Chinese medical journal · 2021
A multicenter retrospective study on the real-world outcomes of autologous vs. allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for peripheral T-cell lymphoma in China.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gu Zhen-Yang, Dong Yu-Jun, Fu Xiao-Rui, Li Nai-Nong, Liu Yao, Wu Xiao-Xiong, Wang Yi-Ni, Li Yu-Hang, Ren Han-Yun, Zhang Ming-Zhi, Li Xiao-Fan, Wang Mai-Hong, Wu Ya-Mei, Liu Dai-Hong, Wang Zhao, Hu Liang-Ding, Huang Wen-Rong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There were few studies on real-world data about autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) or allogeneic HSCT (allo-HSCT) in peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients who received auto-HSCT or allo-HSCT in China.
METHODS: From July 2007 to June 2017, a total of 128 patients who received auto-HSCT (n = 72) or allo-HSCT (n = 56) at eight medical centers across China were included in this study. We retrospectively collected their demographic and clinical data and compared the clinical outcomes between groups.
RESULTS: Patients receiving allo-HSCT were more likely to be diagnosed with stage III or IV disease (95% vs. 82%, P = 0.027), bone marrow involvement (42% vs. 15%, P = 0.001), chemotherapy-resistant disease (41% vs. 8%, P = 0.001), and progression disease (32% vs. 4%, P < 0.001) at transplantation than those receiving auto-HSCT. With a median follow-up of 30 (2-143) months, 3-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the auto-HSCT group were 70%(48/63) and 59%(42/63), respectively. Three-year OS and PFS for allo-HSCT recipients were 46%(27/54) and 44%(29/54), respectively. There was no difference in relapse rate (34%[17/63] in auto-HSCT vs. 29%[15/54] in allo-HSCT, P = 0.840). Three-year non-relapse mortality rate in auto-HSCT recipients was 6%(4/63) compared with 27%(14/54) for allo-HSCT recipients (P = 0.004). Subanalyses showed that patients with lower prognostic index scores for PTCL (PIT) who received auto-HSCT in an upfront setting had a better outcome than patients with higher PIT scores (3-year OS: 85% vs. 40%, P = 0.003). Patients with complete remission (CR) undergoing auto-HSCT had better survival (3-year OS: 88% vs. 48% in allo-HSCT, P = 0.008). For patients beyond CR, the outcome of patients who received allo-HSCT was similar to that in the atuo-HSCT group (3-year OS: 51% vs. 46%, P = 0.300).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study provided real-world data about auto-HSCT and allo-HSCT in China. Auto-HSCT seemed to be associated with better survival for patients in good condition (lower PIT score and/or better disease control). For patients possessing unfavorable characteristics, the survival of patients receiving allo-HSCT group was similar to that in the auto-HSCT group.
METHODS: From July 2007 to June 2017, a total of 128 patients who received auto-HSCT (n = 72) or allo-HSCT (n = 56) at eight medical centers across China were included in this study. We retrospectively collected their demographic and clinical data and compared the clinical outcomes between groups.
RESULTS: Patients receiving allo-HSCT were more likely to be diagnosed with stage III or IV disease (95% vs. 82%, P = 0.027), bone marrow involvement (42% vs. 15%, P = 0.001), chemotherapy-resistant disease (41% vs. 8%, P = 0.001), and progression disease (32% vs. 4%, P < 0.001) at transplantation than those receiving auto-HSCT. With a median follow-up of 30 (2-143) months, 3-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the auto-HSCT group were 70%(48/63) and 59%(42/63), respectively. Three-year OS and PFS for allo-HSCT recipients were 46%(27/54) and 44%(29/54), respectively. There was no difference in relapse rate (34%[17/63] in auto-HSCT vs. 29%[15/54] in allo-HSCT, P = 0.840). Three-year non-relapse mortality rate in auto-HSCT recipients was 6%(4/63) compared with 27%(14/54) for allo-HSCT recipients (P = 0.004). Subanalyses showed that patients with lower prognostic index scores for PTCL (PIT) who received auto-HSCT in an upfront setting had a better outcome than patients with higher PIT scores (3-year OS: 85% vs. 40%, P = 0.003). Patients with complete remission (CR) undergoing auto-HSCT had better survival (3-year OS: 88% vs. 48% in allo-HSCT, P = 0.008). For patients beyond CR, the outcome of patients who received allo-HSCT was similar to that in the atuo-HSCT group (3-year OS: 51% vs. 46%, P = 0.300).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study provided real-world data about auto-HSCT and allo-HSCT in China. Auto-HSCT seemed to be associated with better survival for patients in good condition (lower PIT score and/or better disease control). For patients possessing unfavorable characteristics, the survival of patients receiving allo-HSCT group was similar to that in the auto-HSCT group.