On Behalf of the SFGM-TC: Retrospective Comparison of Reduced and Higher Intensity Conditioning for High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome Treated With Allogeneic Stem-Cell Transplantation
Résumé
Background
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) remains the best curative option for high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome . We retrospectively compared patient outcomes after allo-HSCT according to the intensity of the conditioning regimen.
Patients and Methods
Three conditioning regimens were compared in 427 patients allografted for high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome: reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC), fludarabine (150-160 mg/m2) and busulfan (6.4 mg/kg); sequential FLAMSA-RIC, fludarabine, amsacrine, and aracytine followed by RIC; and myeloablative with reduced toxicity (RTC), fludarabine and busulfan (9.6 mg/kg or 12.8 mg/kg).
Results
The patients in the 3 conditioning groups were different in regards to the number of treatment lines (P< .001), percentage of blasts in bone marrow (P< .001), and disease status at transplantation (P< .001). No significant differences in outcomes (overall survival, progression-free survival, nonrelapse mortality, relapse incidence, and graft versus host disease relapse-free survival) were observed between the 3 groups. Using propensity score analysis to overcome baseline imbalances, we compared 70 patients receiving FLAMSA-RIC to 260 patients receiving RIC, and compared 83 patients receiving RTC to 252 patients receiving RIC. The only factor influencing overall and progression-free survival was cytogenetic risk at transplantation. After the covariate adjustment using propensity score to reduce baseline imbalances, the only factor influencing overall and progression-free survival was still cytogenetic risk at transplantation.
Conclusion
Overall survival appears to be similar with the 3 conditioning regimens. The only factor influencing survival is cytogenetic risk at transplantation, suggesting that new promising drugs in the conditioning and/or early interventions after transplantation are needed to improve outcomes in these patients.
| Origine | Publication financée par une institution |
|---|