Plos One

ISSN:

国家:

China

影响因子:

SCIE收录情况:

JCR分区:

Dandan Li; Li Wang; Honghu Zhu; Liping Dou; Daihong Liu; Lin Fu; Cong Ma; Xuebin Ma; Yushi Yao; Lei Zhou; Qian Wang; Lijun Wang; Yu Zhao; Yu Jing; Lili Wang; Yonghui Li; Li Yu; Dandan Li; Li Wang; Honghu Zhu; Liping Dou; Daihong Liu; Lin Fu; Cong Ma; Xuebin Ma; Yushi Yao; Lei Zhou; Qian Wang; Lijun Wang; Yu Zhao; Yu Jing; Lili Wang; Yonghui Li; Li Yu
2015-7-21 相关链接

摘要

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and consolidation chemotherapy have been used to treat intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients in first complete remission (CR1). However, it is still unclear which treatments are most effective for these patients. The aim of our study was to analyze the relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit of allogeneic HSCT (alloHSCT) for intermediate-risk AML patients in CR1. A meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing alloHSCT to non-alloHSCT (autologous HSCT [autoHSCT] and/or chemotherapy) was undertaken. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library though October 2014, using keywords and relative MeSH or Emtree terms, 'allogeneic'; 'acut*' and 'leukem*/aml/leukaem*/leucem*/leucaem*'; and 'nonlympho*' or 'myelo*'. A total of 7053 articles were accessed. The primary outcomes were RFS and OS, while the secondary outcomes were treatment-related mortality (TRM) and relapse rate (RR). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each outcome. The primary outcomes were RFS and OS, while the secondary outcomes were TRM and RR. We included 9 prospective controlled studies including 1950 adult patients. Patients with intermediate-risk AML in CR1 who received either alloHSCT or non-alloHSCT were considered eligible. AlloHSCT was found to be associated with significantly better RFS, OS, and RR than non-alloHSCT (HR, 0.684 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.95]; HR, 0.76 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.95]; and HR, 0.58 [95% CI: 0.45, 0.75], respectively). TRM was significantly higher following alloHSCT than non-alloHSCT (HR, 3.09 [95% CI: 1.38, 6.92]). However, subgroup analysis showed no OS benefit for alloHSCT over autoHSCT (HR, 0.99 [95% CI: 0.70, 1.39]). In conclusion, alloHSCT is associated with more favorable RFS, OS, and RR benefits (but not TRM outcomes) than non-alloHSCT generally, but does not have an OS advantage over autoHSCT specifically, in patients with intermediate-risk AML in CR1

医疗服务质量 ; 卫生服务

混合人群

Not Available

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。