Randomized comparison of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin versus dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin chemotherapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory aggressive lymphomas: NCIC-CTG LY.12

PURPOSE: For patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive lymphoma, we hypothesized that gemcitabine-based therapy before autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is as effective as and less toxic than standard treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 619 patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive lymphoma to treatment with gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) or to dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin (DHAP). Patients with B-cell lymphoma also received rituximab. Responding patients proceeded to stem-cell collection and ASCT. Coprimary end points were response rate after two treatment cycles and transplantation rate. The noninferiority margin for the response rate to GDP relative to DHAP was set at 10%. Secondary end points included event-free and overall survival, treatment toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: For the intention-to-treat population, the response rate with GDP was 45.2%; with DHAP the response rate was 44.0% (95% CI for difference, -9.0% to 6.7%), meeting protocol-defined criteria for noninferiority of GDP (P = .005). Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis. The transplantation rates were 52.1% with GDP and 49.3% with DHAP (P = .44). At a median follow-up of 53 months, no differences were detected in event-free survival (HR, 0.99; stratified log-rank P = .95) or overall survival (HR, 1.03; P = .78) between GDP and DHAP. Treatment with GDP was associated with less toxicity (P < .001) and need for hospitalization (P < .001), and preserved quality of life (P = .04). CONCLUSION: For patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive lymphoma, in comparison with DHAP, treatment with GDP is associated with a noninferior response rate, similar transplantation rate, event-free survival, and overall survival, less toxicity and hospitalization, and superior quality of life

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in the absence of thromboprophylaxis, following gynecologic cancer surgery.Data sources: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for observational studies. We also reviewed reference lists of eligible studies and review articles. We performed separate searches for randomized trials addressing effects of thromboprophylaxis and conducted a web-based survey on thromboprophylaxis practice.Study eligibility criteria: Observational studies enrolling ≥50 adult patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery procedures reporting absolute incidence for at least 1 of the following were included: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding requiring reintervention (including reexploration and angioembolization), bleeding leading to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin &lt;70 g/L.Methods: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated risk of bias of eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors. The GRADE approach was applied to rate evidence certainty.Results: We included 188 studies (398,167 patients) reporting on 37 gynecologic cancer surgery procedures. The evidence certainty was generally low to very low. Median symptomatic venous thromboembolism risk (in the absence of prophylaxis) was &lt;1% in 13 of 37 (35%) procedures, 1% to 2% in 11 of 37 (30%), and &gt;2.0% in 13 of 37 (35%). The risks of venous thromboembolism varied from 0.1% in low venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing cervical conization to 33.5% in high venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. Estimates of bleeding requiring reintervention varied from &lt;0.1% to 1.3%. Median risks of bleeding requiring reintervention were &lt;1% in 22 of 29 (76%) and 1% to 2% in 7 of 29 (24%) procedures.Conclusion: Venous thromboembolism reduction with thromboprophylaxis likely outweighs the increase in bleeding requiring reintervention in many gynecologic cancer procedures (eg, open surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration). In some procedures (eg, laparoscopic total hysterectomy without lymphadenectomy), thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding venous thromboembolism and bleeding

Peripheral-Blood Stem Cells versus Bone Marrow from Unrelated Donors

BACKGROUND Randomized trials have shown that the transplantation of filgrastim-mobilized peripheral-blood stem cells from HLA-identical siblings accelerates engraftment but increases the risks of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), as compared with the transplantation of bone marrow. Some studies have also shown that peripheral-blood stem cells are associated with a decreased rate of relapse and improved survival among recipients with high-risk leukemia. METHODS We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial of transplantation of peripheral-blood stem cells versus bone marrow from unrelated donors to compare 2-year survival probabilities with the use of an intention-to-treat analysis. Between March 2004 and September 2009, we enrolled 551 patients at 48 centers. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to peripheral-blood stem-cell or bone marrow transplantation, stratified according to transplantation center and disease risk. The median follow-up of surviving patients was 36 months (interquartile range, 30 to 37). RESULTS The overall survival rate at 2 years in the peripheral-blood group was 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45 to 57), as compared with 46% (95% CI, 40 to 52) in the bone marrow group (P=0.29), with an absolute difference of 5 percentage points (95% CI, −3 to 14). The overall incidence of graft failure in the peripheral-blood group was 3% (95% CI, 1 to 5), versus 9% (95% CI, 6 to 13) in the bone marrow group (P=0.002). The incidence of chronic GVHD at 2 years in the peripheral-blood group was 53% (95% CI, 45 to 61), as compared with 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) in the bone marrow group (P=0.01). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of acute GVHD or relapse. CONCLUSIONS We did not detect significant survival differences between peripheral-blood stem-cell and bone marrow transplantation from unrelated donors. Exploratory analyses of secondary end points indicated that peripheral-blood stem cells may reduce the risk of graft failure, whereas bone marrow may reduce the risk of chronic GVHD. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00075816.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery

\ua9 2024 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.Objective: To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery. Background: The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain. Methods: We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty. Results: After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of &lt;0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer. Conclusions: VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding

Primary thromboprophylaxis for cancer patients with central venous catheters – a reappraisal of the evidence

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is responsible for an estimated 25 000 deaths per annum in UK hospital practice. It is well established that many of these deaths could be prevented through the use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis. This issue is of particular relevance in oncology practice, where the risks of VTE and bleeding are both significantly higher than those observed in general medical patients. Cancer patients with in-dwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) are at particularly high risk of developing thrombotic complications. However, the literature has produced conflicting conclusions regarding the efficacy of using routine primary thromboprophylaxis in these patients. Indeed such is the level of confusion around this topic, that the most recent version of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines published in 2004 actually reversed their previous recommendation (published in 2001). Nevertheless, minidose warfarin continues to be routinely used in many oncology centres in the UK. In this article, we have performed a systematic review of the published literature regarding the efficacy and the risks, associated with using thromboprophylaxis (either minidose warfarin or low-dose LMWH) in cancer patients with CVC. On the basis of this evidence, we conclude that there is no proven role for using such thromboprophylaxis. However, asymptomatic CVC-related venous thrombosis remains common, and further more highly powered studies of better design are needed in order to define whether specific subgroups of cancer patients might benefit from receiving thromboprophylaxis

Autologous Transplantation as Consolidation for Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

The efficacy of autologous stem-cell transplantation during the first remission in patients with diffuse, aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma classified as high-intermediate risk or high risk on the International Prognostic Index remains controversial and is untested in the rituximab era

donor selection for adults and pediatrics

It is known that multiple factors impact on transplantation outcome; the heaviest ones are disease-related (disease refractoriness, phase, clonal abnormalities, etc. in malignancies and disease type and associated rejection risk in non-malignant diseases) and patient-related (age, comorbidities, infectious diseases/colonization, etc.). Moreover, donor-related issues and stem cell source may influence the extent of disease control and transplant-related mortality