COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Autologous versus unrelated donor allogeneic marrow transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Blood 1997 October 16
Bone marrow transplantation (BMT) can cure patients with high-risk or recurrent acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Those lacking a related donor can receive either autologous or histocompatible unrelated donor (URD) marrow. Autotransplantation may result in higher risk of relapse, whereas URD allografts, although associated with serious posttransplant toxicities, may reduce relapse risk. Six years (1987 to 1993) of consecutive autologous BMT (University of Minnesota, Dana Farber Cancer Institute; n = 214) were compared with URD transplants (National Marrow Donor Program; n = 337). Most transplants (70% autologous, 48% URD) were in early remission (first or second complete remission [CR1 or CR2]); 376 patients (75% autologous, 64% URD) were less than 18 years old. Autologous BMT led to significantly lower transplant-related mortality (TRM; relative risk [RR] 0.35; P = .001). URD transplantation offered greater protection against relapse (autologous RR 3.1; P = .001). Patients greater than 18 years old, women, and BMT recipients beyond CR2 had higher TRM, whereas adults, BMT recipients in CR2+, or BMT recipients during 1991 through 1993 had significantly more relapse. After 25 months median follow-up, 100 URD and 56 autologous recipients survive leukemia free. URD BMT in CR2 resulted in superior disease-free survival (DFS), especially for adult patients. Multivariate analysis showed superior DFS for children, men, and BMT during CR1 or 2. Autologous and URD BMT can extend survival for a minority of patients unlikely to be cured by chemotherapy, and the results with either technique are comparable. Greater toxicity and TRM after URD BMT are counterbalanced by better protection against relapse. Prospective studies addressing additional clinical variables are needed to guide clinical decision making about transplant choices for patients with ALL.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app