TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation and chemotherapy as postremission treatment in non-M3 acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission
AU - Usuki, Kensuke
AU - Kurosawa, Saiko
AU - Uchida, Naoyuki
AU - Yakushiji, Kazuaki
AU - Waki, Fusako
AU - Matsuishi, Eijo
AU - Kagawa, Kumiko
AU - Furukawa, Tatsuo
AU - Maeda, Yoshinobu
AU - Shimoyama, Manabu
AU - Ago, Hiroatsu
AU - Yamano, Yujiro
AU - Yano, Shingo
AU - Fujishima, Naohito
AU - Takamatsu, Yasushi
AU - Eto, Tetsuya
AU - Hidaka, Michihiro
AU - Matsuoka, Hitoshi
AU - Fukuda, Takahiro
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by grants from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare , and the Advanced Clinical Research Organization .
PY - 2012/12
Y1 - 2012/12
N2 - Introduction: A number of randomized trials in patients with AML in CR1 have been conducted and they showed that auto-HCT improves RFS but not OS, compared with chemotherapy. However, because these trials have had compliance problems, the value of auto-HCT still has not been clearly established. Patients and Methods: Using a database of 2518 adult patients with AML in CR1, we retrospectively analyzed the outcome of auto-HCT and compared it with intensive nonmyeloablative chemotherapy using landmark analyses. Results: In 103 auto-HCT recipients, OS and RFS at 3 years from treatment were 65% and 57%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that unfavorable risk cytogenetics and entry into CR1 after 2 courses of induction treatment predicted a poor outcome. Because the median time interval between CR1 and auto-HCT was 153 days, landmark analyses at 5 months after CR1 were performed to compare 1290 patients who received chemotherapy alone (median age, 52 years; range, 16-70) with 103 who received auto-HCT (median age, 48 years; range, 16-67). Auto-HCT improves 3-year RFS (58% vs. 37%; P <.001) but not OS compared with chemotherapy alone. Among patients with unfavorable risk cytogenetics or those who required 2 courses to reach CR1, there was no significant difference in RFS between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Auto-HCT can be considered as a postremission therapy for AML patients with favorable or intermediate risk cytogenetics who achieve CR1 after a single course of induction treatment.
AB - Introduction: A number of randomized trials in patients with AML in CR1 have been conducted and they showed that auto-HCT improves RFS but not OS, compared with chemotherapy. However, because these trials have had compliance problems, the value of auto-HCT still has not been clearly established. Patients and Methods: Using a database of 2518 adult patients with AML in CR1, we retrospectively analyzed the outcome of auto-HCT and compared it with intensive nonmyeloablative chemotherapy using landmark analyses. Results: In 103 auto-HCT recipients, OS and RFS at 3 years from treatment were 65% and 57%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that unfavorable risk cytogenetics and entry into CR1 after 2 courses of induction treatment predicted a poor outcome. Because the median time interval between CR1 and auto-HCT was 153 days, landmark analyses at 5 months after CR1 were performed to compare 1290 patients who received chemotherapy alone (median age, 52 years; range, 16-70) with 103 who received auto-HCT (median age, 48 years; range, 16-67). Auto-HCT improves 3-year RFS (58% vs. 37%; P <.001) but not OS compared with chemotherapy alone. Among patients with unfavorable risk cytogenetics or those who required 2 courses to reach CR1, there was no significant difference in RFS between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Auto-HCT can be considered as a postremission therapy for AML patients with favorable or intermediate risk cytogenetics who achieve CR1 after a single course of induction treatment.
KW - AML
KW - Autologous transplantation
KW - CR1
KW - Postremission therapy
KW - inv(16)
KW - t(8;21)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869483207&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84869483207&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clml.2012.07.004
DO - 10.1016/j.clml.2012.07.004
M3 - Article
C2 - 22999942
AN - SCOPUS:84869483207
VL - 12
SP - 444
EP - 451
JO - Clinical Lymphoma
JF - Clinical Lymphoma
SN - 2152-2669
IS - 6
ER -
