Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in adult soft-tissue sarcoma: an analysis from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
high-dose chemotherapy
soft-tissue sarcoma
stem cell transplantation
Journal
ESMO open
ISSN: 2059-7029
Titre abrégé: ESMO Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101690685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
08
06
2020
revised:
23
08
2020
accepted:
25
08
2020
entrez:
24
10
2020
pubmed:
25
10
2020
medline:
19
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The role of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) remains an unsettled issue. Prospective clinical trials failed to prove a benefit of the procedure but were limited by small and heterogeneous patient cohorts. Thus, it is unknown if ASCT may be a valuable treatment option in specific patient subgroups. The purpose of this study was to investigate the value of ASCT according to histological subtype in STS patients who were registered in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation database between 1996 and 2016. Median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the entire cohort of 338 patients were 8.3 and 19.8 months, respectively, and PFS and OS at 5 years were 13% and 25%, respectively. Analysis of outcomes in different subgroups showed that younger age, better remission status before transplantation and melphalan-based preparative regimen were predictive of benefit from ASCT, whereas histology and grading had no statistically significant impact. Outcomes after ASCT compared favorably to those of recent trials on conventional chemotherapies and targeted therapies in STS, including histology-tailored approaches. ASCT, thus, should be reinvestigated in clinical trials focusing on defined patient subgroups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The role of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) remains an unsettled issue. Prospective clinical trials failed to prove a benefit of the procedure but were limited by small and heterogeneous patient cohorts. Thus, it is unknown if ASCT may be a valuable treatment option in specific patient subgroups.
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the value of ASCT according to histological subtype in STS patients who were registered in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation database between 1996 and 2016.
RESULTS
Median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the entire cohort of 338 patients were 8.3 and 19.8 months, respectively, and PFS and OS at 5 years were 13% and 25%, respectively. Analysis of outcomes in different subgroups showed that younger age, better remission status before transplantation and melphalan-based preparative regimen were predictive of benefit from ASCT, whereas histology and grading had no statistically significant impact.
CONCLUSIONS
Outcomes after ASCT compared favorably to those of recent trials on conventional chemotherapies and targeted therapies in STS, including histology-tailored approaches. ASCT, thus, should be reinvestigated in clinical trials focusing on defined patient subgroups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33097652
pii: S2059-7029(20)32704-6
doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000860
pmc: PMC7590345
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e000860Informations de copyright
© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Nov 1;18(21):3643-50
pubmed: 11054437
Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Jan;14(1):230-8
pubmed: 17066234
Lancet. 2012 May 19;379(9829):1879-86
pubmed: 22595799
Lancet. 2016 Apr 16;387(10028):1629-37
pubmed: 26874885
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 1;25(19):2755-63
pubmed: 17602081
Lancet Oncol. 2007 Jul;8(7):595-602
pubmed: 17586092
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004 Jul;34(1):37-41
pubmed: 15170176
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jun;18(6):812-822
pubmed: 28499583
J Clin Oncol. 1997 Jun;15(6):2378-84
pubmed: 9196153
Eur J Cancer. 2016 May;58:62-72
pubmed: 26968015
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Jan;46(1):72-83
pubmed: 19853437
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Apr;25(4):872-877
pubmed: 29383611
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Nov 10;34(32):3898-3905
pubmed: 27621408
Ann Oncol. 2012 Mar;23(3):777-784
pubmed: 21652583
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010 Jul;45(7):1234-8
pubmed: 19935728
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Dec;50(18):3178-86
pubmed: 25459395
Sarcoma. 2017;2017:8685638
pubmed: 29138631
Clin Sarcoma Res. 2018 Jul 02;8:12
pubmed: 29988594
Stat Med. 1999 Jun 30;18(12):1489-500
pubmed: 10398287
Eur J Cancer. 2011 Nov;47(17):2493-511
pubmed: 22033323
Sarcoma. 2017;2017:1278268
pubmed: 29225486
Cancer. 1994 May 15;73(10):2506-11
pubmed: 8174046
Lifetime Data Anal. 1995;1(3):255-73
pubmed: 9385105
Cancer. 1997 Oct 1;80(7):1221-7
pubmed: 9317171
BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 29;4(7):e005033
pubmed: 25079925
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020 Jan;55(1):126-136
pubmed: 31455899
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Dec 15;14(24):8191-7
pubmed: 19088035
Ann Oncol. 2012 Mar;23(3):771-776
pubmed: 21642514
J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jun;119(7):880-886
pubmed: 30844086
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv51-iv67
pubmed: 29846498
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Mar 10;34(8):786-93
pubmed: 26371143
Ann Oncol. 2011 Jan;22(1):207-214
pubmed: 20656792
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 13;4:CD008216
pubmed: 28407197
Target Oncol. 2018 Feb;13(1):81-87
pubmed: 29177953
J Clin Oncol. 1995 Jul;13(7):1600-8
pubmed: 7541449
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Oct;18(10):1397-1410
pubmed: 28882536
Lancet Haematol. 2015 Mar;2(3):e91-100
pubmed: 26687803
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016 Jun;51(6):786-92
pubmed: 26901709
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Apr;15(4):415-23
pubmed: 24618336