Table 4.
Retrospective Comparisons of Autologous versus Allogeneic HCT for Patients Relapsing after an Initial Autograft
| Ref | n | NRM/RR | PFS/OS | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [45] | Auto: 137 Allo: 152 |
4%/91% 15%/83% |
4%/29% at 5 yr 2%/9% at 5 yr |
CIBMTR analysis only RIC conditioning multiple lines of therapy |
| [46] | Auto: 94 Allo: 75% |
1%/81% 22%/48% |
18%/54% at 2 yr 42%/53% at 2 yr |
Donor versus no donor analysis on consecutive patients at first relapse after auto HCT who had HLA typing. |
| [47] | Auto: 13 Allo: 19 |
0%/86% 33%/22% |
8%/92% at 3 yr 46%/93% at 3 yr |
Donor versus no donor analysis; RIC conditioning; multiple lines of therapy |
| [48] | Auto: 42 Allo: 42 |
10%/72% 43%/33% |
NS/54% at 3 yrs NS/29% at 3 yrs |
Ablative conditioning; case-matched series |
| [49] | Auto: 26 Allo: 14 |
7%/NS 11%/NS |
6.8 mo/29 mo 7.3 mo/13 mo |
Retrospective not case controlled; RIC conditioning |
| [50] | Auto: 27 Allo: 19 |
3.7%/NS 5.3%/NS |
19 mo/23 mo 6 mo/19 mo |
Retrospective only first relapse; multiple conditioning regimens |
RR indicates relapse rate; auto, autologous; allo, allogeneic.