Comparison of bone marrow versus peripheral blood allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for hematological malignancies in adults—a systematic review and meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Holtick ◽  
Melanie Albrecht ◽  
Jens M. Chemnitz ◽  
Sebastian Theurich ◽  
Alexander Shimabukuro-Vornhagen ◽  
...  
Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5768-5768
Author(s):  
Seren Durer ◽  
Ceren Durer ◽  
Faiza Jamil ◽  
Insija Ilyas Selene ◽  
Mustafa Nadeem Malik ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The use of peripheral blood stem cell source (PBSC) continues to grow in the setting of haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-SCT), mainly due to the ease of collection and rapid peripheral blood count recovery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to evaluate the outcomes of unmanipulated bone marrow (BM) and PB haplo-SCT for adult leukemia patients. Method: A comprehensive literature search of electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library) for studies published between 1 January 2004 to 24 June 2018 was conducted. We included the studies of unmanipulated BM and/or PB haplo-SCT in adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia ( ALL) . We excluded the studies which combined PB and BM stem cell sources and the studies which did not report the results of BM and PB haplo-SCT for ALL and AML separately. CMA software v.3 was used for the analysis. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 test. Random-effect model was applied. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Primary endpoints were engraftment, 2-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse incidence (RI); grade II-IV, III-IV acute and chronic GVHD. Results: Out of 1548 publications, 3 studies (n = 672 patients; retrospective; multi-center) met our inclusion criteria. The sample size of the studies varied between 71 and 451 patients. The median follow-up ranged from 18 to 46 months. PB haplo-SCT was used in 191 patients (Ruggeri, A. et al. 2018) and BM haplo-SCT was used in 481 patients (Arcese, W. et al. 2015; Ruggeri, A. et al. 2018; Chiusolo, P. et al. 2018). Myeloablative (MA) conditioning was used in majority of patients. The pooled (95%CI) engraftment rate was 93% (88-95) in BM group and 95% (91-97) in PBSC group. The pooled estimates (95%CI) of BM studies showed a 2-year OS rate of 56.1% (51.6-60.4), 2-year DFS of 48.9% (43.5-54.2) and 2-year cumulative RI of 24.6%(20.7-29).There was no heterogeneity in BM group (I2=0%) for 2-year OS, DFS and RI. For PBSC group, the pooled estimates (95%CI) for 2-year OS, DFS and RI were 56 % (48.9-62.9; I2=0%), 54% (46.9-60.9; I2=0%) and 22% (16.7-28.4; I2=0%), respectively. Incidences of grade II-IV, grade III-IV aGVHD and cGVHD from a pooled analysis (95%CI) were 23.1% (17.2-30.3; I2=55%), 5.4% (3.4-8.3; I2=16%) and 19.5% (9.7-35.3; I2=88%) for BM group in comparison to 38% (31.4-45.1; I2=0%), 14% (9.8-19.7; I2=0%) and 32% (25.8-38.9; I2=0%) for PBSC group. Pooled estimates were shown in figure 1. Conclusions: In this analysis, higher pooled rates of grade II-IV aGVHD (38% vs 23.1%), III-IV aGVHD (14% vs 5.4%) and cGVHD (32% vs 19.5%) were observed in PBSC group vs BM group, respectively. Based on comparable OS, DFS and RI, PB haplo-SCT appears to be a good alternative option for adult AML and ALL patients. Large prospective randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these results. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fei Gao ◽  
Mei-Si Lin ◽  
Jie-Shu You ◽  
Min-Yue Zhang ◽  
Long Cheng ◽  
...  

Abstract Background High-dose melphalan (HDMEL, 200 mg/m2) is considered as the standard conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). However, whether the combination of melphalan with busulfan (BUMEL) conditioning outperforms HDMEL remains controversy. Accordingly, a systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare the outcomes of HDMEL and BUMEL-based conditioning regimens in newly diagnosed MM patients having undergone auto-HSCT. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database until July 31, 2021, to identify all eligible studies comparing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), optimal treatment response after auto-HSCT, duration of stem cell engraftment and incidence of toxic events between patients undergoing BUMEL-based and HDMEL conditioning regimens. Hazard ratio (HR), mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined to estimate outcomes applying RevMan 5.4 software. Publication biases were assessed by performing Egger’s test and Begg’s test by Stata 15 software. Results Ten studies with a total of 2855 MM patients were covered in the current meta-analysis. The results of this study demonstrated that patients having received BUMEL-based regimen was correlated with longer PFS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67~0.89, P = 0.0002) but similar OS (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.92~1.26, P = 0.35) compared with those having received HDMEL. The differences of best treatment response after auto-HSCT and duration of neutrophil or platelet engraftment did not have statistical significance between the two groups of patients. With respect to adverse effects, the patients in BUMEL-based group were less frequently subject to gastrointestinal toxicity while the patients in HDMEL group less often experienced mucositis and infection. No significant difference was observed in hepatic toxicity between the two groups of patients. Conclusions In the present study, BUMEL-based conditioning was identified as a favorable regimen for a better PFS and equivalent OS as compared with HDMEL, which should be balanced against higher incidences of mucositis and infection. BUMEL-based conditioning is likely to act as an alternative strategy to more effectively improve auto-HSCT outcomes in MM.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document