Department of Haematology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Clinical Sciences, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Nov;25(11):2167-2171. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.06.034. Epub 2019 Jul 5.
This retrospective study by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation analyzed the outcome of 2224 patients with myelofibrosis (MF) who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) between 2000 and 2014; 781 (35%) underwent myeloablative conditioning (MAC) and 1443 (65%) reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC). Median patient age was 52.9 years (range, 18 to 74 years) and 57.5 years (range, 21 to 76 years) in the MAC and RIC cohorts, respectively. Donor type was similar: matched sibling donors (MAC, 317 [41%]; RIC, 552 [38%]) and unrelated donors (MAC, 464 [59%]; RIC, 891 [62%]). Median time to both neutrophil and platelet (>20 × 10/L) engraftment did not differ between cohorts. Rates of grade II to IV acute GVHD were 28% (MAC) and 31% (RIC; P = NS). Cumulative chronic GVHD rates (limited/extensive) were 22%/27% (MAC) and 19%/31% (RIC; P = .10). Cumulative incidences of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) at 1, 3, and 5 years were 25.5%, 32.2%, and 34.6% (MAC) and 26.3%, 32.8%, and 34.4% (RIC), respectively. There was a trend toward a higher relapse rate with RIC regimens compared with MAC (P = .08); rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 10.9%, 17.2%, and 20.1% (MAC) and 14%, 19.7%, and 23.2% (RIC), respectively. No significant difference in 5-year probabilities of overall survival (OS) was noted: MAC (53.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 49.1% to 56.9%) and RIC (51.0%; 95% CI, 48.3% to 53.7%); P = .78. Regarding the composite end point of GVHD-free/relapse-free survival (GRFS), the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimate of 5-year GRFS was 32.4% (95% CI, 29.0% to 36.1%) in the MAC group and 26.1% (95% CI, 23.9% to 28.2%) in the RIC group (P = .001). In the MAC cohort, multivariable analysis confirmed worse OS and NRM with older age (>50 years), using an unrelated donor and a Karnofsky Performance Status of 80 or less. For the RIC cohort, worse OS and NRM were associated with age 60 to 70 years compared with younger recipients, use of a mismatched donor, and poor performance status. In conclusion, although similar OS rates existed for both cohorts overall, this study suggests that MAC should still be used for younger individuals suitable for such an approach due to a trend toward less relapse and an overall suggested advantage of improved GRFS, albeit this should be examined in a more homogeneous cohort. RIC allo-SCT still offers significant survival advantage in the older, fitter MF allograft patient, and optimization to reduce significant relapse and NRM rates is required.
这项由欧洲血液和骨髓移植学会进行的回顾性研究分析了 2000 年至 2014 年间接受同种异体干细胞移植(allo-SCT)的 2224 例骨髓纤维化(MF)患者的结果;781 例(35%)接受了清髓性 conditioning(MAC),1443 例(65%)接受了强度降低 conditioning(RIC)。MAC 和 RIC 队列的中位患者年龄分别为 52.9 岁(范围,18 至 74 岁)和 57.5 岁(范围,21 至 76 岁)。供体类型相似:匹配的同胞供体(MAC,317 [41%];RIC,552 [38%])和无关供体(MAC,464 [59%];RIC,891 [62%])。两组之间中性粒细胞和血小板(>20×10/L)植入的中位时间没有差异。2 至 4 级急性移植物抗宿主病的发生率为 28%(MAC)和 31%(RIC;P=NS)。累积慢性移植物抗宿主病(有限/广泛)发生率分别为 22%/27%(MAC)和 19%/31%(RIC;P=0.10)。非复发死亡率(NRM)的累积发生率在 1、3 和 5 年分别为 25.5%、32.2%和 34.6%(MAC)和 26.3%、32.8%和 34.4%(RIC)。RIC 方案与 MAC 方案相比,复发率呈上升趋势(P=0.08);1、3 和 5 年的复发率分别为 10.9%、17.2%和 20.1%(MAC)和 14%、19.7%和 23.2%(RIC)。未观察到 5 年总生存率(OS)的显著差异:MAC(53.0%;95%置信区间[CI],49.1%至 56.9%)和 RIC(51.0%;95% CI,48.3%至 53.7%);P=0.78。关于无 GVHD/无复发存活(GRFS)的复合终点,MAC 组 5 年 GRFS 的未调整 Kaplan-Meier 估计值为 32.4%(95% CI,29.0%至 36.1%),RIC 组为 26.1%(95% CI,23.9%至 28.2%)(P=0.001)。在 MAC 队列中,多变量分析证实,年龄较大(>50 岁)、使用无关供体和 Karnofsky 表现状态为 80 或更低与较差的 OS 和 NRM 相关。对于 RIC 队列,与年轻受者相比,年龄在 60 至 70 岁、使用不匹配供体和表现状态不佳与较差的 OS 和 NRM 相关。总之,尽管两组患者的总体 OS 率相似,但这项研究表明,由于复发率较低和整体 GRFS 改善的总体优势(尽管这需要在更同质的队列中进行检查),MAC 仍应适用于适合这种方法的年轻患者。RIC allo-SCT 仍然为年龄较大、身体状况较好的 MF 移植患者提供显著的生存优势,需要优化以降低显著的复发和 NRM 率。