lower rate of relapse (P = 0.016), but was associated with higher rate of NRM (P = 0.001). RIC was associated with good OS and DFS in patients who received HLA-mismatch transplantation and were aged >= 55 years compared with MAC by multivariate analysis for each event with interaction (hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval 0.35 and 0.15-0.81, P = 0.014 for OS and 0.36 and 0.16-0.81, P = 0.013 for DFS). Therefore, patients >= 55 years of age with HLA-mismatch transplantation should be candidates for RIC rather than MAC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available