Conditional Survival and Cause-specific Mortality after Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Hematological Malignancies

1] Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA [2] Department of Medical Oncology and Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA.
Leukemia: official journal of the Leukemia Society of America, Leukemia Research Fund, U.K (Impact Factor: 10.43). 11/2012; 27(5). DOI: 10.1038/leu.2012.311
Source: PubMed


The probability of survival is conventionally calculated from autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (aHCT). Conditional survival takes into account the changing probability of survival with time survived, but this is not known for aHCT populations. We determined disease- and cause-specific conditional survival for 2388 patients treated with aHCT over a period of 20 years at a single institution. A total of 1054 deaths (44% of the cohort) were observed: 78% attributed to recurrent disease; 9% to subsequent malignancies and 6% to cardiopulmonary disease. Estimated probability of relative survival was 62% at 5 years and 50% at 10 years from aHCT. On the other hand, the 5-year relative survival was 70, 75, 81 and 88% after having survived 1, 2, 5 and 10 years after aHCT, respectively. The cohort was at a 13.9-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population (95% confidence interval (CI)=13.1-14.8). The risk of death approached that of the general population for 10-year survivors (standardized mortality ratio (SMR)=1.4, 95% CI=0.9-1.9), with the exception of female Hodgkin's lymphoma patients transplanted before 1995 at age 40 years (SMR=6.0, 95% CI=1.9-14.0). Among those who had survived 10 years, nonrelapse-related mortality rates exceeded relapse-related mortality rates. This study provides clinically relevant survival estimates after aHCT, and helps inform interventional strategies.Leukemia advance online publication, 27 November 2012; doi:10.1038/leu.2012.311.

Download full-text


Available from: Auayporn Nademanee, Mar 20, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Current recommendations for monitoring patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) provide recommendations for response assessment and treatment only at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. These recommendations are based on clinical trial outcomes computed from treatment start. Conditional survival estimates take into account the changing hazard rates as time from treatment elapses as a continuum. Patients and methods: We performed conditional survival analyses among patients with CML to improve prognostication at any time point during the course of therapy. We used 2 cohorts of patients with CML in chronic phase: 1 treated in the frontline DASISION (Dasatinib versus Imatinib Study in Treatment - Naïve CML) phase III study (n = 519) and another treated after imatinib treatment had failed in the dasatinib dose-optimization phase III CA180-034 study (n = 670). Conditional survival estimates were calculated. A modified Cox proportional hazards model was used to build a prognostic nomogram. Results: As the time alive or free from events from commencement of treatment increased, conditional survival estimates changed. No differences were observed regarding future outcomes between patients treated with imatinib or dasatinib in the frontline setting for patients with the same breakpoint cluster region-abelson 1 (BCR-ABL1) transcript levels evaluated at the same time point. Age older than 60 years greatly affected future outcomes particularly in the short-term. Conditional survival-based nomograms allowed the prediction of future outcomes at any time point. Conclusion: In summary, we designed a calculator to predict future outcomes of patients with CML at any time point during the course of therapy.
    Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia 08/2014; 14(4). DOI:10.1016/j.clml.2014.01.003 · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: - Copyright © 2015, Ferrata Storti Foundation.
    Haematologica 02/2015; 100(6). DOI:10.3324/haematol.2014.119214 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Psychological distress contributes to impaired quality of life in hematological cancer patients. Stepped care treatment, in which patients start with the least intensive treatment most likely to work and only receive more intensive interventions if needed, could improve distress. We aimed to evaluate the outcome of stepped care treatment on psychological distress and physical functioning in patients treated with autologous stem cell transplantation for hematological malignancies. In the present study, we performed a randomized clinical trial with two treatment arms: stepped care and care as usual. Baseline assessment and randomization occurred during pre-transplant hospitalization. Stepped care was initiated after 6 weeks, consisting of (1) watchful waiting, (2) Internet-based self-help intervention, and (3) face-to-face counseling/ psychopharmacological treatment/ referral. Follow-up measurements were conducted at 13, 30, and 42 weeks after transplantation. Stepped care (n = 47) and care as usual (n = 48) were comparable on baseline characteristics. The uptake of the intervention was low: 24 patients started with step 1, 23 with step 2, and none with step 3. Percentages of distressed patients ranged from 4.1 to 9.7 %. Ten percent of patients received external psychological or psychiatric care. No statistically significant differences were found between stepped care and care as usual on psychological distress or physical functioning in intention to treat analyses, nor in per protocol analyses. The stepped care program was not effective in decreasing psychological distress. The low intervention uptake, probably related to the low levels of psychological distress, offers an explanation for this outcome. Future research should take into account patients’ specific care needs. Netherlands Trial Registry identifier: NTR1770.
    Annals of Hematology 09/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00277-015-2509-6 · 2.63 Impact Factor