Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome using treosulfan based compared to other reduced‐intensity or myeloablative conditioning regimens. A report of the chronic malignancies working party of the EBMT

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avichai Shimoni ◽  
Marie Robin ◽  
Simona Iacobelli ◽  
Dietrich Beelen ◽  
Ghulam J. Mufti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myelodysplastic Syndrome ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Working Party ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell ◽  
Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Myeloablative Conditioning ◽  
Conditioning Regimens ◽  
Reduced Intensity

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: ready for prime time?

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (13) ◽  
pp. 2581-2588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Delgado ◽  
Donald W. Milligan ◽  
Peter Dreger
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell ◽  
Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Reduced Intensity Conditioning ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Conditioning Regimens ◽  
Reduced Intensity

AbstractThe development of reduced intensity conditioning regimens has increased the number of patients diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia that are referred for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). However, given the toxicity of allo-HCT, it should only be offered to eligible patients whose life expectancy is significantly reduced by the disease. Accordingly, the European Group of Blood and Marrow Transplantation has recently identified those patients in whom allo-HCT could be a reasonable therapeutic approach. In this review, we have evaluated the outcome of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients undergoing allo-HCT, either after conventional or reduced intensity conditioning regimens, in the context of current nontransplantation strategies. We have also analyzed the most important predisposing factors that might interfere with the procedure as well as posttransplantation complications that are particularly common in these patients. Finally, we have addressed the most relevant factors when deciding what patients should be considered for allo-HCT and the timing of the procedure.

Outcomes among Patients with Recurrent High-Risk Hematologic Malignancy after Nonmyeloablative Versus Myeloablative Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 262-262
Author(s):  
Marco Mielcarek ◽  
Paul J. Martin ◽  
David G. Maloney ◽  
Rainer Storb ◽  
Brenda M. Sandmaier
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell ◽  
Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Myeloablative Conditioning ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Conditioning Regimens

Recurrence of high risk hematologic malignancy after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) indicates the persistence of malignant cells that are resistant to the conditioning regimen given before HCT and the immunologic effects of donor cells after HCT. Early recurrence of high-risk hematologic malignancy after myeloablative conditioning is associated with a very poor prognosis. Given the minimal exposure to cytotoxic therapy during and the lower burden of regimen-related toxicity after nonmyeloablative preparative regimens, we hypothesized that relapse-directed interventions would be more effective for patients with high-risk malignancy after HCT with nonmyeloablative conditioning compared to myeloablative conditioning. We retrospectively analyzed outcomes among 195 patients treated for acute leukemia (AML, n=123; ALL, n=28), chronic myeloid leukemia beyond accelerated phase (n=21), or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (n=23) that recurred after HCT with myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning between 1995 and 2004. Relapse-directed interventions included withdrawal of immunosuppression (WIS), chemotherapy, and donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) used singly or in combination as allowed by clinical circumstances. Interventions were used for 68% and 87% of patients who had recurrence < 100 days after HCT with myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning, respectively, and for 83% and 95% of those who had recurrence ≥ 100 days after HCT. The incidence rates of life-threatening GVHD and remission were 6% and 25% among patients with myeloablative conditioning, compared to 19% and 26% among those with nonmyeloablative conditioning (Table 1). The incidence of remission was higher among patients who had recurrence ≥ 100 days after HCT as compared to < 100 days after HCT (p = 0.04). Contrary to our hypothesis, interventions were not more effective among patients with nonmyeloablative conditioning compared to myeloablative conditioning, as measured by remission rates (Table 1) or survival. The 2-year survival rates among patients with recurrence < 100 days after HCT were 4% and 0% among patients who had myeloablative and nonmyeloablative conditioning regimens, respectively. The corresponding 2-year survival rates among patients with recurrence ≥ 100 days after HCT were 12% and 5%. In summary, with either myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning regimens, limited clinical benefit is gained from the interventions typically used for management of early recurrent high-risk hematologic malignancy after HCT. Thus, innovative and more effective strategies are needed for treatment of recurrent high-risk malignancy after allogeneic HCT. Interventions and outcomes among patients treated for recurrent high-risk hematologic malignancy after allogeneic HCT Total WIS Chemo DLI GVHD* CR *GVHD, life-threatening graft-versus-host disease; CR, complete remission. **Recurrence was detected at 100–200 days from HCT in 9 cases and >200 days in 11 cases. Myeloablative conditioning Recurrence < Day 100, n (%) 87 78 51 11 6 16 (90) (59) (13) (7) (18) Recurrence ≥ Day 100–200, n (%) 65 50 55 13 3 21 (77) (85) (20) (5) (32) Non-myeloablative conditioning Recurrence < Day 100, n (%) 23 18 13 5 5 5 (78) (57) (22) (22) (22) Recurrence ≥ Day 100, n (%)** 20 13 15 2 3 6 (65) (75) (10) (15) (30)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document