|
|
 Previous Article | Table of Contents | Next Article 
Blood, Vol. 90 No. 8 (October 15), 1997:
pp. 2962-2968
Autologous Versus Unrelated Donor Allogeneic Marrow Transplantation for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
By
Daniel J. Weisdorf,
Amy L. Billett,
Peter Hannan,
Jerome Ritz,
Stephen E. Sallan,
Michael Steinbuch, and
Norma K.C. Ramsay
From the University of Minnesota Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics and the Bone Marrow Transplant Program, Minneapolis, MN; the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; and the National Marrow Donor Program, Minneapolis, MN.
 |
ABSTRACT |
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.
| |
INTRODUCTION |
ADVANCES IN CHEMOTHERAPY have been able to cure the majority of children and many adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).1-5 For those who relapse or for certain high-risk subgroups, allogeneic related donor bone marrow transplantation (BMT) yields extended disease-free survival (DFS) for a large number of patients, both children and adults.6-12 For those lacking a histocompatible related donor, autologous marrow, collected during remission and cryopreserved, can be used for reconstitution after high-dose conditioning.13-22 More recently, by using the donor search and identification network of the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), phenotypically histocompatible unrelated donor marrow (URD) can be used for allogeneic BMT.23-25 Because excess toxicity (rejection and graft-versus-host disease [GVHD]) is expected after URD allotransplantation,26,27 but also reduced chances of posttransplant relapse because of the graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect,25,28 the comparative safety and ultimate efficacy of the two transplant techniques is uncertain. Therefore, we analyzed the detailed results of 6 years (1987 to 1993) of consecutive autologous transplantation from the University of Minnesota (UM) and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) compared with URD results over the same 6-year time period from the NMDP with particular attention to risks of transplant-related mortality (TRM), relapse, and DFS. The results of this comparative analysis may be used to facilitate clinical decision making about the relative efficacy of either transplant technique for patients with ALL.
| |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
The results of 6 years of consecutive patients transplanted for ALL were compiled. Autologous BMT results were obtained from UM (n = 121) and the DFCI (n = 93) including prospectively collected records from all patients with ALL undergoing autotransplantation at the two institutions.15,18,19,21,29,30 These data were compared with the centralized records of the NMDP (n = 337), which contain demographic and outcome data for all patients receiving transplants facilitated by the NMDP. All patients transplanted between September 1, 1987 (the initiation of the NMDP) and August 31, 1993 were analyzed. All patients had been followed for a minimum of 18 months at the time the data set was closed (May 1995). Initial prospective data collection through the NMDP did not include determination of the date of achieving first remission, the diagnostic leukocyte count, or the site of relapse. Therefore, neither the duration of first complete remission (CR1), diagnostic leukocyte count, nor relapse site was available as a prognostic element for analysis. NMDP data were retrospectively audited on site (at the transplant centers) for completeness and accuracy, and the data files from the two autotransplant centers (UM and DFCI) were merged electronically and reverified for completeness and accuracy before analysis.
Statistical analysis was performed in the University of Minnesota Bone Marrow Transplant Database and Biostatistical Facility by using SAS (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) software (version 6.09, 1992) running on Digital Equipment Corporation Vax VMS System (Maynard, MA). Differences between groups were assessed using  2 analysis. Posttransplant outcomes (relapse, TRM, and DFS) were determined using Kaplan-Meier product limit estimates31 with 95% confidence limits derived from the standard errors. Estimates of outcome ± 95% confidence limits are shown at the last event. Comparisons between groups were performed by using the log-rank test. Multiple variable analyses were performed using the Cox model,32 stratified across remission groups as indicated. Recursive partitioning analysis33 was performed to determine the outcomes in successive cohorts divided by prognostic factors applied in order of statistical significance. Cox model analyses of each subset stratified across remission cohorts were used to assess the statistical significance of each partition.
Autologous transplants were performed as previously reported by using supportive care and conditioning regimens described from the two institutions15,18,19,21,29,30 and as shown in Table 1. The multicenter transplant techniques for the URD transplants included those in place at each transplant center, meeting the experience and quality standards of the NMDP.23,34 Fifty-one percent of URD recipients were phenotypically matched with their donors at human leukocyte antigen-A (HLA-A), HLA-B, and HLA-DR by serological techniques. No high resolution DNA sequence level matching was performed for these initial NMDP URD transplants. No center-specific analyses were performed in either the autologous or the URD cohort.
| |
RESULTS |
Characteristics of the patients treated are shown in Table 1. Most patients were men. A greater proportion of autologous recipients were less than 18 years (P = .009). Autologous transplant recipients were more likely to be treated in earlier remissions (P < .001) but a large proportion in both groups were in CR1 or CR2 (69.6% autologous, 47.3% URD). Very few autologous but nearly a quarter of URD recipients were transplanted in relapse. In both groups over 90% of patients received total body irradiation before transplantation.
After a median 25 months of follow-up (range 2 to 72 months; autologous 2 to 72, median 34; URD 3 to 69, median 25), 177 of the 551 patients survive and 156 was free of leukemia (56 autologous and 100 URD). A total of 200 patients died without relapse (34 of 214 [15.9%] autologous and 168 of 337 [49.9%] URD). Posttransplant relapse occurred in 195 patients (126 [58.9%] autologous and 69 [20.5%] URD). Univariate Kaplan-Meier analyses of the risks of relapse, TRM, and DFS are shown (Table 2) for subsets of patients undergoing transplantation in different remission or relapse status. Posttransplant leukemia relapse was significantly more frequent (1.5-fold to 4.5-fold more) for those undergoing autologous transplantation in CR2, CR3, or in relapse. A similar, but not statistically significant difference was observed for transplantation in CR1 with (1.6-fold) more frequent relapse after autologous grafts (P = .12).
The greater toxicity of URD transplantation reflecting greater hazards of rejection and GVHD plus posttransplant immunodeficiency and opportunistic infection resulted in significantly more frequent TRM. As shown, TRM was significantly more frequent (2.8- to 4-fold greater) for URD recipients in any remission and a similar, but not significantly worse, outcome was observed for those receiving URD allotransplants while in relapse.
These discordant, unfavorable outcomes for the two transplant techniques yielded differing net results of DFS after transplantation (Table 2). For those transplanted in CR1, autologous transplantation was significantly superior with a 10% greater likelihood of posttransplant DFS (42% autologous transplants v 32% URD; P = .03). In contrast, for those transplanted in CR2 a 20% greater likelihood of DFS was observed in recipients of URD transplantation (20% autologous v 42% URD; P = .02), primarily reflecting the markedly increased relapse hazard for the autologous recipients in this group. There were no significantly different outcomes in DFS observed between autologous and URD transplant recipients treated in later remission or in relapse.
Importance of patient age.
To further evaluate the impact of age on posttransplant outcome, the largest and most uniform cohort of patients, those undergoing BMT in CR2, were analyzed comparing the three posttransplant endpoints in the autologous and URD transplant subgroups; adults greater than 18 years of age compared with children 18 years or less (Fig 1). For patients transplanted during CR2, in children 18 years or less, DFS after URD (47% ± 12%; 95% confidence interval [CI]) was better but not statistically different from that observed after autologous (28% ± 14%) transplantation (P = .16). Females in this younger group had poorer outcome (stratified log rank analysis, P = .023). In adults, URD transplantation yielded significantly better DFS (autologous 0% v URD 42% ± 22%; P = .006), whereas sex had no additional impact on the outcome (P = .78).
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
| Fig 1.
DFS after transplantation for ALL in CR2. Shown are Kaplan-Meier projections of outcome for autologous and unrelated donor allogeneic marrow recipients divided by age <18 years. P values shown represent log-rank tests of significance between autologous and URD transplants within age strata.
|
|
Consistent with the earlier analyses, URD transplantation led to greater TRM in both age groups (CR2  18: autologous 15% ± 10%, URD 44% ± 12%; P = .0005; CR2 > 18: autologous 8% ± 11%, URD 48% ± 24%; P = .04; Fig 2). Sex had no impact on the risk of TRM in any subgroup (P > .5). The relapse risk was lower for all recipients of URD compared with autologous transplantation in CR2, both in children (autologous, 67% ± 13% v URD, 12% ± 9%; P = .0001; adults 100% v 19% ± 20%; P = .0001). Relapse was more common in women undergoing BMT in CR2 (P = .01), especially in girls.
The greater TRM after URD BMT represents a powerful competing hazard in comparative analyses of protection against relapse. To examine this GVL effect with less confounding by these competing hazards, we analyzed the risks of relapse in the subset of patients (CR1 and CR2) surviving relapse-free beyond day 100 after transplantation. In this cohort (100 URD [63% of the total] and 108 autologous [72%]), the risk of relapse beyond day 100 was still significantly less in recipients of URD BMT, both in children (13.6% ± 9.2% URD v 53.5% ± 12.1% autologous; P = .001) and in adults (26.1% ± 24.4% URD v 85.4% ± 16.8% autologous; P = .001).
Multivariate analysis.
Recognizing previously reported prognostic factors expected to differentially alter posttransplant outcomes using these two techniques, we analyzed these same three endpoints with Cox model multivariable analysis considering patient age, patient gender, year of transplant, and differing remission status in the regression models. As shown (Table 3), autologous BMT was associated with a significantly higher risk of posttransplant relapse as was transplantation for adults over 18 years old and those transplanted during later remission or in relapse. The risk of relapse was greater in 1991 to 1993, as well. The risk of transplant-related mortality was independently and significantly higher in URD recipients, adults, females, and those transplanted at or beyond third remission or in relapse. Despite additional experience and advances in donor selection and patient management techniques, TRM was not significantly lower in the latter era, from 1991 to 1993.
Multivariate analysis of DFS identified significantly lower risks of relapse or death and, thus, improved DFS for children 18 years or younger, men, and those patients undergoing transplantation in CR1 or CR2. URD transplantation was not associated with significantly improved DFS in this regression model (P = .42).
Recursive partitioning analysis.
Complex interactions of these variables may complicate their application to clinical decision making. Multivariate regression models describe the independent strength of hazards, but do not quantify the proportion of patients achieving endpoints in cohorts with one or several identified risk factors. Therefore, we used recursive partition analysis to analyze the differential impact of these factors within significantly distinct clinical subgroups on the important endpoint of DFS in all patients (Fig 3A) or in those transplanted in CR1 or CR2 (Fig 3B). As shown, 28.1% of all patients survive disease free. Adults have significantly poorer outcomes (RR of relapse or death 1.59; P = .0001). Within the adult cohort, neither type of transplant (autologous v URD) nor gender could discriminate subgroups with significantly different risks of DFS posttransplant. Among transplant recipients 18 years old or younger, boys had significantly superior outcome with 37% surviving disease free compared with only 28% of girls. Within this cohort of male children undergoing transplantation, autologous and URD BMT yielded similar outcomes. In female children, URD transplant was associated with a significantly superior DFS compared with recipients of autografts (34% URD v 18% autologous; P = .04). No other factors could further discriminate differences in DFS within these varying clinical cohorts. Within the favorable group undergoing BMT in CR1 or CR2 (Fig 3B) an additional recursive partition analysis showed significantly better DFS in children and males. Similar to the findings observed in the entire patient group, in girls, a trend towards improved DFS after URD versus autologous BMT was also apparent (RR, 1.38; P = .11).
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
| Fig 3.
DFS after BMT: Recursive partitioning analysis. (A) All patients. (B) BMT in CR1 or CR2. Shown in each box are the number and crude percentage of patients surviving leukemia-free after BMT. The relative risks (of relapse or death) reflect Cox model tests of significance within the partition subgroup stratified over remission status. No additional factors identified subgroups with significantly different outcome after either autologous or URD allogeneic BMT.
|
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
High-dose chemotherapy, usually with total body irradiation, followed by transplantation of either autologous or URD allogeneic marrow can cure a substantial, but still unsatisfactory fraction of children and adults with ALL. This analysis shows differential toxicities and outcomes of the two transplantation options when performed in different remission status and for different subgroups of patients. The consistently greater toxicity and TRM after URD transplantation is somewhat less severe in children, but is disturbingly high in both age groups. Thus, substantive improvements in prompt donor availability and in transplant technique are required before the greater antileukemia potential of URD transplantation can be exploited for larger numbers of patients with ALL. Phenotypically closer donor/recipient matching, currently using high resolution DNA sequence-based HLA typing, may reduce some posttransplant hazards of GVHD23 as well as persisting immunodeficiency and opportunistic infection.24,35 Additionally, newer posttransplant immunosuppressives36 or T lymphocyte depletion of the donor graft37 might reduce the TRM, although these improvements await testing in formal prospective and randomized comparative trials.
Alternatively, autologous transplantation has been reported to consolidate and extend remission for a fraction of ALL patients with only modest TRM.13-22 Previous reports have suggested that autotransplant results are superior for patients displaying clinically favorable characteristics of their underlying ALL. These include lower diagnostic leukocyte count, longer initial remission duration,13,18,19 and perhaps lesser residual leukemia burden as assayed by clonogenic leukemia precursor assays29 or molecular techniques. These predictive factors, referable to the original leukemia rather than to transplant technology, highlight the pitfalls of selection bias in analysis of either transplant technique. Additional modifications of autografting methods including in vitro purging or posttransplant immunotherapy may further improve on currently reported results.
In this multicenter analysis, we could not fully address all factors that may have influenced clinical decision making in allocation of patients to either autologous or URD BMT. The propensity for early relapse and short later remissions in ALL could lead some centers to offer early autotransplants to those highest-risk patients expected to have the briefest duration of remission and who would, therefore, be unable to tolerate the delay inherent in donor search and identification. Conversely, allografts with URD are only feasible for those patients who remain in remission long enough for a donor to be identified.38 This may reflect an inherent remission durability and, thus, leukemia sensitivity to treatment that might, in part, account for the superior protection against relapse observed after URD transplantation. The importance of first remission duration on outcome after URD transplantation has not yet been reported. Additional case matching for relevant clinical factors (duration of CR1, diagnostic leukocyte count, cytogenetic or immunophenotypic subsets, and site of relapse) may further refine subsequent comparative analyses of these two transplant techniques. Improvements in transplant outcome by modification of conditioning regimens, posttransplant immunologic or immunotoxin therapy for the autologous recipients, or better histocompatibility matching and GVHD prophylaxis for the URD recipients may advance outcomes in both cohorts.
Although the inherent delays in donor searching and limited availability of suitable histocompatible unrelated donors, especially for certain minority and ethnic subgroups, may make a formal randomized prospective trial of these two techniques infeasible for patients with ALL, careful clinical decision making must account for the differential hazards but also differential antileukemia potency of these two transplant therapies. Future work must better define these issues and hopefully improve outcomes to broaden the applicability of successful transplantation therapy for patients with ALL.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
Submitted March 4, 1997;
accepted June 13, 1997.
Supported in part by National Cancer Institute Grants No. CA21737, CA68484, and CA66996 and by the National Marrow Donor Program and the Baxter Corp.
Address reprint requests to Daniel J. Weisdorf, MD, Box 480, University of Minnesota Hospital, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page
charge payment. This article must therefore be hearly marked
``advertisment'' in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734 solely to
indicate this fact.
| |
REFERENCES |
1.
Rivera GK,
Pinkel D,
Simone JV,
Hancock ML,
Crist WM:
Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia  30 years' experience at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
N Engl J Med
329:1289,
1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2.
Linker CA,
Levitt LW,
O'Donnell M,
Forman SJ,
Ries CA:
Treatment of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia with intensive cyclical chemotherapy: A follow-up report.
Blood
78:2814,
1991[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3.
Hoelzer D,
Thiel E,
Loffler H,
Buchner T,
Ganser A,
Heil G,
Koch P,
Freund M,
Diedrich H,
Ruhl H,
Maschmeyer G,
Lipp T,
Nowrousian MR,
Burkert M,
Gerecke D,
Pralle H,
Muller U,
Lunscken C,
Fulle H,
Ho AD,
Kuchler R,
Busch FW,
Schneider W,
Gorg C,
Emmerich B,
Braumann D,
Vaupel HA,
von Paleske A,
Bartels H,
Neiss A,
Messerer D:
Prognostic factors in a multicenter study for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults.
Blood
71:123,
1988[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4.
Hussein KK,
Dahlberg S,
Head D,
Waddell CC,
Dabich L,
Weick JK,
Morrison F,
Saiki JH,
Metz E,
Rivkin SE,
Grever MR,
Boldt D,
the South Western Oncology Group (SWOG):
Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults with intensive induction, consolidation, and maintenance chemotherapy.
Blood
73:57,
1989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5.
Henze G,
Fengler R,
Hartmann R,
Kornhuber B,
Janka-Schaub G,
Niethammer D,
Riehm H:
Six-year experience with a comprehensive approach to the treatment of recurrent childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL-REZ BFM 85). A relapse study of the BFM Group.
Blood
78:1166,
1991[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6.
Barrett AJ,
Horowitz MM,
Pollack BH,
Zhang M-J,
Bortin MM,
Buchanan GR,
Camitta BM,
Ochs J,
Graham-Pole J,
Rowlings PA,
Rimm AA,
Klein JP,
Shuster JJ,
Sobocinski KA,
Gale RP:
Bone marrow transplants from HLA-identical siblings as compared with chemotherapy for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in second remission.
N Engl J Med
331:1253,
1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7.
Horowitz MM,
Messerer D,
Hoelzer D,
Gale RP,
Neiss A,
Atkinson K,
Barrett AJ,
Büchner T,
Freund M,
Heil G,
Hiddemann W,
Kolb H-J,
Löffler H,
Marmont AM,
Maschmeyer G,
Rimm AA,
Rozman C,
Sobocinski KA,
Speck B,
Thiel E,
Weisdorf DJ,
Zwaan FE,
Borton MM:
Chemotherapy compared with bone marrow transplantation for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first remission.
Ann Intern Med
115:13,
1991
8.
Barrett AJ,
Horowitz MM,
Gale RP,
Biggs JC,
Camitta BM,
Dicke KA,
Gluckman E,
Good RA,
Herzig RH,
Lee MB,
Marmont AM,
Masaoka T,
Ramsay NKC,
Rim AA,
Speck B,
Zwaan FE,
Bortin MM:
Marrow transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Factors affecting relapse and survival.
Blood
74:862,
1989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9.
Thomas ED,
Sanders JE,
Flournoy N,
Johnson FL,
Buckner CD,
Clift RA,
Fefer A,
Goodell BW,
Storb R,
Weiden PL:
Marrow transplantation for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A long-term follow-up.
Blood
62:1139,
1983[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10.
Weisdorf DJ,
Nesbit ME,
Ramsay NKC,
Woods WG,
Goldman A,
Kim TH,
Hurd DD,
McGlave PB,
Kersey JH:
Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia in remission: Prolonged survival associated with acute graft-versus-host-disease.
J Clin Oncol
5:1348,
1987[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11.
Chao NJ,
Forman SJ,
Schmidt GM,
Snyder DS,
Amylon MD,
Konrad PN,
Nademanee AP,
O'Donnell MR,
Parker PM,
Stein AS,
Smith E,
Wong RM,
Hoppe RT,
Blume KG:
Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia during first complete remission.
Blood
8:1923,
1991
12.
Weisdorf DJ,
Woods WG,
Nesbit ME,
Uckun F,
Dusenbery K,
Kim T,
Haake R,
Thomas W,
Kersey JH,
Ramsay NKC:
Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Risk factors and clinical outcome.
Br J Haematol
86:62,
1994[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Ritz J, Ramsay NK, Kersey JH: Autologous bone marrow transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, in Forman SJ, Blume KG, Thomas ED (eds): Bone Marrow Transplantation. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1994, p 731
14. Weisdorf DJ: Autologous bone marrow transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, in Atkinson K (ed): Clinical Bone Marrow Transplantation, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1994, p 117
15.
Ramsay NKC,
LeBien T,
Nesbit M,
McGlave P,
Weisdorf D,
Kenyon P,
Hurd D,
Goldman A,
Kim T,
Kersey J:
Autologous bone marrow transplant for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in second or subsequent remission: Results of bone marrow treated with monoclonal antibodies BA-1, BA-2, and BA-3 plus complement.
Blood
66:508,
1985[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16.
Simonsson B,
Burnett AK,
Prentice HG,
Hann IH,
Brenner MK,
Gibson B,
Grob JP,
Lönnerholm G,
Morrison A,
Smedmyr B,
Todd A,
Öberg G,
Gilmore M,
Campana D,
Tötterman Th:
Autologous bone marrow transplantation with monoclonal antibody purged marrow for high risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Leukemia
3:631,
1989[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Herve P, Labopin M, Plouvier E, Palut P, Tiberghien P, Gorin NC: Autologous bone marrow transplantation for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia A European survey. Bone Marrow Transplant 8:72, 1991 (suppl)
18.
Parsons SK,
Castellino SM,
Lehmann LE,
Eickhoff CE,
Tarbell NJ,
Sallan SE,
Weinstein JH,
Billett AL:
Relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Similar outcomes for autologous and allogeneic marrow transplantation in selected children.
Bone Marrow Transplant
17:763,
1996[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
19.
Billett AL,
Kornmehl E,
Tarbell NJ,
Weinstein HJ,
Gelber RD,
Ritz J,
Sallan SE:
Autologous bone marrow transplantation after a long first remission for children with recurrent acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Blood
81:1651,
1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20.
Uckun FM,
Kersey JH,
Vallera DA,
Ledbetter JA,
Weisdorf D,
Myers DE,
Haake R,
Ramsay NKC:
Autologous bone marrow transplantation in high-risk transmission T-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia using immunotoxins plus 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide for marrow purging.
Blood
76:1723,
1990[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21.
Uckun FM,
Kersey JH,
Haake R,
Weisdorf D,
Ramsay NKC:
Autologous bone marrow transplantation in high-risk remission B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia using a cocktail of three monoclonal antibodies (BA-1/CD24, BA-2/CD9, and BA-3/CD10) plus complement and 4-hydroperoxy-cyclophosphamide for ex vivo bone marrow purging.
Blood
79:1094,
1992[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22.
Doney K,
Buckner C,
Fisher L,
Petersen FB,
Sanders J,
Appelbaum FR,
Anasetti C,
Badger C,
Bensinger W,
Deeg HJ,
Fefer A,
Martin P,
Petersdorf E,
Schuening F,
Singer J,
Stewart P,
Storb R,
Sullivan KM,
Witherspoon R,
Hansen JA:
Autologous bone marrow transplantation for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Bone Marrow Transplant
12:315,
1993[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
23.
Kernan NA,
Bartsch G,
Ash RC:
Analysis of 462 transplantations from unrelated donors facilitated by the National Marrow Donor Program.
N Engl J Med
328:593,
1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24.
Beatty PG,
Hansen JA,
Longton GA,
Thomas ED,
Sanders JE,
Martin PJ,
Bearman SI,
Anasetti C,
Petersdorf EW,
Mickelson EM,
Pepe MS,
Appelbaum FR,
Buckner CD,
Clift RA,
Petersen FB,
Stewart PS,
Storb RF,
Sullivan KM,
Tesler MC,
Witherspoon RP:
Marrow transplantation from HLA-matched URDs for treatment of hematologic malignancies.
Transplantation
51:443,
1991[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
25.
Davies SM,
Shu XO,
Blazar BR,
Filipovich AH,
Kersey JH,
Krivit W,
McCullough J,
Miller WJ,
Ramsay NKC,
Segall M,
Wagner JE,
Weisdorf DJ,
McGlave PB:
Unrelated donor bone marrow transplantation: Influence of HLA A and B incompatibility on outcome.
Blood
86:1636,
1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26.
Bearman SI,
Mori M,
Beatty PG,
Meyer WG,
Buckner CD,
Petersen FB,
Sanders JE,
Anasetti C,
Martin P,
Appelbaum FR,
Hansen JA:
Comparison of morbidity and mortality after marrow transplantation from HLA-genotypically identical siblings and HLA-phenotypically identical unrelated donors.
Bone Marrow Transplant
13:31,
1994[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
27.
Busca A,
Anasetti C,
Anderson G,
Appelbaum FR,
Buckner CD,
Doney K,
Martin PJ,
Petersdorf E,
Sanders JE,
Hansen JA:
Unrelated donor or autologous marrow transplantation for treatment of acute leukemia.
Blood
83:3077,
1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28.
Horowitz MM,
Gale RP,
Sondel PM,
Goldman JM,
Kersey J,
Kolb H-J,
Rimm AA,
Ringdén L,
Rozman C,
Speck B,
Truitt RL,
Zwaan FE,
Bortin MM:
Graft-versus-leukemia reactions after bone marrow transplantation.
Blood
75:555,
1990[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29.
Uckun F,
Kersey J,
Haake R,
Weisdorf D,
Nesbit M,
Ramsay N:
Pretransplantation burden of leukemic progenitor cells as a predictor of relapse after bone marrow transplantation of acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
N Engl J Med
93:1296,
1993
30.
Soiffer RJ,
Roy DC,
Gonin R,
Murray C,
Anderson KC,
Freedman AS,
Rabinowe SN,
Robertson MJ,
Spector N,
Pesek K,
Mauch P,
Nadler LM,
Ritz J:
Monoclonal antibody-purged autologous bone marrow transplantation in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Bone Marrow Transplant
12:243,
1993[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
31.
Kaplan EL,
Meier P:
Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations.
J Am Stat Assoc
53:457,
1958
32.
Cox DR:
Regression models and life tables (with discussion).
J R Stat Soc Series B
34:187,
1972
33. Ciampi A, Chang CM, Hoog S, McKinney S: Recursive partition: A versatile method for exploratory data analysis in biostatistics, in MacNeil B, Umphrey GJ, Norwell MA (eds): Biostatistics. D. Riedel, 1987, p 23
34.
Stroncek D,
Bartsch G,
Perkins HA,
Randall BL,
Hansen JA,
McCullough J:
The National Marrow Donor Program.
Transfusion
33:567,
1993[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
35.
Ochs L,
Shu XO,
Miller J,
Enright H,
Wagner J,
Filipovich A,
Miller W,
Weisdorf D:
Late infections following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: Comparison of incidence in related and unrelated donor transplant recipients.
Blood
86:3979,
1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36.
Fay JW,
Wingard JR,
Antin JH,
Collins RH,
Pineiro LA,
Blazar BR,
Saral R,
Bierer BE,
Przepiorka D,
Fitzsimmons WE,
Maher RM,
Weisdorf DJ:
FK506 (tacrolimus) monotherapy for prevention of graft-versus-host disease after histocompatible sibling allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.
Blood
87:3514,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37.
Ash RC,
Casper JT,
Chitambar CR,
Hansen R,
Bunin N,
Truitt RL,
Lawton C,
Murray K,
Hunter J,
Baxter-Lowe LA,
Gottschall JL,
Oldham K,
Anderson T,
Camitta B,
Menitove J:
Successful allogeneic transplantation of T-cell-depleted bone marrow from closely HLA-matched unrelated donors.
N Engl J Med
322:485,
1990[Abstract]
38.
Davies SM,
Ramsay NKC,
Weisdorf DJ:
Feasibility and timing of unrelated donor identification for patients with ALL.
Bone Marrow Transplant
17:737,
1996[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
M. B. Tomblyn, M. Arora, K. S. Baker, B. R. Blazar, C. G. Brunstein, L. J. Burns, T. E. DeFor, K. E. Dusenbery, D. S. Kaufman, J. H. Kersey, et al.
Myeloablative Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Analysis of Graft Sources and Long-Term Outcome
J. Clin. Oncol.,
August 1, 2009;
27(22):
3634 - 3641.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Girgis, C. Hallemeier, W. Blum, R. Brown, H.-s. Lin, H. Khoury, L. T. Goodnough, R. Vij, S. Devine, M. Wehde, et al.
Chimerism and clinical outcomes of 110 recipients of unrelated donor bone marrow transplants who underwent conditioning with low-dose, single-exposure total body irradiation and cyclophosphamide
Blood,
April 15, 2005;
105(8):
3035 - 3041.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Borgmann, A. von Stackelberg, R. Hartmann, W. Ebell, T. Klingebiel, C. Peters, and G. Henze
Unrelated donor stem cell transplantation compared with chemotherapy for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in a second remission: a matched-pair analysis
Blood,
May 15, 2003;
101(10):
3835 - 3839.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Powles, B. Sirohi, J. Treleaven, S. Kulkarni, D. Tait, S. Singhal, and J. Mehta
The role of posttransplantation maintenance chemotherapy in improving the outcome of autotransplantation in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Blood,
August 13, 2002;
100(5):
1641 - 1647.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Linker, L. Damon, C. Ries, and W. Navarro
Intensified and Shortened Cyclical Chemotherapy for Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
J. Clin. Oncol.,
May 15, 2002;
20(10):
2464 - 2471.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. E. Woolfrey, C. Anasetti, B. Storer, K. Doney, L. A. Milner, E. L. Sievers, P. Carpenter, P. Martin, E. Petersdorf, F. R. Appelbaum, et al.
Factors associated with outcome after unrelated marrow transplantation for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children
Blood,
March 15, 2002;
99(6):
2002 - 2008.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Annino, M. L. Vegna, A. Camera, G. Specchia, G. Visani, G. Fioritoni, F. Ferrara, A. Peta, S. Ciolli, W. Deplano, et al.
Treatment of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL): long-term follow-up of the GIMEMA ALL 0288 randomized study
Blood,
February 1, 2002;
99(3):
863 - 871.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Hoelzer, N. Gokbuget, O. Ottmann, C.-H. Pui, M. V. Relling, F. R. Appelbaum, J. J.M. van Dongen, and T. Szczepanski
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Hematology,
January 1, 2002;
2002(1):
162 - 192.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Kollman, C. W. S. Howe, C. Anasetti, J. H. Antin, S. M. Davies, A. H. Filipovich, J. Hegland, N. Kamani, N. A. Kernan, R. King, et al.
Donor characteristics as risk factors in recipients after transplantation of bone marrow from unrelated donors: the effect of donor age
Blood,
October 1, 2001;
98(7):
2043 - 2051.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Nash, J. H. Antin, C. Karanes, J. W. Fay, B. R. Avalos, A. M. Yeager, D. Przepiorka, S. Davies, F. B. Petersen, P. Bartels, et al.
Phase 3 study comparing methotrexate and tacrolimus with methotrexate and cyclosporine for prophylaxis of acute graft-versus-host disease after marrow transplantation from unrelated donors
Blood,
September 15, 2000;
96(6):
2062 - 2068.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
Introduction
Abstract
