Review Article
The Role of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in Relapsed/Refractory Hodgkin's Lymphoma Patients
Table 1
Allogeneic SCT for relapsed/refractory HL patients (HL: Hodgkin’s Lymphoma; no.: number; DLIs: donor lymphocyte infusions; TRM: transplant-related mortality; DFS: disease-free survival; PFS: progression-free survival; GvL: graft versus lymphoma effect; FM(-A): fludarabine/melphalan (+alemtuzumab); MAC: myeloablative conditioning regimens; RIC: reduced intensity conditioning regimens; UD: unrelated donor; MRD: matched related donor; HD: haploidentical donor; NS: not stated).
| | Reference | No. of transplant recipients | Patients with chemoresistant HL (no.) | Early TRM | Cumulative TRM (-year) | Relapse (-year) | DFS/PFS (-year) | Response to immuno-therapy with DLIs | GvL effect |
| | Gajewski et al. [16] | 100 | 89 | 13% | 61% (3) | 65% (3) | 15% (3) | NS | No |
| | Milpied et al. [19] | 45 | NS | 31% | 48% (4) | 61% (4) | 15% (4) | NS | Possible |
| | Anderson et al. [20] | 53 | NS | NS | 49% (5) | 65% (5) | 18% (5) | NS | Possible |
| |
Akpek et al. [21] | 53 | 28 | 24% (chemosensitive) | 32% (chemosensitive) | 53% (10) | 26% (10) | NS | Possible | | | 39% (chemoresistant) | 53% (chemoresistant) | | | | |
| | Anderlini et al. [26] | 40 | 14 | 5% | 22% (1.5) | 55% (1.5) | 32% (1.5) | 3/8 (38%) | No |
| Devetten
et al. [29] | 143 | 67 | 15% | 33% (2) | 47% (2) | 20% (2) | NS | NS |
| |
Burroughs et al. [30] | 90 | 16 (MRD) | 16% (MRD) | 21% (2) (MRD) | 56% (2) (MRD) | 23% (2) (MRD) | NS | Possible | | 8 (UD) | 0% (UD) | 8% (2) (UD) | 63% (2) (UD) | 29% (2) (UD) | | | | 6 (HD) | 0% (HD) | 9% (HD) | 40% (2) (HD) | 51% (2) (HD) | | |
| | Robinson et al. [25] | 285 | 72 | 11% | 21% (3) | 59% (5) | 25% (3) | 41/79 (52%) | Possible |
| | Claviez et al. [31] | 91 | 32 | NS | 26% (5) | 44% (5) | 30% (5) | 2/12 (17%) | No |
| | Anderlini et al. [27] | 58 | 28 | 7% | 15% (2) | 55% (2) | 32% (2) | 6/14 (43%) | No |
| | Alvarez et al. [32] | 40 | 20 | 13% | 25% (1) | NS | 32% (2) | 6/11 (55%) | Possible |
| |
Peggs et al. [33] | 67 | 10 (FM-A) | NS | 7% (2) (FM-A) | 54% (3) (FM-A) | 43% (4) (FM-A) | 13/19 (68%) (FM-A) | Possible | | 19 (FM) | | 29% (2) (FM) | 44% (3) (FM) | 25% (4) (FM) | 6/11 (55%) (FM) | |
| |
Sureda et al. [34] | 168 | 43 (MAC) | 28% (MAC) | 48% (3) (MAC) | 30% (3) (MAC) | 20% (MAC) | NS | Possible | | 49 (RIC) | 15% (RIC) | 24% (3) (RIC) | 57% (3) (RIC) | 18% (RIC) | | |
| | Sarina et al. [28] | 104 | 36 | NS | 13% (2) | 54% (2) | 31% (2) | NS | Possible |
|
|
