MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2613385908 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.4652.4652

Fludarabine/Busulfan Plus Low Dose TBI As Reduced Intensity Conditioning in Older Patients Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant for Myeloid Malignancies

2016· article· en· W2613385908 sur OpenAlexaff
Manar Khalil, Hans A. Messner, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, Auro Viswabandya, Santhosh Thyagu, Uday Deotare, Fotios V. Michelis

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineFludarabineBusulfanInternal medicineRegimenTotal body irradiationMyeloid leukemiaMyeloidTransplantationClofarabineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationPopulationGastroenterologyOncologyCytarabineSurgeryChemotherapyCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) is potentially curative for myeloid malignancy when indicated. In patients age 60 years or older HCT has become feasible with the use of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) and studies have shown improved outcome in this older population. There is no clear consensus concerning the superiority of any single reduced intensity conditioning regimen for elderly patients with myeloid malignancies. At the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre we have been using a combination of fludarabine/busulfan plus low dose total body irradiation (TBI) as the sole RIC regimen since the year 2006. We present a retrospective analysis on the outcomes of 116 patients aged 60 to 71 years who underwent allogeneic HCT during the time period 2006-2015 for myeloid malignancies. A total of 40 patients (34%) underwent RIC HCT during the years 2006-2010 and 76 patients (66%) during the years 2011-2015. Median age at HCT was 64 years (range 60-71). AML was diagnosed in 73 patients (63%) while 43 had other myeloid malignancies (MDS=34, CMML=8, blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm=1). Seventy four patients (64%) had de novo and 42 (36%) had secondary disease. Cytogenetics were available for 108 patients (93%), 17 favorable (16%), 59 intermediate (54%) and 32 unfavorable risk (30%) (MRC criteria for AML and IPSS for MDS/CMML). All leukemia patients were in first remission (<5% blasts) and MDS/CMML patients had less than 10% marrow blasts at HCT. As for pre-transplant comorbidity risk, 59 patients (51%) had HCT-CI score of 0-2 and 57 (49%) had a score of 3 or more. Donors were HLA matched related in 63 patients (54%), all other donors were unrelated including 19 mismatched (16%). Both recipient and donor were cytomegalovirus sero-negative in 28 (24%) cases. Female donor to male recipient occurred in 27 (23%) cases. Grafts were peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) in almost all the patients (n=114, 98%). All patients (n=116) received RIC conditioning with fludarabine 30mg/m2/day for 4 days (day -5 to day -2), busulfan 3.2mg/kg (adjusted BW)/day for 2 days (day -3 to day -2 and TBI 200 cGy x one dose (on day -1). Median follow-up of survivors was 39 months (range 6.5 -121). Median neutrophil engraftment (≥0.5 x10e9/L) was 18 days (range 12-35 days), median platelet engraftment (≥20 x10e9/L) was 11 days (range 7-49 days). Two patients never engrafted and 23 patients did not have a decrease in platelets <20 x10e9/L at any time. Acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) grade II-IV occurred in 59 patients (51%) while grade III-IV was seen in 34 patients (29%). Chronic GVHD at any time was seen in 52 patients (45%). Relapse occurred in 27 patients (23%). Of the 81 patients that died, the primary cause of death was GVHD in 25 patients (31%), disease relapse in 25 patients (31%), infection in 18 patients (22%), and graft failure in 6 patients (7%). Data was not available in 3 patients (4%) and 4 patients (5%) died from other causes. Overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort at 3 years was 33% (95% CI 24-42) on univariate analysis. Type of myeloid malignancy (AML versus others, p=0.007), donor type (p= 0.001), HLA mismatch (p= 0.06) and transplant time period (p= 0.05) were the only variables which showed p<0.1 on univariate analysis for OS. Cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) at 3 years was 24% (95% CI 16-32). Non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 3 years was 43% (95% CI 34-52). Multivariable analysis for OS using the variables with p<0.1 demonstrated AML patients to have a superior outcome compared to other myeloid malignancies (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, p=0.045), as well as patients with related donors (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.82, p=0.005). For CIR none of the variables were found to be significant. For NRM, AML patients had superior outcome (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.97, p=0.038), as well as patients with related donors (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.94, p=0.028). Based on the above findings, OS was determined for the AML patients that underwent related donor transplant with this regimen (n=45). Three year OS was 51% (95% CI 36-65) for the AML patients who underwent related donor transplant versus 21% (95% CI 12-32) for the group which included AML with unrelated donors and those with other myeloid malignancies (p= 0.0003) (see figure). We conclude that fludarabine/busulfan plus low dose TBI is an effective conditioning regimen for older patients with myeloid malignancies, in particular for AML patients in first remission with matched related donors. Figure Figure. 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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,002

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→