Allogeneic Myeloablative Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia in the Imatinib Era.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is no longer the first treatment option for patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) but there is a considerable debate about its use as a second line therapy. When used in this indication the second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (2G-TKI) induce complete cytogenetic responses (CCyR) in 40–50% of patients in chronic phase but those without CCyR are unlikely to benefit in long term. It is therefore important to identify groups of patients with a good outcome after transplantation so that this may be offered as second line therapy where appropriate. The outcome of allo-SCT has improved over time so we restricted our analysis to the most recent 8 years to coincide with the introduction of imatinib into clinical practice. 131 patients received myeloablative transplants from January 2000 till December 2007. 67 patients were transplanted in chronic phase (14 in second and 2 in third chronic phase), 46 in accelerated phase and 2 in blastic phase. Forty-nine patients received imatinib at some point prior to transplantation and 30 of these experienced failure of imatinib therapy (as defined by European LeukemiaNet criteria). Conditioning consisted of cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation for 51 recipients of sibling stem cells. In addition in vivo T cell depletion with anti CD52 antibody (Campath 1H) was used for 80 unrelated donor transplants. The median age of the patients was 33.4 (15 to 56) years and the median disease duration at transplant was 13 (2 to 105) months. The probability of overall survival (OS) at 3 and 5 years was 64.8% and 62.6% respectively. We confirmed the prognostic value of the EBMT risk assessment score (Gratwohl) and pretransplant level of the C-reactive protein (CRP) and developed a combined additive pretransplant scoring system based on these predictive factors (EBMT risk assessment score plus 0 for CRP <2 mg/L, 1 for CRP from 2 to 10 mg/L, and 2 for CRP >10 mg/L). This identified 5 prognostic groups (Figure 1) with 3yr probabilities of survival of 92.6% (N= 27, score 0–1), 86.2% (N=29, score 2), 58.2% (N=29, score 3), 47.5% (N=20, score 4) and 30.8% (N=26, score 5 or more). The patients who failed imatinib (N=30) had significantly higher prognostic scores on the above described pre-transplant scoring system compared to the rest of patients transplanted (p=0.001). However, in a multivariate analysis adjusted for prognostic scores, their OS was significantly better (p=0.032). The OS in the best prognostic group is comparable with that of unselected patients treated with imatinib and it is possible that their long-term survival might be better. Allogeneic transplantation is unlikely to be preferred as the first line therapy even in selected patients due to its higher early mortality but our data support its use as second line therapy in patients in chronic phase who failed imatinib and have poor pre-2G-TKI predictive factors for CCyR as determined previously at our institution (namely Sokal risk score at diagnosis, the best cytogenetic response obtained on imatinib, G-CSF requirement during imatinib therapy and time from detection of imatinib failure to onset of 2G-TKI therapy) but achieved good score on the pre-transplant scoring system. It should also be used for those whose disease is more advanced where the 2G-TKI do not offer durable remissions. Figure 1 Figure 1.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».