Open Access

Clinical significance of high-dose cytarabine added to cyclophosphamide/total-body irradiation in bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for myeloid malignancy

  • Yasuyuki Arai1,
  • Kazunari Aoki1,
  • June Takeda1,
  • Tadakazu Kondo1Email author,
  • Tetsuya Eto2,
  • Shuichi Ota3,
  • Hisako Hashimoto4,
  • Takahiro Fukuda5,
  • Yukiyasu Ozawa6,
  • Yoshinobu Kanda7,
  • Chiaki Kato8,
  • Mineo Kurokawa9,
  • Koji Iwato10,
  • Makoto Onizuka11,
  • Tatsuo Ichinohe12,
  • Yoshiko Atsuta13, 14,
  • Akiyoshi Takami15 and
  • on behalf of the AML and MDS Working Group of the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Journal of Hematology & Oncology20158:102

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-015-0201-x

Received: 28 July 2015

Accepted: 27 August 2015

Published: 4 September 2015

Abstract

Background

Addition of high-dose cytarabine (HDCA) to the conventional cyclophosphamide/total-body irradiation (CY/TBI) regimen significantly improved prognosis after cord blood transplantation (CBT) for adult acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The efficacy of HDCA in bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (BMT/PBSCT), however, has not yet been elucidated.

Findings

We conducted a cohort study to compare the prognosis of HDCA/CY/TBI (N = 435) and CY/TBI (N = 1667) in BMT/PBSCT for AML/MDS using a Japanese transplant registry database. The median age was 38 years, and 86.0 % of the patients had AML. Unrelated donors comprised 54.6 %, and 63.9 % of donors were human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched. Overall survival (OS) was not improved in the HDCA/CY/TBI group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.14; p = 0.13). Neutrophil engraftment was inferior (HR, 0.80; p < 0.01), and the incidence of hemorrhagic cystitis and thrombotic microangiopathy increased in HDCA/CY/TBI (HR, 1.47 and 1.60; p = 0.06 and 0.04, respectively), leading to significantly higher non-relapse mortality (NRM; HR, 1.48; p < 0.01). Post-transplant relapse and tumor-related mortality were not suppressed by the addition of HDCA.

Conclusions

This study indicated the inefficacy of HDCA/CY/TBI in BMT/PBSCT for AML/MDS. Our results should be validated in large-scale prospective studies.

Introduction

Cyclophosphamide/total-body irradiation (CY/TBI) is a widely known conventional myeloablative regimen in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for adult acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) [13], while regimens with stronger anti-leukemic effects have been sought to reduce post-transplant relapse [4]. Among them, the addition of high-dose cytarabine (HDCA) to CY/TBI may be promising; in our recent large-scale study, HDCA/CY/TBI significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared to CY/TBI by suppressing relapse without increasing severe adverse events or non-relapse mortality (NRM) in cord blood transplantation (CBT) for AML/MDS [5]. However, previous studies in a small cohort with mixed hematopoietic malignancies showed that HDCA/CY/TBI increased NRM after bone marrow transplantation (BMT) [6, 7]. These results require validation using disease-specified and newer cohorts, in order to reflect the characteristics of each malignancy and the recent progress in supportive therapies, such as antibiotics. Therefore, we performed a cohort study to compare prognosis following HDCA/CY/TBI and CY/TBI in AML/MDS patients who underwent BMT or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT), using the Japanese transplant registry database.

Patients and methods

Data for adult patients (age ≥16 years) with AML and MDS who underwent allogeneic BMT or PBSCT from related (Rel) or unrelated (UR) donors as first HCT after CY/TBI (CY, total 120 mg/kg; TBI, 10–12 Gy) or HDCA/CY/TBI (CA, 2–3 g/m2 twice a day for 2–3 days) [5] between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2012, were obtained from the Japanese Transplant Registry Unified Management Program (TRUMP) [8]. UR-PBSCT and haploidentical HCT were not included because of the small number of patients. Donor-derived serum and/or erythrocytes were depleted from grafts in case of mismatched ABO blood type, and grafts were transplanted without T cell depletion. Our protocol complied with the Declaration of Helsinki, and it was approved by the TRUMP Data Management Committee and the Ethics Committee of Kyoto University. Each patient provided written informed consent.

From the registry database, we extracted data on basic pre-transplant characteristics and post-transplant clinical courses. Disease risk was defined as previously reported [9]. Disparity in human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A, B, and DR antigens was determined at the serologic level in Rel-BMT and Rel-PBSCT. In UR-BMT, 8 antigens including HLA-C were determined at the allele level; a 6/6 (Rel) or 8/8 (UR) match was considered HLA-matched [10]. Statistical analyses were performed as described previously [5].

Results

We evaluated 2102 patients who underwent HCT with CY/TBI (N = 1667) or HDCA/CY/TBI (N = 435), with a median follow-up of 1134 days (range, 40–4947 days). Patients with AML and high-risk disease were conditioned more frequently with HDCA/CY/TBI (Table 1). The dose of TBI was not different between CY/TBI and HDCA/CY/TBI (10 Gy, 4.5 vs 4.3 %; 12 Gy, 95.1 vs 94.3 %, respectively); 12 Gy was divided into 4 (26.1 vs 34.1 %) or 6 fractions (70.2 vs 60.9 %). Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis composed of cyclosporine (49.1 %) or tacrolimus (50.9 %), most of which (more than 96 %) were combined with methotrexate. No difference was observed between the two groups.
Table 1

Patient characteristics

Variables

 

Total

 

CY/TBI

 

HDCA/CY/TBI

 

N = 2102

%

N = 1667

%

N = 435

%

p

Sex

Male

1205

57.3

959

57.5

246

56.5

 

Female

897

42.7

708

42.5

189

43.5

0.71

Age

Median (years)

38

 

38

 

38

 

0.10

(Range)

(16–64)

(16–62)

(16–64)

 

≤49

1762

83.8

1391

83.4

371

85.3

 

≥50

340

16.2

276

16.6

64

14.7

0.35

PS

0–1

1963

93.3

1577

94.6

386

88.7

 

≥2

104

5.0

62

3.7

42

9.7

 

Unknown

35

1.7

28

1.7

7

1.6

<0.01*

HCT-CI

≤2

1287

61.2

1024

61.4

263

60.5

 

≥3

111

5.3

90

5.4

21

4.8

 

Unknown

704

33.5

553

33.2

151

34.7

0.78

CMV sero-status

Negative

392

18.7

312

18.7

80

18.4

 

Positive

1524

72.4

1221

73.3

303

69.6

 

Unknown

186

8.9

134

8.0

52

12.0

0.04*

Diagnosis

AML

1808

86.0

1397

83.8

411

94.5

 

MDS

294

14.0

270

16.2

24

5.5

<0.01*

Disease risk

Standard

1276

60.7

1074

64.4

202

46.4

 

High

826

39.3

593

35.6

233

53.6

<0.01*

 (In AML)

Standard

1191

65.9

993

71.1

198

48.2

 

High

617

34.1

404

28.9

213

51.8

<0.01*

 (In MDS)

Standard

85

28.9

81

30.0

4

16.7

 

High

209

71.1

189

70.0

20

83.3

0.17

Days from diagnosis to HCT

Median

239

 

240

 

237

 

0.03*

≤240

1056

50.2

834

50.0

222

51.0

 

≥241

1046

49.8

833

50.0

213

49.0

0.71

Donor source

Rel-BM

455

21.7

351

21.1

104

23.9

 

Rel-PB

499

23.7

386

23.2

113

26.0

 

UR-BM

1148

54.6

930

55.7

218

50.1

0.11

Graft cell dose

BM (NCC, median)

2.69 × 108/kg

2.66 × 108/kg

2.77 × 108/kg

0.27

PB (CD34+ cell count, median)

3.99× 106/kg

4.00× 106/kg

3.67× 106/kg

0.52

HLA mismatch

Matched

1343

63.9

1057

63.4

286

65.7

 

Mismatched

759

36.1

610

36.6

149

34.3

0.37

Sex mismatch

Matched

1145

54.4

919

55.1

226

51.9

 

M to F

508

24.2

398

23.9

110

25.3

 

F to M

445

21.2

346

20.8

99

22.8

 

Unknown

4

0.2

4

0.2

0

0.0

0.45

ABO mismatch

Matched

1114

53.0

888

53.3

226

52.0

 

Minor

389

18.5

305

18.3

84

19.3

 

Major

354

16.8

287

17.2

67

15.4

 

Both

186

8.9

148

8.9

38

8.7

 

Unknown

59

2.8

39

2.3

20

4.6

0.12

GVHD prophylaxis

CyA based

1033

49.1

816

49.0

217

49.9

 

Tac based

1069

50.9

851

51.0

218

50.1

0.73

Year of HCT

≤2008

1107

52.7

875

52.5

232

53.3

 

≥2009

995

47.3

792

47.5

203

46.7

0.75

Follow-up period

Median

1134

 

1130

 

1171.5

 

0.11

(Range)

(40–4947)

(40–4922)

(41–4947)

 

CY cyclophosphamide, TBI total-body irradiation, HDCA high-dose cytarabine, PS performance status, HCT-CI hematopoietic cell transplant co-morbidity index, CMV cytomegalovirus, AML acute myelogenous leukemia, MDS myelodysplastic syndrome, Rel related donor, UR unrelated donor, BM bone marrow graft, PB peripheral blood stem cell graft, NCC nucleated cell count, HLA human leukocyte antigen, M to F male to female, F to M female to male, GVHD graft-versus-host disease, CyA cyclosporine, Tac tacrolimus

*Indicates statistically significant by the χ 2 test or Student’s t test

OS of the HDCA/CY/TBI group was inferior to that of the CY/TBI group (Fig. 1a; 59.3 vs 72.0 % at 1 year; 45.3 vs 58.8 % at 3 years after HCT). This difference was significant on univariate analysis (Table 2), but not on multivariate analysis after adjustment for confounding factors (hazard ratio (HR), 1.14; p = 0.13; Table 3). In subgroup analyses according to pre-transplant characteristics, OS in the HDCA/CY/TBI group was significantly inferior in standard-risk disease (HR, 1.52; p < 0.01). No significant differences were found in other subgroups (Additional file 1: Figure S1).
Fig. 1

Prognosis after HCT in each group of the conditioning regimen. a OS was calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method in each group of HDCA/CY/TBI and CY/TBI. HR for overall mortality of HDCA/CY/TBI compared to CY/TBI was calculated by Cox proportional hazards model after being adjusted for confounding factors such as patient sex, age, PS, CMV sero-status, diagnosis, disease risk, days from diagnosis to HCT, HLA mismatch, sex mismatch, and year of HCT. b Tumor-related mortality, defined as death without remission or after relapse, was calculated using Gray’s method considering therapy-related death as a competing risk. HR was calculated by using Fine-Gray proportional hazards model adjusted by the confounding factors mentioned above. c NRM was calculated using Gray’s method considering relapse as a competing risk. HR was also calculated using the same model

Table 2

Univariate analysis of prognosis

Variables

 

Overall mortality

 

HR

(95 % CI)

p

Conditioning

CY/TBI

(Reference)

 

HDCA/CY/TBI

1.50

(1.29–1.74)

<0.01*

Other variables

Sex

Female

(Reference)

 

Male

1.00

(0.88–1.14)

0.96

Age

≤49

(Reference)

 

≥50

1.93

(1.65–2.25)

<0.01*

PS

0–1

(Reference)

 

≥2

2.20

(1.74–2.80)

<0.01*

HCT-CI

≤2

(Reference)

 

≥3

1.90

(1.46–2.47)

<0.01*

CMV sero-status

Negative

(Reference)

 

Positive

1.24

(1.04–1.48)

0.02*

Diagnosis

AML

(Reference)

 

MDS

0.61

(0.49–0.75)

<0.01*

Disease risk

Standard

(Reference)

 

High

2.38

(2.10–2.71)

<0.01*

Days from diagnosis to HCT

≤240

(Reference)

 

≥241

0.89

(0.78–1.01)

0.08

Donor

Rel-BM

(Reference)

 

Rel-PB

1.16

(0.96–1.40)

0.13

UR-BM

1.11

(0.95–1.31)

0.20

HLA mismatch

Matched

(Reference)

 

Mismatched

1.25

(1.01–1.43)

<0.01*

Sex mismatch

Matched

(Reference)

 

M to F

1.04

(0.89–1.22)

0.60

F to M

1.16

(0.99–1.36)

0.07

ABO mismatch

Matched

(Reference)

 

Minor

0.90

(0.75–1.07)

0.23

Major

1.11

(0.93–1.32)

0.23

Both

0.83

(0.64–1.07)

0.15

GVHD prophylaxis

CyA based

(Reference)

 

Tac based

1.01

(0.89–1.15)

0.87

Year of HCT

≤2008

(Reference)

 

≥2009

0.86

(0.75–0.99)

0.04*

Other abbreviations are explained in Table 1

HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

*Indicates statistically significant

Table 3

Multivariate analysis of prognosis in patients with HDCA/CY/TBI compared with CY/TBI

Variables

 

Overall mortality

 

Tumor-related mortality

 

NRM

 

HR

(95 % CI)

p

HR

(95 % CI)

p

HR

(95 % CI)

p

Conditioning

CY/TBI

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

HDCA/CY/TBI

1.14

(0.96–1.34)

0.13

0.90

(0.72–1.12)

0.34

1.48

(1.15–1.91)

<0.01*

Other variables

 Age

≤49

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

≥50

1.86

(1.57–2.20)

<0.01*

1.31

(1.02–1.68)

0.03*

2.04

(1.60–2.61)

<0.01*

 PS

0–1

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

≥2

1.42

(1.09–1.85)

<0.01*

1.73

(1.25–2.39)

<0.01*

0.71

(0.41–1.23)

0.22

 CMV sero-status

Negative

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

Positive

1.12

(0.93–1.34)

0.23

1.29

(1.00–1.65)

0.05*

0.91

(0.70–1.18)

0.47

 Diagnosis

AML

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

MDS

0.40

(0.32–0.51)

<0.01*

0.18

(0.12–0.27)

<0.01*

1.18

(0.87–1.59)

0.28

 Disease risk

Standard

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

High

2.53

(2.18–2.93)

<0.01*

3.98

(3.26–4.85)

<0.01*

0.97

(0.77–1.23)

0.82

 Days from diagnosis to HCT

≤240

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

≥241

0.88

(0.76–1.01)

0.07

0.80

(0.66–0.97)

0.02*

0.98

(0.79–1.22)

0.89

 HLA mismatch

Matched

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

Mismatched

1.25

(1.08–1.44)

<0.01*

0.90

(0.73–1.10)

0.30

1.60

(1.29–1.99)

<0.01*

 Sex mismatch

Matched

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

M to F

0.97

(0.81–1.15)

0.70

0.91

(0.72–1.15)

0.44

1.01

(0.77–1.31)

0.97

F to M

1.12

(0.94–1.33)

0.20

0.94

(0.74–1.20)

0.63

1.28

(0.99–1.65)

0.07

 Year of HCT

≤2008

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

(Reference)

 

≥2009

0.89

(0.77–1.02)

0.10

0.96

(0.80–1.16)

0.70

0.76

(0.61–0.94)

0.01*

Other abbreviations are explained in Tables 1 and 2

NRM non-relapse mortality

*Indicates statistically significant

Relapse, tumor-related mortality, and NRM were calculated; relapse was not reduced by HDCA addition (HR, 0.90; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.63–1.30; p = 0.58), resulting in unmitigated tumor-related mortality in the HDCA/CY/TBI group (Fig. 1b and Table 3) regardless of disease risk (high risk: HR, 0.91; p = 0.47; standard risk: HR, 0.84; p = 0.46). On the other hand, HDCA/CY/TBI significantly increased NRM in the whole cohort (HR, 1.48; p < 0.01; Fig. 1c and Table 3) especially in the acute phase after HCT. The major causes of NRM included organ failure, infection, and GVHD, without significant differences between the two groups (Table 4).
Table 4

Causes of NRM

Cause of NRM

Total

CY/TBI

HDCA/CY/TBI

 

N

%

N

%

N

%

p

Infection

110

27.3

78

26.4

32

29.6

0.52

 Bacteria

61

 

43

 

18

  

 Virus

19

 

14

 

5

  

 Fungi

13

 

9

 

4

  

Rejection/engraftment failure

3

0.7

3

1.0

0

0.0

0.29

TMA

10

2.5

8

2.7

2

1.9

0.62

VOD

15

3.7

12

4.1

3

2.8

0.54

GVHD

44

10.9

32

10.8

12

11.1

0.94

 Acute

20

 

14

 

6

  

 Chronic

24

 

18

 

6

  

Hemorrhage

24

6.0

18

6.1

6

5.6

0.84

Organ failure

127

31.5

95

32.2

32

29.6

0.62

 Liver

9

 

7

 

2

  

 Heart

13

 

8

 

5

  

 Kidney

6

 

4

 

2

  

 CNS

8

 

6

 

2

  

 Lung

82

 

62

 

20

  

  Interstitial pneumonia

40

 

29

 

11

  

  ARDS

14

 

13

 

1

  

Secondary malignancy

1

0.2

1

0.3

0

0.0

0.54

Others

69

17.1

48

16.3

21

19.4

 

Total

403

100.0

295

100.0

108

100.0

 

Other abbreviations are explained in Tables 13

TMA thrombotic microangiopathy, VOD veno-occlusive disease, CNS central nervous system, ARDS acute respiratory distress syndrome

We compared the clinical courses that led to higher NRM in HDCA/CY/TBI, with a focus of engraftment, GVHD, infection, and other acute phase complications (Fig. 2). The HDCA/CY/TBI group showed significantly lower proportions of neutrophil and platelet engraftment following HCT (HR, 0.80; p < 0.01, and HR, 0.83; p < 0.01, respectively). Complete chimerism was achieved in 78.2 % of the CY/TBI group vs 72.6 % of the HDCA/CY/TBI group (p = 0.04). We observed no significant differences in the incidence of acute or chronic GVHD (grades II–IV acute GVHD, 39.3 vs 38.2 %; chronic GVHD 37.5 vs 37.7 %, respectively) (Fig. 2). Hemorrhagic cystitis, mostly due to viral reactivation or infection [11], and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) were more frequently observed in the HDCA/CY/TBI group (HR, 1.47; p = 0.06, and HR, 1.60; p = 0.04, respectively). These two complications were related to a significantly higher proportion of NRM (data not shown). Other potential complications of HDCA, such as central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction and acute respiratory dysfunction syndrome (ARDS) [12], were not increased in the HDCA/CY/TBI group.
Fig. 2

Clinical courses after HCT in each group of CY/TBI and HDCA/CY/TBI. The cumulative incidence of major clinical events after HCT, such as engraftment, GVHD, infection, and other acute phase complications are summarized. In each event, adjusted HRs in the HDCA/CY/TBI group were analyzed in comparison with the CY/TBI group. Dots indicate HRs, and bars indicate 95 % CI ranges

Discussion

In this study on myeloablative BMT/PBSCT for AML/MDS, we did not observe the improvement of OS in the HDCA/CY/TBI group due to (1) a higher proportion of NRM and (2) the lack of apparent additional anti-leukemic effect of HDCA. These results differ from those of CBT, in which a stronger anti-leukemic effect without increased NRM led to superior OS in HDCA/CY/TBI [5].

Among acute phase complications that can lead to NRM, hemorrhagic cystitis and TMA were increased after HDCA/CY/TBI. These complications, if not resolved early, can induce renal failure, prohibit immune reconstitution, and deteriorate patient’s nutrition and performance status, which may ultimately lead to significantly higher NRM [11, 13]. The strong cytotoxicity of HDCA combined with significantly poorer neutrophil engraftment might cause cystitis-related virus reactivation or vascular endothelial cell injury which can induce hemorrhagic cystitis or TMA. These features were not observed in CBT [5]; the relatively higher incidence of acute GVHD in BMT/PBSCT can explain this difference because both hemorrhagic cystitis and TMA are closely related to preceding acute GVHD [11, 13].

On the other hand, no additional anti-leukemic effect of HDCA was apparent in this study. HDCA can reduce the remaining leukemia cells that may cause relapse after HCT [12]. This anti-leukemic effect of HDCA directly reduced the incidence of relapse in CBT [5] because graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects after CBT was relatively weak [14]; relapse after CBT mainly depends on the efficacy of conditioning regimens [5]. In BMT/PBSCT, however, GVL effects are much stronger than CBT especially in the case of HLA-mismatched transplantation [14]. Suppression of total relapse after HCT is mainly attributed to continuous GVL effects [14] compared to the conditioning regimens which will be inactivated rapidly after HCT [12]; strength of conditioning regimens (for example, HDCA addition in this study) may not directly influence on relapse reduction. These differences in GVL effects can partly explain the discrepancy in the efficacy of HDCA on post-transplant relapse or disease-related death.

A larger proportion of patients with high-risk disease and worse performance status in the HDCA/CY/TBI group may confound the outcomes, but multivariate and subgroup analyses indicated unimproved prognosis in HDCA/CY/TBI even after eliminating those confounding factors. Moreover, subgroup analyses regarding the percentage of myeloblast just before conditioning regimens were carried out; no significant differences of OS between CY/TBI and HDCA/CY/TBI were found in any subgroups (data not shown). The bias in regard to the HCT centers, however, still remains to be overcome in this study. The choice of conditioning regimen depends on the attending physicians in each institution, indicating that the clinical experiences of each transplant center can be a confounding factor. Unfortunately, we were not able to adjust this factor because the database did not contain such information.

The combination of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with HDCA is another important topic; it is reported that G-CSF-combined HDCA/CY/TBI provided low NRM and high OS in a previous study [15]. In our cohort, patients with G-CSF-combined HDCA/CY/TBI regimen (N = 25) revealed almost the same prognosis (HR, 1.02; 95 %CI, 0.59–1.76; p = 0.95) as HDCA/CY/TBI without G-CSF.

In summary, this study showed the inefficacy of adding HDCA to CY/TBI in BMT/PBSCT for AML/MDS, suggesting that the merits of HDCA in CBT cannot be extrapolated to BMT/PBSCT. Incidence of GVHD or strength of GVL effects may be related to these differences between donor sources. This single-country retrospective analysis should be validated in future prospective studies in order to determine proper conditioning regimens in BMT/PBSCT for AML/MDS.

Abbreviations

AML: 

acute myelogenous leukemia

BMT: 

bone marrow transplantation

CBT: 

cord blood transplantation

CI: 

confidence interval

CY: 

cyclophosphamide

GVHD: 

graft-versus-host disease

GVL: 

graft versus leukemia

HCT: 

hematopoietic cell transplantation

HDCA: 

high-dose cytarabine

HLA: 

human leukocyte antigen

HR: 

hazard ratio

MDS: 

myelodysplastic syndrome

NRM: 

non-relapse mortality

OS: 

overall survival

PBSCT: 

peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

Rel: 

related donor

TBI: 

total-body irradiation

TMA: 

thrombotic microangiopathy

UR: 

unrelated donor

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the physicians and data managers at the centers who contributed valuable data on transplantation to the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (JSHCT). We also thank the members of the Data Management Committees of JSHCT. This study was supported by research funding from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture in Japan to TK.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Hematology and Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University
(2)
Department of Hematology, Hamanomachi Hospital
(3)
Department of Hematology, Sapporo Hokuyu Hospital
(4)
Department of Hematology/Division of Stem Cell Transplantation, Kobe General Hospital/Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation
(5)
Department of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation, National Cancer Center Hospital
(6)
Department of Hematology, Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital
(7)
Division of Hematology, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University
(8)
Department of Hematology, Meitetsu Hospital
(9)
Department of Cell Therapy and Transplantation Medicine, the University of Tokyo Hospital
(10)
Department of Hematology, Hiroshima Red Cross Hospital & Atomic-bomb Survivors Hospital
(11)
Department of Hematology/Oncology, Tokai University School of Medicine
(12)
Department of Hematology and Oncology, Hiroshima University Hospital
(13)
Japanese Data Center for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
(14)
Department of Healthcare Administration, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine
(15)
Department of Internal Medicine Division of Hematology, Aichi Medical University

References

  1. Duval M, Klein JP, He W, Cahn JY, Cairo M, Camitta BM, et al. Hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for acute leukemia in relapse or primary induction failure. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3730–8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Nagler A, Rocha V, Labopin M, Unal A, Ben Othman T, Campos A, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in remission: comparison of intravenous busulfan plus cyclophosphamide (Cy) versus total-body irradiation plus Cy as conditioning regimen—a report from the acute leukemia working party of the European group for blood and marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3549–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Copelan EA, Hamilton BK, Avalos B, Ahn KW, Bolwell BJ, Zhu X, et al. Better leukemia-free and overall survival in AML in first remission following cyclophosphamide in combination with busulfan compared with TBI. Blood. 2013;122:3863–70.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Magenau J, Couriel DR. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia: to whom, when, and how. Curr Oncol Rep. 2013;15:436–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arai Y, Takeda J, Aoki K, Kondo T, Takahashi S, Onishi Y, et al. Efficiency of high-dose cytarabine added to CY/TBI in cord blood transplantation for myeloid malignancy. Blood. 2015;126:415–22.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Inamoto Y, Nishida T, Suzuki R, Miyamura K, Sao H, Iida H, et al. Significance of additional high-dose cytarabine in combination with cyclophosphamide plus total body irradiation regimen for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;39:25–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kanda Y, Sakamaki H, Sao H, Okamoto S, Kodera Y, Tanosaki R, et al. Effect of conditioning regimen on the outcome of bone marrow transplantation from an unrelated donor. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2005;11:881–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Atsuta Y, Suzuki R, Yoshimi A, Gondo H, Tanaka J, Hiraoka A, et al. Unification of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation registries in Japan and establishment of the TRUMP System. Int J Hematol. 2007;86:269–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ho VT, Kim HT, Aldridge J, Liney D, Kao G, Armand P, et al. Use of matched unrelated donors compared with matched related donors is associated with lower relapse and superior progression-free survival after reduced-intensity conditioning hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17:1196–204.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanda J, Saji H, Fukuda T, Kobayashi T, Miyamura K, Eto T, et al. Related transplantation with HLA-1 Ag mismatch in the GVH direction and HLA-8/8 allele-matched unrelated transplantation: a nationwide retrospective study. Blood. 2012;119:2409–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Arai Y, Maeda T, Sugiura H, Matsui H, Jo T, Ueda T, et al. Risk factors for and prognosis of hemorrhagic cystitis after allogeneic stem cell transplantation: retrospective analysis in a single institution. Hematology. 2012;17:207–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Reese ND, Schiller GJ. High-dose cytarabine (HD araC) in the treatment of leukemias: a review. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2013;8:141–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Arai Y, Yamashita K, Mizugishi K, Watanabe T, Sakamoto S, Kitano T, et al. Serum neutrophil extracellular trap levels predict thrombotic microangiopathy after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19:1683–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. van Besien K. Allogeneic transplantation for AML and MDS: GVL versus GVHD and disease recurrence. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2013;2013:56–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Konuma T, Kato S, Ishii H, Oiwa-Monna M, Asano S, Tojo A, et al. Long-term outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-combined conditioning in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from HLA-identical family donors for myeloid malignancies. Leuk Res. 2015;39:625–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Arai et al. 2015

Advertisement