Ishida Hiroyuki, Kato Motohiro, Kudo Kazuko, Taga Takashi, Tomizawa Daisuke, Miyamura Takako, Goto Hiroaki, Inagaki Jiro, Koh Katsuyoshi, Terui Kiminori, Ogawa Atsushi, Kawano Yoshifumi, Inoue Masami, Sawada Akihisa, Kato Koji, Atsuta Yoshiko, Yamashita Takuya, Adachi Souichi
Department of Pediatrics and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Matsushita Memorial Hospital, Moriguchi, Japan; Department of Pediatrics, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Department of Pediatrics and Cell Therapy and Transplantation Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015 Dec;21(12):2141-2147. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2015.08.011. Epub 2015 Aug 10.
Pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) mainly receive myeloablative conditioning regimens based on busulfan (BU) or total body irradiation (TBI) before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT); however, the optimal conditioning regimen remains unclear. To identify which of these regimens is better for pediatric patients, we performed a retrospective analysis of nationwide registration data collected in Japan between 2006 and 2011 to assess the outcomes of patients receiving these regimens before a first allo-HCT. Myeloablative conditioning regimens based on i.v. BU (i.v. BU-MAC) (n = 69) or TBI (TBI-MAC) (n = 151) were compared in pediatric AML patients in first or second complete remission (CR1/CR2). The incidences of sinusoid obstruction syndrome, acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease, and early nonrelapse mortality (NRM) before day 100 were similar for both conditioning groups; however, the incidence of bacterial infection during the acute period was higher in the TBI-MAC group (P = .008). Both groups showed a similar incidence of NRM, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of relapse between the groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed no significant differences in the 2-year relapse-free survival rates for the i.v. BU-MAC and TBI-MAC groups in the CR1/CR2 setting (71% versus 67%, P = .36; hazard ratio, .73; 95% CI, .43 to 1.24, respectively). TBI-MAC was no better than i.v. BU-MAC for pediatric AML patients in remission. Although this retrospective registry-based analysis has several limitations, i.v. BU-MAC warrants further evaluation in a prospective trial.
急性髓系白血病(AML)患儿在接受异基因造血细胞移植(allo-HCT)前,主要接受基于白消安(BU)或全身照射(TBI)的清髓性预处理方案;然而,最佳预处理方案仍不明确。为确定哪种方案对儿科患者更有利,我们对2006年至2011年期间在日本收集的全国登记数据进行了回顾性分析,以评估首次allo-HCT前接受这些方案的患者的结局。在首次或第二次完全缓解(CR1/CR2)的儿科AML患者中,比较了基于静脉注射白消安(i.v. BU-MAC)(n = 69)或全身照射(TBI-MAC)(n = 151)的清髓性预处理方案。两个预处理组的窦性阻塞综合征、急性和慢性移植物抗宿主病以及第100天前的早期非复发死亡率(NRM)发生率相似;然而,TBI-MAC组急性期细菌感染的发生率更高(P = .008)。两组的NRM发生率相似,两组间复发率无显著差异。单因素和多因素分析显示,在CR1/CR2情况下,i.v. BU-MAC组和TBI-MAC组的2年无复发生存率无显著差异(分别为71%对67%,P = .36;风险比,.73;95% CI,.43至1.24)。对于处于缓解期的儿科AML患者,TBI-MAC并不比i.v. BU-MAC更好。尽管这项基于登记处的回顾性分析有几个局限性,但i.v. BU-MAC值得在前瞻性试验中进一步评估。