CONTEXT: The optimal treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1) is uncertain. Current consensus, based on cytogenetic risk, recommends myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) for poor-risk but not for good-risk AML. Allogeneic SCT, autologous transplantation, and consolidation chemotherapy are considered of equivalent benefit for intermediate-risk AML. OBJECTIVE: To quantify relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival benefit of allogeneic SCT for AML in CR1 overall and also for good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk AML. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials evaluating allogeneic SCT vs nonallogeneic SCT therapies for AML in CR1. The search used the combined search terms allogeneic; acut* and leukem*/leukaem*/leucem*/leucaem*/aml; myelo* or nonlympho* in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials databases in March 2009. The search identified 1712 articles. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective trials assigning adult patients with AML in CR1 to undergo allogeneic SCT vs nonallogeneic SCT treatment(s) based on donor availability and trials reporting RFS and/or overall survival outcomes on an intention-to-treat, donor vs no-donor basis were identified. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, 24 trials and 6007 patients were analyzed (5951 patients in RFS analyses and 5606 patients in overall survival analyses); 3638 patients were analyzed by cytogenetic risk (547, 2499, and 592 with good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk AML, respectively). Interstudy heterogeneity was not significant. Fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed. Compared with nonallogeneic SCT, the HR of relapse or death with allogeneic SCT for AML in CR1 was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.86). Significant RFS benefit of allogeneic SCT was documented for poor-risk (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.84) and intermediate-risk AML (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85) but not for good-risk AML (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80-1.42). The HR of death with allogeneic SCT for AML in CR1 was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97). Significant overall survival benefit with allogeneic SCT was documented for poor-risk (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) and intermediate-risk AML (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93) but not for good-risk AML (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.38). CONCLUSION: Compared with nonallogeneic SCT therapies, allogeneic SCT has significant RFS and overall survival benefit for intermediate- and poor-risk AML but not for good-risk AML in first complete remission.
CONTEXT: The optimal treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1) is uncertain. Current consensus, based on cytogenetic risk, recommends myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) for poor-risk but not for good-risk AML. Allogeneic SCT, autologous transplantation, and consolidation chemotherapy are considered of equivalent benefit for intermediate-risk AML. OBJECTIVE: To quantify relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival benefit of allogeneic SCT for AML in CR1 overall and also for good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk AML. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials evaluating allogeneic SCT vs nonallogeneic SCT therapies for AML in CR1. The search used the combined search terms allogeneic; acut* and leukem*/leukaem*/leucem*/leucaem*/aml; myelo* or nonlympho* in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials databases in March 2009. The search identified 1712 articles. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective trials assigning adult patients with AML in CR1 to undergo allogeneic SCT vs nonallogeneic SCT treatment(s) based on donor availability and trials reporting RFS and/or overall survival outcomes on an intention-to-treat, donor vs no-donor basis were identified. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, 24 trials and 6007 patients were analyzed (5951 patients in RFS analyses and 5606 patients in overall survival analyses); 3638 patients were analyzed by cytogenetic risk (547, 2499, and 592 with good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk AML, respectively). Interstudy heterogeneity was not significant. Fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed. Compared with nonallogeneic SCT, the HR of relapse or death with allogeneic SCT for AML in CR1 was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.86). Significant RFS benefit of allogeneic SCT was documented for poor-risk (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.84) and intermediate-risk AML (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85) but not for good-risk AML (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80-1.42). The HR of death with allogeneic SCT for AML in CR1 was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97). Significant overall survival benefit with allogeneic SCT was documented for poor-risk (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) and intermediate-risk AML (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93) but not for good-risk AML (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.38). CONCLUSION: Compared with nonallogeneic SCT therapies, allogeneic SCT has significant RFS and overall survival benefit for intermediate- and poor-risk AML but not for good-risk AML in first complete remission.
Authors: P A Cassileth; J W Andersen; J M Bennett; D P Harrington; J D Hines; H M Lazarus; J J Mazza; P P McGlave; M J O'Connell; E Paietta Journal: Leukemia Date: 1992 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: J L Harousseau; J Y Cahn; B Pignon; F Witz; N Milpied; M Delain; B Lioure; T Lamy; B Desablens; F Guilhot; D Caillot; J F Abgrall; S Francois; J Briere; D Guyotat; P Casassus; B Audhuy; Z Tellier; P Hurteloup; P Herve Journal: Blood Date: 1997-10-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: J Sierra; S Brunet; A Grañena; T Olivé; J Bueno; J M Ribera; J Petit; C Besses; A Llorente; R Guardia; J Macía; M Rovira; I Badell; E Vela; C Díaz de Heredia; P Vivancos; E Carreras; E Feliu; E Montserrat; A Julía; J Cubells; C Rozman; A Domingo; J J Ortega Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Hewlett; K J Kopecky; D Head; H J Eyre; L Elias; L Kingsbury; S P Balcerzak; L Dabich; H Hynes; J N Bickers Journal: Leukemia Date: 1995-04 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: S Keating; T de Witte; S Suciu; R Willemze; M Hayat; B Labar; L Resegotti; P R Ferrini; F Caronia; M Dardenne; G Solbu; M C Petti; M L Vegna; F Mandelli; R A Zittoun Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Vikas Gupta; Martin S Tallman; Wensheng He; Brent R Logan; Edward Copelan; Robert Peter Gale; Hanna J Khoury; Thomas Klumpp; John Koreth; Hillard M Lazarus; David I Marks; Rodrigo Martino; David A Rizzieri; Jacob M Rowe; Mitchell Sabloff; Edmund K Waller; John F DiPersio; Donald W Bunjes; Daniel J Weisdorf Journal: Blood Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Roland B Walter; Frederick R Appelbaum; Martin S Tallman; Noel S Weiss; Richard A Larson; Elihu H Estey Journal: Blood Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: D Modi; A Deol; S Kim; L Ayash; A Alavi; M Ventimiglia; D Bhutani; V Ratanatharathorn; J P Uberti Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 5.483