GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 3142-3142
    Abstract: Background: There is lack of consensus in regards to the optimal regimen for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in patients undergoing HLA-mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) allografting. A regimen combining tacrolimus plus sirolimus (TAC-SIR) has been shown to be effective as GVHD prophylaxis in HLA-matched related (MRD) or matched-unrelated donor (MUD) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Addition of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) has been shown to reduce incidence of acute GVHD but it is associated with a high rate of infectious complications. Here, we retrospectively compare post-transplant outcomes using TAC-SIR or TAC-SIR-ATG in 104 patients who underwent a MMUD allogeneic HCT between June 2008 and December 2014 at 5 Spanish and 1 transplant center (MCC) in the United States. Patients and methods: Forty-three (MCC=5, Spanish Centers=38) patients received TAC-SIR whereas 61(MCC=41, Spanish Centers=20) received TAC-SIR-ATG as GVHD prophylaxis for MMUD allogeneic HCT. Patient-, disease-, and transplant characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Results: The median follow-up (months) for all, TAC-SIR, and TAC-SIR-ATG patients were 29 (5-83), 27 (5-64), and 30 (6-83) months, respectively. Patients receiving TAC-SIR had faster platelets (12 vs. 15 days, p=0.005) but slightly slower neutrophil engraftment (16 vs. 15 days, p=0.037). Addition of ATG resulted in a lower incidence of acute GVHD (grade 2-4) (44% (95%CI=33-59%) vs. 67% (95%CI=55-83%), p=0.055) and over two-fold lower incidence, albeit not statistically significant, of moderate/severe chronic GVHD (17% (95%CI=10-30%) vs. 38% (95%CI=25-60%), p=0.086). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) (2-year) was two-fold higher, but not statistically significant, in the TAC-SIR-ATG group (TAC-SIR-ATG=35% (95%CI=24-50%) vs. TAC-SIR=17% (95%CI=10-35%), p=0.078) mainly attributable to a 3-fold higher number of non-relapse deaths attributed to infections (9 vs. 3). There was no difference in cumulative incidence of relapse (2-year) (TAC-SIR=28% (95%CI=17-46%) vs. TAC-SIR-ATG=26% (95%CI=17-41%), p=0.858) or in 2-year OS (TAC-SIR=56% (95%CI=40-72%) vs. TAC-SIR-ATG=47% (95%CI=34-60%), p=0.244) between the groups. These and other outcomes are summarized in Table 2. Conclusion: In MMUD allogeneic HCT, addition of ATG to TAC-SIR results in a lower incidence of grade 2-4 acute GVHD but does not improve OS. The two-fold higher 2-year NRM with addition of ATG is probably explained by a higher incidence of resulting infectious complications with in vivo T-cell depletion. While these results are intriguing, a prospective randomized study is certainly needed to confirm these findings.Table 1.Patient-, disease-, and transplant-related characteristics.VariablesCategoriesTAC-SIRTAC-SIR-ATGMCC (N=5)Spanish Centers (N=38)MCC (N=41)Spanish Centers (N=20)Median age (range), years53 (25-64)51 (17-69)52 (24-67)55 (30-68)Gender mismatch(Donor→recipient)F→M F→F M→M,F Missing1 1 3 07 5 25 110 13 18 02 0 10 8 HLA-mismatchA B C DRB1 Missing1 1 3 0 010 14 8 6 024 13 4 0 08 3 3 5 1DiagnosesALL AML CLL CML HL MDS MF MM NHL Other1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 03 10 3 1 3 7 1 1 10 04 18 3 2 1 5 1 0 7 01 6 1 0 1 3 0 1 5 2Preparative regimenFLU-BU FLU-MEL3 218 2035 611 7CIBMTR riskNone Low Intermediate High0 2 1 20 24 2 121 13 15 120 18 2 0Cell sourceBM PBSC0 58 300 411 19Median CD34 cells (range) x106/recipient Kg body weight7.99 (4.08-10.0)6 (1.2-11.0)8.57 (2.81-23.01)6.08 (0.67-9.5)Recipient/donor CMV serologic status+/+ +/- -/- -/+ Missing1 2 2 0 018 16 2 2 018 14 7 2 07 6 0 0 7 Table 2. Post-transplant outcomes. Outcomes TAC-SIR TAC-SIR-ATG P-value Median days (range) to ANC 〉 500/µL 16 (10-29) 15 (9-24) 0.037 Median days (range) to platelets engraftment 12 (6-26) 15 (0-50) 0.005 Cum incidence acute GVHD (grade 2-4) (at 100 day) 67% (55-83%) 44% (33-59%) 0.055 Cum incidence acute GVHD (grade 3-4) (at 100-day) 16% (8-32%) 10% (5-21%) 0.347 Chronic moderate or severe (at 2-year) 38% (25-60%) 17% (10-30%) 0.086 Cum incidence of NRM (at 100-day) 12% (5-27%) 13% (7-25%) 0.078 Cum incidence of NRM(2-year) 17% (10-35%) 35% (24-50%) 0.078 Cum Incidence of relapse (2-year) 28% (17-46%) 26% (17-41%) 0.858 EFS (2-year) 54% (38-69%) 38% (26-52%) 0.191 OS (2-year) 56% (40-72%) 47% (34-60%) 0.244 Disclosures Off Label Use: Sirolimus for GVHD prophylaxis. Perkins:PDL Biopharma: Research Funding. Falantes:Celgene: Honoraria. Valcárcel:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Elsevier BV, Vol. 22, No. 10 ( 2016-10), p. 1808-1815
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1083-8791
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 3056525-X
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2057605-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 2007-2007
    Abstract: Background: While many studies have attempted to compare different GVHD prophylaxis within the reduced intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplant setting (RIC SCT), few studies have been performed comparing different conditioning regimens. Due to the lack of evidence on the best RIC, the selection of the conditioning regimen is mainly based on the experience from each institution. In this study, we compared the outcomes of patients undergoing RIC SCT in 2 different settings: the Spanish Group of Transplantation (GETH), where fludarabine + melphalan (FluMel) has been the standard RIC in patients with lymphoid malignancies and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital (DFCI/BWH), where fludarabine + busulphan (FluBu) is the standard RIC. Patients and methods: We analyzed the outcomes of 136 patients diagnosed with lymphoma undergoing RIC with either FluBu (n=61) or FluMel (n=75) in the GETH or at DFCI/BWH between 2007 and 2014. Patient characteristics are shown in table 1. The following variables were included into the multivariable analysis: type of conditioning, GVHD prophylaxis, type of donor, age, previous transplant, and disease risk index (DRI) based on diagnosis and disease status at transplant. Median follow-up was 36 months. Results: The cumulative incidence of grades 2-4 acute GVHD was 13% vs 36% among patients receiving FluBu vs FluMel, respectively (p=0.002). In multivariable analysis only the type of conditioning significantly influenced the risk of grades 2-4 aGVHD [HR with FluMel 7.35, (95% CI= 2.27-23.8), p=0.0008]. The cumulative risk of non-relapse mortality at 1 year was 3.3% vs 31% for FluBu vs FluMel, respectively (p 〈 0.001). In multivariable analysis again only type of conditioning significantly influenced the risk of NRM [HR with FluMel 5.61, (95% CI= 1.57-20.03), p=0.007]. The 1y cumulative incidence of relapse was 29% with FluBu vs 10% with FluMel (p=0.08). In multivariable analysis, only prior transplantation and donor type were associated with the risk of relapse. The 3-year disease-free survival in patients receiving FluBu was 55%, vs 40% for those receiving FluMel (p=0.24). Only donor type was significant in the DFS in multivariable models. Finally, the 3y OS in the BuFlu group was 72% vs 50% for those receiving FluMel (p=0.01) (fig 1). Conditioning regimen was the only factor significantly associated with OS in multivariable analysis, HR with FluMel 2.87, (95% CI= 1.28-6.43), p=0.01] . Conclusion: In this retrospective study of patients who received a RIC SCT for lymphoma, the use of FluBu as compared to FluMel was associated with a significant decrease in non-relapse mortality and an improvement in overall survival. Acknowledging the limitations associated a retrospective study, but in the absence of prospective randomized data, our results lend support to the choice of FluBu as a conditioning regimen in this setting. Table 1. N= 136 Flu-Bu (n= 61) Flu-Mel (n= 75) P Sex (male) 41 (67.2%) 49 (65.3%) 0.081 Age 42 (SD: 12.3) 48.2 (SD: 12.3) 0.073 Diagnosis:- Hodgkin- NHL 9 (14.8%) 52 (85.2%) 26 (34.7%) 49 (65.3%) 0.008 Type of donor:- Related- Unrelated 25 (41.0%) 36 (59.0%) 36 (48.0%) 39 (52.0%) 0.413 Source of stem cells:-BM-PB -- 61 (100%) 2 (2.7%) 73 (97.3%) 0.502 Dis status at trx:- CR- PR or active dis 31 (50.8%) 30 (49.2%) 38 (50.7%) 37 (49.3%) 0.986 GVHD prophylaxis:- CNI-MTX- SIRO-TKR 42 (68.9%) 19 (31.1%) 34 (45.3%) 41 (54.7%) 0.006 Cause of death:- GvHD- Infection- Relapse- Others 3 (15.8%) 2 (10.5%) 12 (63.2%) 2 (10.5%) 11 (28.9%) 8 (21.1%) 10 (26.3%) 9 (23.7%) 0.114 Figure 1. Figure 1. OVERALL SURVIVAL: Disclosures Antin: Gentium SpA/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Armand:BMS: Research Funding; Sequenta, Inc.: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, Research Funding.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 118, No. 21 ( 2011-11-18), p. 3056-3056
    Abstract: Abstract 3056 Background: Disease relapse is the most frequent cause of treatment failure following allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), and carries a very poor prognosis. A second allo-HCT may be the only curative option for the majority of these patients. Patient and transplant factors that may associate with the outcome of a second allo-HCT are required for clinical-decision making in such high-risk patients. Aims and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients receiving a second allo-HCT for disease relapse after a prior allo-HCT reported by GETH centres. Our aim is to analyze our experience in this setting, and to identify factors associated with patient outcome. Results: We present data on 189 patients who underwent a second allo-HCT for disease relapse in Spain up to December 2010 (median year 2004), with a median follow-up for survivors of 54 months (3–224): median age 35 years (range 4–69); 113 male (60%); initial diagnosis AML 77, ALL 45, MDS/MPD 28, CML 23, lymphoprolipherative disorder 12, and others 4. Seventy-five (40%) received myeloablative conditioning. Donors for second allo-HCT were related in 158 cases (84%), and in 33 cases (17%) were new donors different from the donors in the previous allo-HCT. Only 23 cases (12%) had T-cell depletion. Median time from the first to the second allo-HCT was 19 months (1–151). The cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality was 37%. Median overall survival (OS) was 297 days, with an OS at 1, 3 and 5 years of 39%, 28% and 25%, respectively. Type of donor (related versus unrelated and new donor versus same donor) and type of conditioning (myeloablative versus non-myeloablative) had no association with patient outcome. However, OS was significantly poorer in patients who underwent second allo-HCT in active relapse or progression than in those with low disease burden (complete response, good partial response, or chronic phase; 29% vs 52% at 1 year, 21% vs 39% at 3 years, 17% vs 35% at 3 years, respectively; p=0.001). Also, patients with early relapse after the first allo-HCT who underwent a second allo-HCT 〈 1 year after first HCT also had a poorer OS than those with a later relapse and second allo-HCT (13% vs 53% at 1 year, 7% vs 40% at 3 years, and 5% vs 35% at 5 years, respectively; p 〈 0.001). The impact of these two clinical factors in the outcome remained independent in the multivariate analysis (disease status at second allo-HCT: HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2–2.6, p=0.002; time to second allo-HCT: HR 3.2, 95% CI 2.2–4.6, p 〈 0.001). Time to second allo-HCT and disease status also have an independent association with the probability of progression free survival in this series (p 〈 0.001 and p =0.001, respectively). In fact, while patients with late relapse who received a second allo-HCT in good response had a very encouraging probability of OS of 49% at 5 years, patients who had an early relapse and required a second allo-HCT in less than 1 year from their first allo-HCT and also had active disease at the time of second allo-HCT had very poor OS of only 8% at 1 year and no one survived beyond 3 years after the second allo-HCT. Conclusions: 25% of patients who relapse after an allo-HCT can achieve long-term survival of 5 or more years following a second allo-HCT. Donor type does not appear to influence the outcome. On the contrary, our data suggest that disease status at HCT and time to relapse between first and second HCT are two significant prognostic factors with independent impact on patient outcome. The indication of a second allo-HCT in this context should be thoroughly discussed for individual cases, in particular for patients with early relapse and refractory disease arriving to second allo-HCT, for whom the probability of prolonged survival is extremely low. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2011
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Elsevier BV, Vol. 22, No. 3 ( 2016-03), p. 584-588
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1083-8791
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 3056525-X
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2057605-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: Experimental Hematology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 31, No. 6 ( 2003-06), p. 545-550
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0301-472X
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2003
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005403-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Elsevier BV, Vol. 24, No. 5 ( 2018-05), p. 964-972
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1083-8791
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 3056525-X
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2057605-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 112, No. 11 ( 2008-11-16), p. 969-969
    Abstract: Background: Adults with high risk ALL features at diagnosis, slow responders or with recurrent disease have a poor outcome with standard chemotherapy and are considered for unrelated transplants in most centers if a matched sibling donor is not available. Unrelated cord blood (UCB) has emerged as an option for unrelated transplant in adult patients. Aim of the study: to compare the outcome of adult patients with unrelated transplant for poor prognosis ALL based on the hematopoietic source used for transplant. Patients and Methods: One hundred and forty- nine adult patients (median 29 years [15–59], 90M/59F) with poor prognosis ALL received an unrelated transplant in 13 Spanish institutions from 2000 to 2007. Patients in 1st CR at transplant met at least one adverse prognostic factor (adverse cytogenetics, hyperleukocytosis or a slow-responder). ALL was of precursor B lineage in 111 (74%), T-cell lineage in 28 (19%) and undetermined lineage in 10 (7%) patients. ALL was in 1st CR in 81 (54%) patients, in 2nd CR in 37 (25%), in 3rd CR in 11 (7%) and overt disease in 20 (13 %) patients. Both groups were comparable for the main clinical and biologic ALL features except for patients with more overt disease in UCB transplant group. Conditioning therapy consisted on TBI-CY in 68 (46%), BU-CY in 9 (6%), Thiotepa- BU-CY/FLU in 60 (40%) patients (all of them UCB transplants) and other regimens in 12 (8%) patients (6 of them were non-myeloablative). The source of hematopoietic progenitors was UCB in 62 (41%), mobilized PB in 41 (28%) and BM in 46 (31%) patients. HLA compatibility requirements for selecting unrelated donors (BM and mobilized PB) were 7–8 out of 8 allelic identities, and for UCB were 4–6 out of 6 A / B antigenic and DR allelic identities. Results: Acute GVHD was most frequent after PBSCT and BMT thanin UCBT. There was no significant difference for limited and extensive chronic GVHD between UCBT and PBSCT/BMT. The median follow-up was 16 months (0.3–101.4). DFS estimated at 5 years for patients transplanted with any source was not significantly better in transplants in 1st CR versus 2nd CR or more advanced disease (median 12 [2–22] vs 5 [2–9] , p=0.106). There was no statistical difference in OS or DFS at 5 years between UCB and PBSCT/BMT). TRM was significantly lower in UCB transplants (p=0.021). The relapse probability was 17% for the PBSCT/BMT versus 29% for UCBT (p=0.088). The use of TBI as conditioning therapy was not associated with a lower relapse rate. 5y-OS (95%CI) Median OS (month, 95%CI) 5y-DFS (95%CI) Median DFS (month, 95%CI) 5y-TRM (95%CI) *p=0.021 Whole series 26% (17–35) 10 (4–17) 21% (13–29) 7 (3–11) 54% (44–64) PBSCT/BMT 22% (11–33) 9 (2–17) 21% (11–31) 5 (2–9) 63% (50–76)* UCBT 33% (18–48) 15 (7–22) 22% (8–36) 9 (1–17) 39% (25–53)* 1st CR ALL 30% (16–44) 12 (0–29) 24% (11–37) 12 (2–22) 57% (43–71) PBSCT/BMT 27% (9–45) 27 (2–51) 24% (8–40) 12 (2–22) 63% (44–82) UCBT 35% (14–56) 10 (0–23) 24% (4–44) 10 (0–26) 50% (31–69) GVHD was the main cause of death for unrelated PBSCT/BMT in contrast with infection and relapse for UCBT (p=0.001). Conclusions: UCB transplant and unrelated PBSCT/ BMT are equivalent options for poor prognosis adult ALL patients without a sibling donor. However, all modalities are associated with high transplant related mortality.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2008
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...