Patrick J Hayden1, Simona Iacobelli2, José Antonio Pérez-Simón3, Anja van Biezen4, Monique Minnema5, Riitta Niittyvuopio6, Stefan Schönland7, Ellen Meijer8, Didier Blaise9, Noel Milpied10, Francisco J Márquez-Malaver3, Joan Hendrik Veelken11, Johan Maertens12, Mauricette Michallet13, Jörg Cammenga14, Stephanie N'Guyen15, Dietger Niederwieser16, Mathilde Hunault-Berger17, Jean Henri Bourhis18, Jakob Passweg19, Arancha Bermudez20, Yves Chalandon21, Ibrahim Yakoub-Agha22, Laurent Garderet23, Nicolaus Kröger24. 1. Dept. of Haematology, Trinity College Dublin, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 2. Tor Vergata University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 3. Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio, Instituto de Biomedicina y Universidad de Sevilla (IBIS)/CSIC/CIBERONC, Seville, Spain. 4. Leiden EBMT Data Office, Leiden, Netherlands. 5. University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 6. HUCH Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki, Finland. 7. University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 9. Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France. 10. CHU Bordeaux Hôpital Haut-leveque, Pessac, France. 11. Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands. 12. University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. 13. Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Lyon, France. 14. Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden. 15. Hopital la Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. 16. University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 17. CHRU Angers, Angers, France. 18. Gustave Roussy institut de cancérologie, Villejuif, France. 19. University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 20. FEA Servicio de Hematología, Santander, Spain. 21. Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 22. Hôpital Claude Huriez, Lille, France. 23. Hospital Saint Antoine, Paris, France. 24. University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the intensity of conditioning approaches used in allogeneic transplantation in myeloma-reduced intensity conditioning (RIC), non-myeloablative (NMA), myeloablative conditioning (MAC) or Auto-AlloHCT-on outcomes in patients who had had a prior autologous transplant. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the EBMT database (1991-2012) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 344 patients aged between 40 and 60 years at the time of alloHCT were identified: 169 RIC, 69 NMA, 65 MAC and 41 Auto-Allo transplants. At a median follow-up of 54 months, the probabilities of overall survival (OS) at 5 years were 39% (95% CI 31%-47%), 45% (95% CI 32%-57%), 19% (95% CI 6%-32%) and 34% (95% CI 17%-51%), respectively. Status at allogeneic HCT other than CR or PR conferred a 70% higher risk of death and a 40% higher risk of relapse. OS was markedly lower in the MAC group (P = .004). MAC alloHCT was associated with a higher risk of death than RIC alloHCT until 2002 (HR = 4.1, P < .001) but not after 2002 (HR = 1.2, P = .276). CONCLUSION: From 1991 to 2002, MAC was associated with poorer OS. Between 2003 and 2012, there were no significant differences in outcomes based on these different approaches.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the intensity of conditioning approaches used in allogeneic transplantation in myeloma-reduced intensity conditioning (RIC), non-myeloablative (NMA), myeloablative conditioning (MAC) or Auto-AlloHCT-on outcomes in patients who had had a prior autologous transplant. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the EBMT database (1991-2012) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 344 patients aged between 40 and 60 years at the time of alloHCT were identified: 169 RIC, 69 NMA, 65 MAC and 41 Auto-Allo transplants. At a median follow-up of 54 months, the probabilities of overall survival (OS) at 5 years were 39% (95% CI 31%-47%), 45% (95% CI 32%-57%), 19% (95% CI 6%-32%) and 34% (95% CI 17%-51%), respectively. Status at allogeneic HCT other than CR or PR conferred a 70% higher risk of death and a 40% higher risk of relapse. OS was markedly lower in the MAC group (P = .004). MAC alloHCT was associated with a higher risk of death than RIC alloHCT until 2002 (HR = 4.1, P < .001) but not after 2002 (HR = 1.2, P = .276). CONCLUSION: From 1991 to 2002, MAC was associated with poorer OS. Between 2003 and 2012, there were no significant differences in outcomes based on these different approaches.
Authors: Taylor Kuhn; Robin Blades; Lev Gottlieb; Kendra Knudsen; Christopher Ashdown; Laurel Martin-Harris; Dara Ghahremani; Bianca H Dang; Robert M Bilder; Susan Y Bookheimer Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Patrick J Hayden; Dirk-Jan Eikema; Liesbeth C de Wreede; Linda Koster; Nicolaus Kröger; Hermann Einsele; Monique Minnema; Alida Dominietto; Michael Potter; Jacob Passweg; Arancha Bermúdez; Stephanie Nguyen-Quoc; Uwe Platzbecker; Johanna Tischer; Fabio Ciceri; Joan Hendrik Veelken; Per Ljungman; Nicolaas Schaap; Edouard Forcade; Angelo Michele Carella; Virginie Gandemer; William Arcese; Adrian Bloor; Attilio Olivieri; Laure Vincent; Meral Beksac; Stefan Schönland; Ibrahim Yakoub-Agha Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 5.483