scholarly journals Comparable outcomes with marrow or peripheral blood as stem cell sources for hematopoietic cell transplantation from haploidentical donors after non-ablative conditioning: a matched-pair analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (12) ◽  
pp. 1599-1601 ◽  
Author(s):  
P V O'Donnell ◽  
M Eapen ◽  
M M Horowitz ◽  
B R Logan ◽  
A DiGilio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Peripheral Blood ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Matched Pair Analysis ◽  
Cell Sources ◽  
Pair Analysis

scholarly journals Autologous stem cell transplantation in patients of 70 years and older with multiple myeloma: Results from a matched pair analysis

2008 ◽  
Vol 83 (8) ◽  
pp. 614-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaji K. Kumar ◽  
David Dingli ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Suzanne R. Hayman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Matched Pair Analysis ◽  
Pair Analysis

A matched pair analysis of conditioning BuEM versus BEAM in autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation for lymphomas in terms of toxicity and efficacy.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8567-8567
Author(s):  
Ioanna Sakellari ◽  
Despina Mallouri ◽  
Ioannis Batsis ◽  
Chryssoula Apostolou ◽  
Varnavas Konstantinou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Liver Toxicity ◽  
Conditioning Regimen ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Matched Pair Analysis ◽  
Matching Criteria ◽  
Pair Analysis ◽  
Early Toxicity

8567 Background: In autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for lymphomas, the optimal conditioning regimen is currently investigated. The standard conditioning used is BEAM. During 2009-2011 a new alternative Busulphan-based conditioning regimen constructed in our unit, consisting of Busilvex (9.6 mg/Kg), Etoposide (9.6 mg/Kg) and Melphalan (140mg/m^2) (BuEM) was used. We retrospectively analysed the outcome of patients (pts) conditioned with BEAM and BuEM regimen, in terms of toxicity and efficacy, in a matched pair analysis. Methods: A matched paired analysis on a 1:2 ratio was performed. Thus, 2 control cases (receiving BEAM regimen) were matched to each patient treated with BuEM according to: phase of transplant, age, lines of previous chemotherapy. The first 50 consecutive pts treated with BuEM were matched to a random sample from the historical BEAM control population. Ninety-three BEAM pts that fulfilled the matching criteria were eventually randomly selected. Concerning pts characteristics there were no statistical significant differences except from more chemoresistant disease in the BuEM cohort (p=0.008). Thus a second matched pair analysis was conducted upon stratification by disease chemosensitivity instead of age as a risk factor. Results: Progression free survival and overall survival (OS) were 70.6% and 81.8% for the BEAM vs 68.9% and 83% for the BuEM cohort respectively (p=ns). In the BuEM cohort a borderline significantly better OS was noted in Hodgkin’s pts receiving BuEM (p=0.05). In terms of early toxicity a significantly faster neutrophil engraftment was found in the BEAM cohort, but there was a significantly less need of red blood cells, platelet transfusions and GCSF infusion in the BuEM cohort. BEAM regimen was also associated with: reduced incidence of infections (p=0.02), less severe (grade 3-4) mucositis (p=0.000) and liver toxicity (p=0.004). Conclusions: BEAM regimen was correlated with a favourable reduced early toxicity profile, ie severe mucositis and liver impairment. On the other hand, BuEM was found to be equally efficacious and moreover offered improved overall survival in Hodgkin’s lymphoma pts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document