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. 122, No. 21 ( 2013-11-15), p. 2117-2117
    Abstract: Umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) is often complicated by delayed engraftment and higher rates of engraftment failure. We sought to investigate the outcomes of patients undergoing UCBT2 after engraftment failure compared to those who had autologous hematopoietic recovery and did not receive UCBT2. Methods We reviewed the medical records of 186 patients who received UCBT between 2001 and 2011 at the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center [Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center and Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic]. Standard definitions of engraftment were used. Patients who died or had progressive disease before day 30 were excluded (n=9), as they were considered inevaluable for engraftment. Results Twenty-seven patients (15%) had primary engraftment failure; twelve had autologous hematopoietic recovery and 15 presented no recovery (Table). The median total nucleated cell dose for the first UCBT was 2.56x107 cells/kg (range 1.23 x107 - 5.69x107), not statistically different from patients achieving engraftment (p = 0.29). The cause of engraftment failure could not be identified in 22 patients. Among patients with engraftment failure without autologous recovery, 2 patients did not receive further salvage and died at 40 and 48 days after first UCBT; 2 others received backup autologous hematopoietic cell infusions and 11 received UCBT2. In patients with autologous hematopoietic recovery, 8 did not receive a UCBT2 because disease remission had been attained (n=4), active infection (n=1), relapsed disease beyond 40 days after UCBT (n=1) or absence of compatible donor (n=1). Fifteen patients (engraftment failure [n=11]); autologous recovery, [n=4] ) underwent UCBT2, at a median of 43 days (range 33-244) from first to second UCBT. All patients received non–myeloablative second conditioning regimens. Four patients received one UCB unit and 11 received two units. Neutrophil engraftment after UCBT2 was observed in 10 of 15 patients at a median of 30 days (range, 13-35). The median survival for the entire cohort was 272 days (range 40–2130); one year overall survival was 36%. Engraftment and overall survival were not statistically different between those receiving 1 or 2 UCB units for UCBT2. Overall survival was not statistically different between patients who underwent UCBT2 and those who had autologous recovery or backup autologous infusions without further salvage. The proportion of patients in remission was similar in the 2 subgroups (UCBT2, 53%; autologous recovery, 50%). Relapse occurred in 2/15 patients who underwent UCBT2 and 8/10 patients who had autologous recovery or backup infusions. Forty months after transplantation, the cumulative incidence of relapse was 92% after autologous recovery vs. 50% after UCBT2 (Figure). Non–relapse mortality after UCBT2 was 73%. Conclusion Engraftment failure after UCBT frequently has no identifiable cause, and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. UCBT2 is feasible and can result in engraftment in the majority of patients, but is limited by patient condition after transplant as well as the availability of compatible grafts. UCBT2 is associated with significantly better disease control than continued autologous hematopoiesis, but additional efforts are necessary to reduce the high risk of non-relapse mortality in this group of patients. Disclosures: Hill: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2013
    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: Journal of Oncology Practice, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 15, No. 6 ( 2019-06), p. e560-e567
    Abstract: To determine which factors influence cost in head and neck cancer (HNC) to inform the development of a bundled payment model (BPM). METHODS: Patients with stages 0 to IVB (by American Joint Commission on Cancer, 7th edition) HNC of various sites and histology treated definitively at a single tertiary care center during 2013 were included. Clinical variables and direct cost data were obtained, and their associations were investigated using χ 2 , t, Wilcoxon rank sum, and analysis of variance testing. Results were used to develop a BPM. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients were included; 87% were white, 74% were men, 48% had oropharyngeal cancer, and 58% had stage IVA disease. Treatment consisted of surgery alone (17%), radiation alone (11%), surgery plus radiation (14%), chemoradiation (45%), and surgery plus chemoradiation (13%). On multivariable analysis, both increasing group stage and number of treatment modalities used were significantly associated with higher cost. Given that stage often dictates treatment, we developed three cost tiers that were based on overall treatment modality. Tier A, the least costly, consisted of single-modality therapy with either surgery alone or radiation alone (median cost divided by the median overall cost of treatment, 0.54; 25th to 75th percentile range, 0.29 to 1.02), followed by tier B, which consisted of bimodality therapy with either chemoradiation or surgery plus radiation (1.03; range, 0.81 to 1.35), followed by tier C, which consisted of trimodality therapy with surgery plus chemoradiation (1.43; range, 1.10 to 1.96). CONCLUSION: The number of treatment modalities required is the primary driver of cost in HNC. These data can simplify development of a comprehensive HNC BPM.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1554-7477 , 1935-469X
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 3005549-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2236338-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 108, No. 3 ( 2016-3)
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1460-2105 , 0027-8874
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2992-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1465951-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Elsevier BV, Vol. 22, No. 6 ( 2016-06), p. 1141-1144
    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 ...
  • 5
    In: Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Elsevier BV, Vol. 25, No. 12 ( 2019-12), p. 2522-2526
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1083-8791
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2019
    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: Leukemia & Lymphoma, Informa UK Limited, Vol. 52, No. 6 ( 2011-06), p. 986-993
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1042-8194 , 1029-2403
    Language: English
    Publisher: Informa UK Limited
    Publication Date: 2011
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2030637-4
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 1987-1987
    Abstract: INTRODUCTION: High dose busulfan (Bu) is an integral component of many commonly-used preparative regimens for both allogeneic and autologous transplantation. Data on the efficacy and toxicity of q6 vs. q24 hour dosing are of significant clinical interest. In order to facilitate a therapeutic dose-monitoring protocol, we transitioned from q6 to q24 Bu dosing as part of our standard Bu/Cy/VP ASCT preparative regimen for patients with Hodgkin (HL) and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) in July 2012. We present comparative outcomes of q24 Bu dosing vs historical controls receiving q6 Bu. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 400 consecutive eligible lymphoma patients who underwent ASCT from 2007-2013 with Bu/Cy/VP. All patients received Cy 60 mg/kg IV over 4 hours on days -3 and -2 and VP 60 mg/kg as continuous infusion on days -5 and -4. Bu was given at a dose of either 0.8 mg/kg q6 (N = 307) x 14 doses for patients transplanted between 2007-July, 2012 or 2.8 mg/kg q 24 hours (N = 93) on days -9 through -6 for subsequent patients. Outcomes assessed from date of transplant were: relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Toxicity was assessed using pulmonary and liver function tests (PFTs and LFTs) at specified time-points before and after ASCT. In addition, for a subset of 22 patients receiving q24 Bu, we measured serial Bu serum levels after the first dose of Bu with an in-house liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay using turbulent flow online extraction technology (Bunch, et al. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci, 2010. 878(31): p. 3255-8) and subsequently determined the cumulative Bu area-under the curve (AUC). RESULTS Baseline patient and disease characteristics of patients dosed with q6 and q24 Bu were similar. The median age was 55 (range 20-78) years; 63% were males. 18% had HL and 82% had NHL with a comparable distribution of subtypes in both groups. Patients in both groups had comparable rates of prior chemotherapy regimens and of complete/partial remission at the time of ASCT. Due to a change in institutional guidelines, plerixafor was more commonly incorporated in peripheral blood stem cell mobilization regimen in the q24 group compared to q6 cohort (70% vs. 39%, P 〈 0.001). However, CD34+ doses were same in the two dosing cohorts. In terms of toxicity of the two dosing approaches, there was no significant difference in FEV1 or DLCO before and after transplant in the q6 vs q24 cohorts. LFTs measured at four time points were generally lower with q24 Bu, particularly AST and alkaline phosphatase (P=0.007 each), but these difference were not clinically significant. The median follow-up was longer in the q6 than q24 group (48.2 months vs. 21.3 months, P 〈 0.001). 18 month outcomes of the two dosing cohorts were comparable (see Table and Figure). We observed significant variation in AUC with weight-based dosing of Bu (AUC range 12,104 - 23,084 µM-min) with a median of 17,568 µM -min, which has served as a baseline for subsequent therapeutic-dose monitoring. CONCLUSIONS Q24 Bu dosing in combination with Cy/VP is more convenient than q6 hours, has equivalent outcomes, and results in no increase in either hepatic or pulmonary toxicity. Consistent with previous reports, there is a significant range of Bu AUC levels, with a standard deviation of 12%. These data provide rationale for our prospective clinical trial of real-time therapeutic dose monitoring with q24 Bu dosing. Table 1. Q6 dosing Q24 dosing P-value OS 78% 80% 0.79 RFS 63% 61% 0.99 NRM 5% 3% 0.95 Relapse 30% 36% 0.46 18 month outcomes of q6 vs q24 Bu dosing Figure 1. RFS and OS for lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT with Bu/Cy/VP treated with q6 vs. q24 hour weight-based Bu dosing. Figure 1. RFS and OS for lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT with Bu/Cy/VP treated with q6 vs. q24 hour weight-based Bu dosing. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Hill: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Majhail:Gamida Cell Ltd.: Consultancy; Anthem Inc.: Consultancy.
    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 ...
  • 8
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 1920-1920
    Abstract: Reduced intensity conditioning for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) has become a standard approach for older patients and for those with co-morbidities that prohibit myeloablative conditioning. The optimal conditioning regimen for patients with AML or MDS undergoing such transplants is not clear. Therefore we performed a single center, retrospective analysis comparing busulfan (100 mg/m2/day on days -5, -4, -3, -2) and fludarabine (40 mg/m2/day on days -5, -4, -3, -2) (BuFlu) versus fludarabine (30 m2/day on days -5, -4, -3) and 400 cGy total body irradiation (200 cGy on days -1 and 0) (FluTBI) conditioning. All of the BuFlu transplants were performed as inpatient hospitalizations while all of those with FluTBI were performed as an outpatient. A total of 71 patients in two cohorts were included. The first study cohort consisted of 38 patients (23 AML, 15 MDS) who received FluTBI from 3/2004-4/2010, and the second included 33 (20 AML, 13 MDS) patients conditioned with FluBu from 6/2010-12/2013. The groups had similar disease risk and HCT comorbidity index scores. The BuFlu patients were older (median age 65 [range, 34-73] vs. 61[range, 44-70] years, P=0.03), but there were no other differences in patient or disease characteristics. All patients received peripheral blood stem cells as the graft source. The donor sources were 53% matched related (MRD) and 47% matched unrelated (MUD) for FluTBI patients and 58% MRD and 42% MUD for BuFlu patients. The BuFlu group received more red blood cell (RBC) transfusions (median 4 vs. 2, P=0.02), but there were no differences in platelet transfusion requirements. Platelet recovery was longer for patients receiving BuFlu than FluTBI (median 16 vs. 12 days, P=0.004), but there was no difference in cumulative incidence of neutrophil recovery. The respective median number of days hospitalized in the first 100 days post-transplant was 22 vs. 10 days (P 〈 0.001) and in the first year was 40 vs. 16 days (P 〈 0.001). Post-transplant outcomes are shown in the Table. The most common causes of death were relapse and infection for both the FluTBI (44% and 13%) and BuFlu (57% and 14%) groups. Quality of life assessments using the FACT-BMT were performed pre-alloHCT, at day 100, 6 months and 1 year. There was no difference in physical, social, emotional, and functional well-beings, additional concerns, trial outcome index or total score between the two groups at baseline or any of the follow-up timepoints. We conclude that alloHCT using FluTBI or BuFlu reduced intensity conditioning regimens results in comparable outcomes in patients with AML/MDS. The greater RBC transfusion requirement and need for inpatient hospitalization with the BuFlu regimen have implications for healthcare resource utilization. Future prospective investigation comparing these regimens with larger patient cohorts and cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted. Table 1. Patient outcomes Variable FluTBI N (%) BuFlu N (%) P-value T-cell complete donor chimerism 29 (78) 26 (81) 0.83 Graft failure/rejection 3 (8) 3 (9) 0.87 Grade II-IV acute GvHD 13 (34) 17 (52) 0.24 Grade III-IV acute GvHD 3 (8) 6 (18) 0.21 Any Chronic GvHD 16 (42) 14 (42) 0.91 Extensive chronic GvHD 8 (21) 13 (39) 0.06 CMV reactivation 12 (32) 13 (39) 0.66 Fungal Infection 2 (5) 1 (3) 0.83 Relapse (2-years) 20 (53) 17 (52) 0.96 100 day mortality 13 (95% CI 6-29 ) 9 (95% CI 3-26 ) 0.59 Non-relapse mortality (2-years) 29 (95% CI 15-44) 29 (95% CI 14-45) 0.56 Relapse mortality (2-years) 34 (95% CI 20-49) 36 (95% CI 20-53) 0.86 Overall survival (2-years) 37 (95% CI 22-52) 35 (95% CI 19-51) 0.73 Disclosures Majhail: Gamida Cell Ltd.: Consultancy; Anthem Inc.: Consultancy.
    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 ...
  • 9
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 116, No. 21 ( 2010-11-19), p. 2356-2356
    Abstract: Abstract 2356 Introduction: Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is commonly offered to patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) over the age of 55 with good performance status. For this patient population, potential sibling donors are necessarily older and have more comorbidities than siblings of younger patients. It is not known whether the advanced donor age of older patients outweighs the beneficial effect of having a sibling donor. To address this question, we retrospectively analyzed data from 62 consecutive patients who received allogeneic SCT at the Cleveland Clinic from 1990–2009. Methods: Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 55 years, diagnosis of AML, and history of myeloablative or nonmyeloablative allogeneic SCT from related or unrelated adult donors. 31 patients underwent transplantation from matched related donors (30 siblings, 1 cousin). 31 patients received unrelated donor transplants. The median age was 59 for patients with related and unrelated donors (P=0.89). There was an equal percentage of males (64.5%) in both groups (P=1.0). There was an equivalent distribution hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index scores of low, intermediate and high for patients with related and unrelated donors (38.7%, 37.1% and 24.2% vs. 38.7%, 32.3%, and 29.0% P = 0.65). 45.2% of patients with related donors underwent myeloablative conditioning vs. 54.8% for patients with unrelated donors (P =0.61). Results: Sibling donors were significantly older than unrelated donors [median 59 years (range 41–75) vs. 36 (range 24–58), P 〈 0.001]. The incidence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was similar in both groups. At five years, the cumulative incidence of relapse (43.2% vs. 38.7%, P = 0.88), non-relapse mortality (48.1% vs. 48.8%, P =0.91) and overall survival (17.2% vs. 24.1%, P =0.88) were similar for recipients of matched related and unrelated donor transplants. Older donor age was not predictive of death in univariate or multivariate analysis. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival for recipients of related and unrelated donor transplants are shown. Conclusion: Patients with AML 55 years or older who underwent related donor transplantation had significantly older donors but equivalent survival when compared to patient who underwent unrelated donor transplantation. Advanced donor age should not be a contraindication to allogeneic SCT for older patients with AML. 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: 2010
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 126, No. 23 ( 2015-12-03), p. 5495-5495
    Abstract: Background: Recent data have shown that pre-transplant FDG-PET is prognostic in DLBCL patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We retrospectively analyzed data on patients with DLBCL treated with ASCT to assess the impact of pre-transplant FDG-PET on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: We reviewed medical records of 32 patients with DLBCL who underwent ASCT using high dose busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (Bu/Cy/VP) at Cleveland Clinic from June 2008 to December 2012 and had both a relapse FDG-PET as well as a pre-transplant FDG-PET available for review. All images were interpreted by a staff nuclear medicine radiologist blinded to the outcomes. Visual analysis was performed using the Deauville five-point scale and semiquantitative analysis was done by measuring the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). ΔSUVmax was calculated by determining the difference between the SUVmax at the time of relapse and the SUVmax immediately prior to transplant. Patients were grouped into pre-transplant Deauville score 1-3 or 4-5. Baseline characteristics were compared between groups using the Chi-square test or Wilcoxon rank test. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Outcomes were calculated from the date of ASCT. Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test Results: The median age of the patients at transplant was 57 and 69% were male. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics of patients who had a Deauville score 1-3 compared to patients who had a Deauville score 4-5 including mean age, gender, race, Karnofsky performance status, number of prior chemotherapy regimens, prior radiation therapy, and IPI at diagnosis and transplant. There was a trend towards significance in the median SUVmax at relapse in the Deauville 1-3 group compared to the Deauville 4-5 group (11.1 vs. 18.1, p=0.08) and a significant difference in the median pre-transplant SUVmax (2.3 vs. 8.1, p 〈 0.001). Deauville score 4-5 was the only baseline variable that was prognostic for both RFS (HR=4.2, CI 1.6-11.5, p=0.004) and OS (HR=5.5, CI 1.6-18.9, p=0.006). The 3-year RFS for patients in the Deauville 1-3 group was 64% compared to 12% in the Deauville 4-5 group (p=0.002) and the 3-year OS for patients in the Deauville 1-3 group was 84% compared to 30%, respectively (p=0.002 [Figure 1]). The median ΔSUVmax was 74%. There was no difference in RFS or OS in patients who had a ΔSUVmax above or below this median. However, a high pre-transplant SUVmax( 〉 6 vs. 〈 6) was associated with significantly inferior RFS (p=0.03 [Figure 2]). Conclusions: Pre-transplant FDG-PET Deauville score is prognostic of RFS and OS in patients with DLBCL undergoing ASCT. High SUVmax( 〉 6) prior to transplant is predictive of poor RFS. Pre-transplant PET is a powerful tool for identifying DLBCL patients at high risk for treatment failure with ASCT and could be used to risk-stratify patients in prospective clinical trials of novel transplant strategies. Figure 1. OS of DLBCL patients undergoing ASCT based on pre-transplant Deauville score. Figure 1. OS of DLBCL patients undergoing ASCT based on pre-transplant Deauville score. Figure 2. RFS of DLBCL patients undergoing ASCT based on pre-transplant SUVmax. Figure 2. RFS of DLBCL patients undergoing ASCT based on pre-transplant SUVmax. Disclosures Smith: celegene, spectrum, genentech: Honoraria. Majhail:Gamida Cell Ltd.: Consultancy; Anthem Inc.: Consultancy.
    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 ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...