| Literature DB >> 33010430 |
Nelli Bejanyan1, Meijie Zhang2, Khalid Bo-Subait2, Claudio Brunstein3, Hailin Wang2, Erica D Warlick3, Sergio Giralt4, Taiga Nishihori5, Rodrigo Martino6, Jakob Passweg7, Ajoy Dias8, Edward Copelan9, Gregory Hale10, Robert Peter Gale11, Melhem Solh12, Mohamed A Kharfan-Dabaja13, Miguel Angel Diaz14, Siddhartha Ganguly15, Steven Gore16, Leo F Verdonck17, Nasheed M Hossain18, Natasha Kekre19, Bipin Savani20, Michael Byrne20, Christopher Kanakry21, Mitchell S Cairo22, Stefan Ciurea23, Harry C Schouten24, Christopher Bredeson19, Reinhold Munker25, Hillard Lazarus26, Jean-Yves Cahn27, Marjolein van Der Poel28, David Rizzieri29, Jean A Yared30, Cesar Freytes31, Jan Cerny32, Mahmoud Aljurf33, Neil D Palmisiano34, Attaphol Pawarode35, Vera Ulrike Bacher36, Michael R Grunwald9, Sunita Nathan37, Baldeep Wirk38, Gerhard C Hildebrandt25, Sachiko Seo39, Richard F Olsson40, Biju George41, Marcos de Lima42, Christopher S Hourigan43, Brenda M Sandmaier44, Mark Litzow45, Partow Kebriaei23, Wael Saber2, Daniel Weisdorf46.
Abstract
Compared with reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC), myeloablative conditioning (MAC) is generally associated with lower relapse risk after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, disease-specific risk factors in AML/MDS can further inform when MAC and RIC may yield differential outcomes. We analyzed HCT outcomes stratified by the Disease Risk Index (DRI) in 4387 adults (age 40 to 65 years) to identify the impact of conditioning intensity. In the low/intermediate-risk DRI cohort, RIC was associated with lower nonrelapse mortality (NRM) (hazard ratio [HR], .74; 95% confidence interval [CI], .62 to .88; P < .001) but significantly greater relapse risk (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.76; P < .001) and thus inferior disease-free survival (DFS) (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.33; P = .001). In the high/very high-risk DRI cohort, RIC was associated with marginally lower NRM (HR, .83; 95% CI, .68 to 1.00; P = .051) and significantly higher relapse risk (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.41; P = .002), leading to similar DFS using either RIC or MAC. These data support MAC over RIC as the preferred conditioning intensity for patients with AML/MDS with low/intermediate-risk DRI, but with a similar benefit as RIC in high/very high-risk DRI. Novel MAC regimens with less toxicity could benefit all patients, but more potent antineoplastic approaches are needed for the high/very-high risk DRI group.Entities:
Keywords: AML; DRI; MDS; Myeloablative; RIC
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33010430 PMCID: PMC8015679 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.09.026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transplant Cell Ther ISSN: 2666-6367