4.6 Article

Matched unrelated donor stem cell transplant in 131 patients with follicular lymphoma: an analysis from the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 147, Issue 5, Pages 719-728

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07905.x

Keywords

matched unrelated donor transplant; conditioning regimen; follicular lymphoma

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G0600698B] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Matched unrelated donor stem cell transplantation (MUD-SCT) provides the only curative option for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who fail conventional therapies and do not have a sibling donor. The purpose of this study was to analyse the outcome of patients with FL treated with MUD-SCT included in the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry. 131 patients treated with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC, n = 87) or conventional myeloablative (CONV, n = 44) MUD-SCT between 2000 and 2005 were included. Median time from diagnosis to MUD-SCT was 47 months and the median number of previous therapeutic regimens was 4 (previous autograft: 47%). RIC recipients were significantly older, with a longer interval from diagnosis to MUD-SCT and had failed a previous autograft more frequently than CONV recipients. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 24% and 30% at 100-d and 1-year, respectively. After a median follow-up of 36 months, 17% of the patients developed disease progression, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) being 47%. Three-year overall survival (OS) for the whole series was 51%. On multivariate analysis, RIC regimens were associated with at lower NRM and a significantly longer PFS and OS. This retrospective study demonstrated that MUD-SCT results, even in heavily pre-treated populations, in a meaningful PFS and OS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available