-
Health Technology Assessment... Dec 2010Acute leukaemia is a group of rapidly progressing cancers of bone marrow and blood classified as either acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or acute lymphoblastic leukaemia... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute leukaemia is a group of rapidly progressing cancers of bone marrow and blood classified as either acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). Haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) has developed as an adjunct to or replacement for conventional chemotherapy with the aim of improving survival and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
A systematic overview of the best available evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCT in the treatment of acute leukaemia.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical effectiveness: electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to December 2008 to identify published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index (SCI) were searched from 1997 to March 2009 to identify primary studies. Cost-effectiveness: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched from inception to January 2009.
STUDY SELECTION
Potentially relevant papers were retrieved and independently checked against predefined criteria by two reviewers (one in the case of the cost-effectiveness review).
STUDY APPRAISAL
Included reviews and meta-analyses were critically appraised and data extracted and narratively presented. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and donor versus no donor (DvND) studies were mapped to the evidence covered in existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses according to a framework of 12 decision problems (DPs): DP1 related to SCT in adults with AML in first complete remission (CR1); DP2 to adults with AML in second or subsequent remission or with refractory disease (CR2+); DP3 to children with AML in CR1; DP4 to children with AML in CR2+; DP5 to adults with ALL in CR1; DP6 to adults with ALL in CR2+; DP7 to children with ALL in CR1; DP8 to children with ALL in CR2+; DP9 to comparison of different sources of stem cells in transplantation; DP10 to different conditioning regimens; DP11 to the use of purging in autologous SCT; and DP12 to the use of T-cell depletion in allogeneic SCT.
RESULTS
Fifteen systematic reviews/meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria for the review of clinical effectiveness, thirteen of which were published from 2004 onwards. Taking into account the timing of their publications, most reviews appeared to have omitted an appreciable proportion of potentially available evidence. The best available evidence for effectiveness of allogeneic SCT using stem cells from matched sibling donors came from DvND studies: there was sufficient evidence to support the use of allogeneic SCT in DP1 (except in good-risk patients), DP3 (role of risk stratification unclear) and DP5 (role of risk stratification unclear). There was conflicting evidence in DP7 and a paucity of evidence from DvND studies for all decision problems concerning patient groups in CR2+. The best available evidence for effectiveness of autologous SCT came from RCTs: overall, evidence suggested that autologous SCT was either similar to or less effective than chemotherapy. There was a paucity of evidence from published reviews of RCTs for DPs 9-12. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria in the cost-effectiveness review, most reporting only cost information and only one incorporating an economic model. Although there is a wealth of information on costs and some information on cost-effectiveness of allogeneic SCT in adults with AML (DPs 1 and 2), there is very limited evidence on relative costs and cost-effectiveness for other DPs.
LIMITATIONS
Time and resources did not permit critical appraisal of the primary studies on which the reviews/meta-analyses reviewed were based; there were substantial differences in methodologies, and consequently quantitative synthesis of data was neither planned in the protocol nor carried out; some of the studies were quite old and might not reflect current practice; and a number of the studies might not be applicable to the UK.
CONCLUSIONS
Bearing in mind the limitations, existing evidence suggests that sibling donor allogeneic SCT may be more effective than chemotherapy in adult AML (except in good-risk patients) in CR1, childhood AML in CR1 and adult ALL in CR1, and that autologous SCT is equal to or less effective than chemotherapy. No firm conclusions could be drawn regarding the cost-effectiveness of SCT in the UK NHS owing to the limitations given above. Future research should include the impact of the treatments on patients' quality of life as well as information on health service use and costs associated with SCT from the perspective of the UK NHS.
Topics: Adult; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma
PubMed: 21138675
DOI: 10.3310/hta14540 -
JAMA Oncology Mar 2018The role of high-dose therapy with melphalan followed by autologous stem cell transplant (HDT/ASCT) in patients with multiple myeloma continues to be debated in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The role of high-dose therapy with melphalan followed by autologous stem cell transplant (HDT/ASCT) in patients with multiple myeloma continues to be debated in the context of novel agent induction.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review, conventional meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis of all phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of HDT/ASCT.
DATA SOURCES
We performed a systematic literature search of Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and Scopus from January 2000 through April 2017 and relevant annual meeting abstracts from January 2014 to December 2016. The following search terms were used: "myeloma" combined with "autologous," "transplant," "myeloablative," or "stem cell."
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 3 RCTs comparing HDT/ASCT with standard-dose therapy (SDT) using novel agents were assessed. Studies comparing single HDT/ASCT with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone consolidation and tandem transplantation were included for network meta-analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
For the random effects meta-analysis, we used hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS), complete response, and treatment-related mortality were secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 4 RCTs (2421 patients) for conventional meta-analysis and 5 RCTs (3171 patients) for network meta-analysis were selected. The combined odds for complete response were 1.27 (95% CI, 0.97-1.65; P = .07) with HDT/ASCT when compared with SDT. The combined HR for PFS was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.41-0.74; P < .001) and 0.76 for OS (95% CI, 0.42-1.36; P = .20) in favor of HDT. Meta-regression showed that longer follow-up was associated with superior PFS (HR/mo, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99; P = .03) and OS (HR/mo, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96; P = .002). For PFS, tandem HDT/ASCT had the most favorable HR (0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.65) followed by single HDT/ASCT with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.76) and single HDT/ASCT alone (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87) compared with SDT. For OS, none of the HDT/ASCT-based approaches had a significant effect on survival. Treatment-related mortality with HDT/ASCT was minimal (<1%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of the conventional meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of all the phase 3 RCTs showed that HDT/ASCT was associated with superior PFS with minimal toxic effects compared with SDT. Both tandem HDT/ASCT and single HDT/ASCT with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone were superior to single HDT/ASCT alone and SDT for PFS, but OS was similar across the 4 approaches. Longer follow-up may better delineate any OS benefit; however, is likely to be affected by effective postrelapse therapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bortezomib; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dexamethasone; Drugs, Investigational; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Lenalidomide; Multiple Myeloma; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29302684
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4600 -
Targeted Oncology Mar 2024Multimodal treatment of newly diagnosed high-risk neuroblastoma (HRNB) includes induction chemotherapy, consolidation with myeloablative therapy (MAT) and autologous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Multimodal treatment of newly diagnosed high-risk neuroblastoma (HRNB) includes induction chemotherapy, consolidation with myeloablative therapy (MAT) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), followed by anti-disialoganglioside 2 (GD2) immunotherapy, as recommended by the Children's Oncology Group (COG) and the Society of Paediatric Oncology European Neuroblastoma (SIOPEN). Some centres proposed an alternative approach with induction chemotherapy followed by anti-GD2 immunotherapy, without MAT+ASCT.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic literature review was to compare survival outcomes in patients with HRNB treated with or without MAT+ASCT and with or without subsequent anti-GD2 immunotherapy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE via PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational comparative studies in patients with HRNB using search terms for 'neuroblastoma' and ('myeloablative therapy' OR 'stem cell transplantation'). Reporting of at least one survival outcome [event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival, relapse-free survival and/or overall survival (OS)] was required for inclusion. Outcomes from RCTs were synthesized in meta-analysis, while meta-analysis of non-RCTs was not planned owing to expected heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Literature searches produced 2587 results with 41 publications reporting 34 comparative studies included in the review. Of these, 7 publications reported 4 RCTs, and 34 publications reported 30 non-RCT studies. Studies differed with respect to included populations, induction regimen, response to induction, additional treatments and transplantation procedures. Subsequent treatments of relapse were rarely reported and could not be compared. In the meta-analysis, EFS was in favour of MAT+ASCT over conventional chemotherapy or no further treatment [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.91, p = 0.001] with a trend favouring MAT+ASCT for OS (HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.00, p = 0.05). Tandem MAT+ASCT was found to improve EFS compared with the single procedure, with improvement in both EFS and OS in patients treated with anti-GD2 therapy. Non-RCT comparative studies were broadly consistent with evidence from the RCTs; however, not all reported survival benefits of MAT+ASCT (single or tandem). Limited comparative evidence on treatment without MAT+ASCT in patients treated with anti-GD2 immunotherapy suggests an increased risk of relapse. In relapsed patients, MAT+ASCT appears to improve OS, but evidence remains scarce.
CONCLUSIONS
Survival benefits in patients treated with MAT+ASCT confirm that the procedure should remain an integral part of multimodal therapy. In patients treated with anti-GD2 immunotherapy, limited evidence suggests that omitting MAT+ASCT is associated with an increased risk of relapse, and therefore, a change in clinical practice can currently not be recommended. Evidence suggests the use of tandem MAT+ASCT compared with the single procedure, with greater benefits observed in patients treated with anti-GD2 immunotherapy. Limited evidence also suggests improved survival following MAT+ASCT in relapsed patients, which needs to be viewed in light of emerging chemoimmunotherapy in this setting.
Topics: Child; Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Disease-Free Survival; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neuroblastoma; Recurrence; Stem Cell Transplantation
PubMed: 38401028
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-024-01033-4 -
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Jan 2021The role of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in the management of newly diagnosed adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is reviewed and critically evaluated in this...
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Adult Acute Myeloid Leukemia: An Evidence-Based Review from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy.
The role of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in the management of newly diagnosed adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is reviewed and critically evaluated in this evidence-based review. An AML expert panel, consisting of both transplant and nontransplant experts, was invited to develop clinically relevant frequently asked questions covering disease- and HCT-related topics. A systematic literature review was conducted to generate core recommendations that were graded based on the quality and strength of underlying evidence based on the standardized criteria established by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Steering Committee for evidence-based reviews. Allogeneic HCT offers a survival benefit in patients with intermediate- and high-risk AML and is currently a part of standard clinical care. We recommend the preferential use of myeloablative conditioning in eligible patients. A haploidentical related donor marrow graft is preferred over a cord blood unit in the absence of a fully HLA-matched donor. The evolving role of allogeneic HCT in the context of measurable residual disease monitoring and recent therapeutic advances in AML with regards to maintenance therapy after HCT are also discussed.
Topics: Adult; Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Transplantation Conditioning; Transplantation, Homologous; United States
PubMed: 32966881
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.09.020