Cargando…

自体与同胞全相合造血干细胞移植治疗PH(+)急性淋巴细胞白血病的疗效比较

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of autologous HSCT(auto-HSCT)with matched sibling donor(MSD)HSCT in Ph(+) ALL and provide a basis for the choice of transplantation method. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated the outcomes of 78 adult patients with Ph(+) ALL who underwent auto-HSCT(n=31)and MS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Editorial office of Chinese Journal of Hematology 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7342073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32536133
http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.05.003
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of autologous HSCT(auto-HSCT)with matched sibling donor(MSD)HSCT in Ph(+) ALL and provide a basis for the choice of transplantation method. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated the outcomes of 78 adult patients with Ph(+) ALL who underwent auto-HSCT(n=31)and MSD-HSCT(n=47)in Institute of Hematology and Blood Diseases Hospital, CAMS & PUMC, from January 2008 to December 2017. The overall survival(OS)rate, leukemia-free survival(LFS)rate, cumulative incidence of relapse(CIR)rate, nonrelapse mortality(NRM)rate, and the impact of achievement of complete molecular response(CMR)within 3 months and sustaining CMR up to transplantation(s3CMR)on transplantation method were explored. RESULTS: The median time of neutrophil and platelet reconstitution in auto-HSCT and MSD-HSCT groups were 12(10–29)days vs 14(11–24)days(P=0.006)and 17.5(10–62)days vs 7(10–33)days(P=0.794), respectively. In the MSD-HSCT group, the incidence of Ⅱ–Ⅳ and Ⅲ–Ⅳ acute graft-versus-host disease(GVHD)was 27.7%(13/47)and 8.5%(4/47), respectively. The incidence of limited and extensive chronic GVHD was 17.0%(8/47)and 12.8%(6/47), respectively. The estimated CIR, NRM, LFS, and OS at 3 years were not significantly different between auto-HSCT and MSD-HSCT groups(P>0.05). For 44 patients who achieved s3CMR, 3-year OS[(84.0±8.6)% vs(78.0±8.7)%, P=0.612], LFS[(70.3±10.3)% vs(68.2±10.1)%, P=0.970], CIR[(24.9±10.0)% vs(14.4±8.0)%, P=0.286], and NRM[(4.7±4.7)% vs(17.4±8.1)%, P=0.209]of the auto-HSCT and MSD-HSCT groups were not significantly different. However, for 34 patients who did not reach s3CMR, 3-year cumulative relapse rate of patients in the auto-HSCT group was significantly higher than MSD-HSCT group[(80.0±14.7)% vs(39.6±10.9)%, P=0.057]. CONCLUSION: auto-HSCT with maintenance therapy after HSCT appears to be an attractive treatment option for patients with Ph(+) ALL especially for those with s3CMR maintained up to transplantation. For non-s3CMR patients, allogeneic transplantation may be more effective from lower relapse.