These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The Dilemma of Conditioning Intensity: When Does Myeloablative Conditioning Improve Outcomes for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.
    Author: Solh MM, Solomon SR, Morris LE, Zhang X, Holland HK, Bashey A.
    Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant; 2019 Mar; 25(3):606-612. PubMed ID: 30244109.
    Abstract:
    The impact of conditioning intensity on different disease risk index (DRI) groups has not been evaluated. We retrospectively analyzed acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients in 2 groups based on DRI, to assess the impact of conditioning intensity on overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), relapse, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM). A total of 380 patients with either high/very high (n = 148) or low/intermediate DRI (n = 232) myeloid malignancy (AML, n = 278; MDS, n = 102) were included in the analysis. Median follow-up for survivors was 35 months. Median age was 58years (range, 18 to 75). Patient and transplant-related characteristics were 41% reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC), 59% myeloablative conditioning (MAC), 13% bone marrow graft, 29% matched related donor, 49% matched unrelated donor, 22% haploidentical donor, and 52% HCT-specific comorbidity index ≥ 3. Among patients with high/very high DRI, there was no difference in OS, DFS, relapse, and NRM between RIC and MAC conditioning groups. For low/intermediate risk DRI recipients of MAC had better 3-year OS estimate (69% versus 57%, P = .001), DFS (65% versus 51%, P = .003), and lower relapse (3-year cumulative incidence, 17% versus 32%; P = .01) but similar NRM (19% versus 17%, P = .04) to RIC recipients. On multivariable analysis MAC was associated with better DFS (hazard ratio [HR], .58; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.88; P = .01), lower relapse (HR, .56; 95% CI, .32 to .97; P = .038), and similar NRM (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, .54 to 2.26; P = .781) compared with RIC in the low/intermediate DRI group. Intensity had no impact on HCT outcomes in the high/very high DRI group. MAC improves DFS and relapse compared with RIC among AML/MDS patients with low/intermediate DRI. The finding of no such benefit in high/very high DRI needs to be further explored in a larger cohort with a longer follow-up.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]