<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
Matched Unrelated or Matched Sibling Donors Result in Comparable Survival After Allogeneic Stem-Cell Transplantation in Elderly Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Report From the Cooperative German Transplant Study Group

pmid: 18768435
Matched Unrelated or Matched Sibling Donors Result in Comparable Survival After Allogeneic Stem-Cell Transplantation in Elderly Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Report From the Cooperative German Transplant Study Group
Purpose In patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), differential indications for matched sibling and unrelated hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HCT) are considered, and arbitrary age limits for HCT exist. We sought to determine whether donor type is a prognostic factor in elderly patients in the era of high-resolution DNA-based HLA typing. Patients and Methods We performed univariate and multivariate analyses of event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients older than 50 years with standard- or high-risk AML who had received an allogeneic HCT between 1995 and 2005. Available DNA from donors and recipients of unrelated HCT was retyped so that the HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1 alleles could be characterized in detail. Unrelated donors (UDs) were classified as matched (8/8), possibly matched (matched, but incomplete information), partially matched (one mismatch), or poorly matched (two or more mismatches) according to the final typing results. Results Data from 368 patients with a median age of 57 years (range, 50 to 73 years) were included. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that patients’ disease status at HCT (P < .001) and the cytogenetic risk (P < .001) highly significantly predicted EFS and OS. Compared with patients with matched sibling donors, the adjusted relative risk of EFS was 0.7 (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.1) for patients with matched UDs and 1.0 (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.6) for patients with partially matched UDs. Conclusion Donor type is not a major prognostic factor for HCT in elderly patients with standard- or high-risk AML.
- Universität Augsburg Germany
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Germany
- TU Dresden Germany
- Hannover Medical School Germany
- Goethe University Frankfurt Germany
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Adolescent, Histocompatibility Testing, Age Factors, Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Middle Aged, Risk Assessment, Disease-Free Survival, Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute, HLA Antigens, Recurrence, Germany, Living Donors, Humans, Child, Aged, Proportional Hazards Models, Retrospective Studies
Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Adolescent, Histocompatibility Testing, Age Factors, Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Middle Aged, Risk Assessment, Disease-Free Survival, Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute, HLA Antigens, Recurrence, Germany, Living Donors, Humans, Child, Aged, Proportional Hazards Models, Retrospective Studies
199 Research products, page 1 of 20
- 2017IsRelatedTo
- 2017IsRelatedTo
- 2017IsRelatedTo
- 2017IsRelatedTo
- 2017IsRelatedTo
- 2017IsRelatedTo
- 2017IsRelatedTo
- 2017IsRelatedTo
- 2017IsRelatedTo
- 2017IsRelatedTo
chevron_left - 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
chevron_right
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).142 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Top 10% influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Top 10% impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Top 1%