Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstract for Reference 78

of 'Treatment of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia'

Second allograft for hematologic relapse of acute leukemia after first allogeneic stem-cell transplantation from related and unrelated donors: the role of donor change.
Christopeit M, Kuss O, Finke J, Bacher U, Beelen DW, Bornhäuser M, Schwerdtfeger R, Bethge WA, Basara N, Gramatzki M, Tischer J, Kolb HJ, Uharek L, Meyer RG, Bunjes D, Scheid C, Martin H, Niederwieser D, Kröger N, Bertz H, Schrezenmeier H, Schmid C
J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(26):3259.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of a second allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT2) given for relapsed acute leukemia (AL) after related or unrelated first hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT1) and to analyze the role of donor change for HSCT2 in both settings.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective registry study on 179 HSCT2s given for relapse after HSCT1 from matched related donors (n = 75) or unrelated donors (n = 104), using identical or alternative donors for HSCT2. Separate analyses were performed according to donor at HSCT1.
RESULTS: Independent of donor, 74% of patients achieved complete remission after HSCT2, and half of these patients experienced relapse again. Overall survival (OS) at 2 years was 25%±4% (39%±7% after related HSCT2; 19%±4% after unrelated HSCT2). Long-term survivors were observed even after two unrelated HSCT2s. Multivariate analysis for OS from HSCT2 confirmed established risk factors (remission duration after HSCT1: hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 1.61 to 3.46; P<.001; stage at HSCT2: HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83; P = .006). Outcome of HSCT2 was better after related HSCT1 than after unrelated HSCT1 (2-year OS: 37%±6% v 16%±4%, respectively; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.98; P = .042, multivariate Cox regression). After both related and unrelated HSCT1, selecting a new donor for HSCT2 did not result in a relevant improvement in OS compared with HSCT2 from the original donor; however, donor change was notdetrimental either.
CONCLUSION: After relapse from allogeneic HSCT1, HSCT2 can induce 2-year OS in approximately 25% of patients. Unrelated HSCT2 is feasible after related and unrelated HSCT1. Donor change for HSCT2 is a valid option. However, a clear advantage in terms of OS could not be demonstrated.
Maximilian Christopeit and Oliver Kuss, University of Halle, Halle (Saale); Jürgen Finke and Hartmut Bertz, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg; Ulrike Bacher and Nicolaus Kröger, Bone Marrow Transplantation Centre, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg; Ulrike Bacher, Munich Leukaemia Laboratory; Johanna Tischer, Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital; Hans-Jochem Kolb, Technical University Hospital, Munich; Christoph Schmid, Augsburg Medical Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Augsburg; Dietrich Wilhelm Beelen, University Hospital Essen, Essen; Martin Bornhäuser, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden; Rainer Schwerdtfeger, Deutsche Klinik für Diagnostik, Wiesbaden; Wolfgang Andreas Bethge, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen; Nadezda Basara and Dietger Niederwieser, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig; Martin Gramatzki, University Hospital Kiel, Kiel; Lutz Uharek, Charité-Campus B. Franklin, University Hospital Berlin, Berlin; Ralf G. Meyer, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz; Donald Bunjes, University Hospital Ulm; Hubert Schrezenmeier, Deutsches Register für Stammzelltransplantation and Institute of Clinical Transfusion Medicine and Immunogenetics Ulm, German Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service Baden-Württemberg-Hessen and University of Ulm, Ulm; Christof Scheid, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne; and Hans Martin, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.