Skip to main content
. 2011 Jul 6;2011(7):CD008205. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008205.pub2

Bresters 2008

Methods Retrospective cohort study
Participants N of patients original cohort: 290; N of patients described study group: 216; N of patients study group of interest: 216; N of patients with liver function tests: 216
Tumour: ALL, AML, CML, JMML, MDS, lymphoma (n=129), benign haematological disease (n=54), immunological disease (n=22), other inborn errors (n=11); Time period diagnosis/treatment: 1980‐2002; Age at diagnosis: nm (age at HSCT: median 7.6 (0.1‐18.4) yr); Age at follow‐up: nm; F/M%: 40/60; BMI: nm
N of patients hepatitis virus infection: 3/139 (2.1%) anti‐HCV+ and 0/183 (0.0%) HBsAntigen+
N of patients acute liver disease: 14/216 (6.5%) VOD and 5/216 (2.3%) acute GVHD
Follow‐up duration: 2 yr after HSCT, plus or minus 6 months; Completion of follow‐up: 100%
Interventions N of patients chemotherapy: 211/216 (97.7%); Chemotherapy type: cyclophosphamide (n=121), cyclophosphamide with busulphan (n=69), other unspecified (n=21); Chemotherapy dose: nm
N of patients radiotherapy involving the liver: 132/216 (61.1%); Radiotherapy field: TBI/TAI; Radiotherapy dose: nm
N of patients hepatectomy: nm
N of patients BMT: 216/216 (100%)
N of patients blood transfusion: nm
Outcomes Method of detection of hepatic late adverse effects: ALT, AST (frequency of testing nm)
Definition of hepatic late adverse effects: ALT and/or AST > upper limit of normal (mean plus 2 standard deviations as determined in a normal Dutch population)
N of patients hepatic late adverse effects at end of follow‐up: 53/216 (24.5%) of whom 17/216 (7.9%) had ALT/AST ≥2 times upper limit of normal. In 12/13 (92.3%) patients with ALT/AST ≥2 times upper limit of normal persisting abnormal liver enzymes 3 years after HSCT.
Risk factors: Older age at HSCT: median age 9.9 yr in patients with elevated ALT/AST versus 7.2 yr in patients with normal ALT/AST (P=0.027); diagnosis of benign haematological disease (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.32‐5.05) (P=0.005); gender, donor type (matched sibling donor, other), stem cell source (bone marrow, autologous peripheral blood, cord blood), conditioning regimen (cyclophosphamide with TBI/TAI, cyclophosphamide with busulphan, other) and early post‐transplant morbidity (viral reactivation after HSCT, VOD, acute GVHD) (ns) (Univariate)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Representative study group High risk Described study group consisted of less than 90% of the original cohort and was no random sample of the original cohort with respect to cancer treatment
Complete follow‐up assessment Low risk Outcome was assessed for more than 90% of the study group of interest
Blinded outcome assessor Unclear risk Unclear if outcome assessors were blinded to the investigated determinant
Adjustment important confounders High risk Important prognostic factors or follow‐up were not taken into account
Well defined study group Low risk Type of chemotherapy, location of radiotherapy and number of patients with hepatitis virus infection were mentioned
Well defined follow‐up Low risk Length of follow‐up was mentioned
Well defined outcome Low risk Outcome definition was objective and precise
Well defined risk estimation Low risk Odds ratio, mean difference and Chi2 were calculated