Comparison of Outcomes of Elderly Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in CR1 Receiving Reduced Intensity Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation (RICT) from Matched Sibling (MSD) or Unrelated Donors (URD)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND. Comparative data on the results of RICT from MSD or URD in elderly patients (pts) are scarce. We describe outcomes of AML CR1 pts > 50 years (yrs) allografted from MSDs or URDs as part of a multinational, prospective, controlled study (NCT00342316), which aims to compare RICT vs chemotherapy. The study started in 2004 and completed enrollment (339 pts) in 2016. In this report, we compare the impact of MSD or URD and therefore we focus only on the time period when both MSD and URD transplants were performed within the study (2010-2016). PATIENTS AND PROCEDURES. Included were 136 pts (53 females, 83 males). Median age was 64 (50-70) and 62 (52-70) yrs in URD and MSD groups, respectively. Pts were high (54%) or intermediate (IR) (46%) risk, donors were URD (n=81), and MSD (n=55). Prespecified high risk criteria were: poor risk cytogenetics, secondary or therapy-related AML, blasts >15% after induction #1, or FLT3-ITD+/NPM1-. Eight URDs were STATISTICS Overall survival (OS) and leukemia free survival (LFS) after Tx were estimated by means of the Kaplan-Meier method, whereas cumulative incidence functions were used for non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse incidence. The Cox regression model was used to analyze incidence rates. RESULTS. Median time from CR to Tx in URD and MSD groups was 4.0 (range 1.1-8.7), and 3.1 (0.8-10) mo, respectively (p Median follow-up from Tx for living pts was 23 (4-78) and 25 (3-82) mo for URD and MSD pts, respectively. During follow-up, 36 pts relapsed, 24 URD (30%) and 12 MSD (22%) and 47 pts died, 23 URD (28%) and 24 MSD (44%). Causes of deaths in the URD and MSD groups were AML (n=18,11), GvHD (1,5), infections (2,5) and other (2,3). Estimated 2-year OS for all pts was 64% (95% CI 54-72%). For the subgroups of high and IR risk pts OS at 2 yrs was 49% (36-61%) and 82% (69-90%), respectively. For MSD and URD groups OS were 53% (38-67%) and 72% (60-81%); hazard ratio (HR) 1.66 (0.94-2.95; p=0.08). If adjusting for confounders [risk category (high vs . IR), country (Canada/other vs . Sweden), gender, age] the HR for OS was 1.57 (0.80-3.08; p=0.19). LFS was similar in URD and MSD groups: 53% (38-66%) vs 63% (50-73%); adjusted HR 1.21 (0.65-2.26; p=0.54). The 2-yrs cumulative incidence (CI) of relapse (NRM competing) was 23% (13-35%) in the MSD group and 32% (21-43%) in the URD group; adjusted HR 0.71 (0.32-1.60; p=0.41). The 2-yrs CI of NRM (relapse competing) was 24% (13-37%) in the MSD group and 5% (2-11%) in the URD group, adjusted HR 3.45 (1.03-11.6; p=0.045). Grade III-IV acute GvHD and chronic extensive GvHD were less common in the URD group, 5% vs 21% (p=0.009) and 10% vs 45% (p CONCLUSION. No significant differences in OS, LFS or relapse rate were found between MSD and URD transplants. However, RICTs from URDs were associated with less acute and chronic GvHD, and less NRM. These findings may be explained by lower donor age, more chemo, longer time from CR to Tx in MUDs and probable contribution of ATG. Our data suggest that URD RICT may be used safely in older patients with AML with satisfactory OS. Disclosures Kiss: Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: meeting attendance support, Research Funding; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Delage: BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ritchie: Amgen Inc.: Honoraria. Sabloff: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brune: Novartis: Other: reimbursement for lecture.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,001 | 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 ».