Prognostic Factors and Outcomes in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Vs. Non-Transplant Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) Patients: A Comparative Analysis with the Leukemia/BMT Program of British Columbia (BC) and the BC Provincial CLL Database
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) patients (pts) have significant (sig) heterogeneity; survival ranges from decades to <5 years (yrs). Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is promising treatment (tx) for high-risk pts. Ideally, predictive (pred) tools would allow clinicians to recognize such pts early, permitting transplant performance to maximize benefit and minimize procedure associated risk. Factors with significant (sig) pred capacity are not, however, entirely clarified. Moreover, limited studies compare CLL pts who have/have not received HSCT in terms of differences (diff) in characteristics (char) at diagnosis (dx), population (pop) composition and outcomes. This study evaluates pred factors for outcomes post allo-HSCT, and compares dx char between (bn) tx CLL pts who did /did not receive HSCT by evaluating a large pop-based CLL cohort (n= 1044) from the BC Provincial CLL Database (BCPCD). Methods: 102 CLL pts (71M, 31F) had consecutive allo-HSCT (01-91 to 03-13, L/BMT Program of BC). Median (med) age (range) at dx:HSCT was 50 (26-65):57 (32-68) yrs; med interval dx to HSCT 5.8 yrs (0.5 to 29). Most pts (78, 76%) received non-ablative therapy; (n=61 [60%] reduced-intensity fludarabine /busulfan [flu/bu] based [RIC], n=17 [17%] non-myeloablative flu-cyclophosphamide based [NMA]); 24 pts had myeloablative (MA) conditioning (CON). Donor status was 50% unrelated (UD) (51UD:51RD); 73M, 28 F. Results: With median (med) follow up (FU) (range) post allo-HSCT of 2 yrs (0.5-18); post dx of 9 yrs (1-38), 67 (50%) pts survive. 70 (69%) achieved CR post-HSCT a med of 187 (28-1274) days (d). 27 had CLL PROG a med of 339 (25-4367) d; 18 of 27 (67%) survive a med of 3 (0.5-18) yrs post HSCT. Factors pred OS post HSCT (KM p=; UVA HR=) (p<0.05) were: pre-HSCT FISH deletion 17p (del 17p) (0.005; 2.9), Dohner rank (0.02), HSCT specific comorbidity index (CoI) >3 vs. 0-2 (0.04; 2.5), HLA mismatched (MM) donor (0.03;2.3), pre-HSCT tx with alemtuzumab (alem) (0.005;3.0), CON (MA vs NMA or RIC) (0.046; 3.0), acute (A) graft vs host disease (GVHD) grade (g) 3-4 vs 0-2. (<0.001; 4.5), dn chim <90% (0.001; 5.2), abn FISH not clear post-HSCT (0.009; 2.6), yr of HSCT (pre- vs post-2010) (0.03; 3.13) and lack of CR post HSCT (<0.001; 10.5).The following sig pred for (OR; p=): >90% dn chim: no B symptoms at dx (2.5; 0.004), CON (RIC vs. NMA, (2.6; 0.006); clear FISH abn post-HSCT: CR post-HSCT (4.6; 0.004); CR post-HSCT: B symptoms at dx (0.4; 0.02), <=1 FISH abn (1.7; 0.045), rituximab (R) pre-HSCT (2.5; 0.001), clear FISH abn (2.5; 0.01), flu sensitivity (S) pre-HSCT (1.8; 0.03), S to last tx pre-HSCT (1.7; 0.03), CON (MA vs. RIC or NMA) (3.2; <0.001); PROG: Richter’s transformation ( Rich trans) pre-HSCT (3.5; 0.008), graft failure (3.3; 0.008), CoI >3 vs. 0-2 (6.9; 0.006), no R pre-HSCT (6.7; 0.01), CON (MA vs. NMA or RIC), (0.2; 0.03); NRM: pre-HSCT alem (2.7; 0.03), CoI >3 vs. 0-2 (2.7; 0.049), HLA MM (2.8; 0.01), CON (MA vs. rest) (3.0; 0.007), AGVHD g 3-4 vs. 0-2 (5.9; <0.001), FISH abn not clear (2.6; 0.04), and no CR (6.5; <0.001). Comparison bn allo-HSCT and BCPCD CLL pts showed sig diff at dx for Dohner FISH rank: more del 17p (23% vs.11%) and 11q (23% vs. 9%) in allo-HSCT pts (n=84 with pre-HSCT FISH); less +12 (13% vs. 17%), del 13q (24% vs.41%) or normal (22% vs 18%), p<0.001 than non-HSCT pts (n=952); Age at dx (med, range) was lower in HSCT (50, 26-65) vs non (62, 25-96), p<0.001; lymphocyte (lymph) count higher (14, 1-300 vs.11, 1-662, p=0.03), tx-free survival (TFS) from dx to 1st tx shorter at 0.75 (0-9.3) vs. 2.86 (0-20.6) yrs. Rich trans was more frequent in HSCT pts (8%) vs. non (3%), p=0.015.OS was sig better for HSCT pts (n=103) (med 17.6, SE 4.5, CI 95% 8.8-26) compared to non (n=494) (med 14.4, SE 1.1, CI 95% 12.1-16.6) (p=0.03). Conclusion: CLL allo-HSCT pts have sig diff than non including higher lymph at dx, shorter time to 1st tx, and higher risk FISH abn. 17p del remains high-risk with allo-HSCT. Pre-HSCT R increased post HSCT CR. Strategies to optimize post-HSCT CR and dn chim are important; these milestones are crucial to best outcome. PROG post-HSCT does not confer worse OS; rescue strategies are successful and deserve further study. Comparison of this large allo HSCT and pop-based BPCDB cohort indicate improved OS for allo-HSCT tx CLL pts vs. other, with a survival plateau. This data indicates early recognition of high-risk CLL patients for HSCT is likely to yield best long-term outcome. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».