Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite recent increase of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) transplantation, mortality rates after RIC and myeloabrative conditioning (MAC) HSCT remain high and hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) cannot accurately predicted.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of risk factors associated with the development of VOD after allergenic HSCT with RIC and MAC. Estimating VOD based on clinical factors may further improve results of allogenic HSCT.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 415 consecutive allogenic HSCT was performed with attention to VOD, pre-transplant factors and laboratory data in five hematopoietic cell transplantation centers between 2000 and 2005. Patients underwent transplantation with MAC (n=247) or RIC (n=168). Main outcomes and risk factors were analyzed in multivariable analyses (a logistic regression model) with RIC and MAC. Three kind of laboratory data set, pre-transplant (day −10), post-transplant (day 20) and differences from pre-transplant to post-transplantation were analyzed.
RESULTS: VOD occurred in 65 of 415(15.7%) transplant recipients; 40 of 247(16.1%) with MAC and 25 of 168(14.9%) with RIC. Multivariate analyses identified risk factors with the development of VOD with MAC (albumin level, creatinine level) and with RIC (HCT-CI, number of prior chemotherapy regimen, ALT) in pre-transplant laboratory data set. The risk factors of VOD were identified in post-transplant and differences (Table). The Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) of risk factors with differences was better than with the post-transplant.
CONCLUSION: Our results provided risk factors of VOD with MAC and RIC. The estimation of VOD before transplantation may be useful for the selection of conditioning regimens. Differences of laboratory data with the time course of transplant may be useful for the early diagnosis of VOD.
MAC . | Pre-transpant data . | Post-transplant data . | Differences data . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | OR . | P-Value . | OR . | P-Value . | OR . | P-Value . |
Age | - | - | 0.945 | 0.0090 | - | - |
Alb | 0.290 | 0.0125 | - | - | - | - |
Cr | 10.204 | 0.0307 | 1.786 | 0.0039 | 1.984 | 0.0139 |
TPro | - | - | 0 358 | 0.0019 | - | - |
TBi I | - | - | 1.385 | 0.0027 | 1.314 | 0.0037 |
Ara-C | - | - | 5.000 | 0.0139 | ||
goodness of fit AIC | 106.727 | 126.499 | 86.931 | |||
RIC | Pre-transpant data | Post-transplant data | Differences data | |||
OR | P-Value | OR | P-Value | OR | P-Value | |
Sex | - | - | 3.401 | 0.0446 | - | - |
HCTCI | 3.922 | 0.0050 | 2.000 | 0.0123 | - | - |
ImpScore | 2.000 | 0.0314 | - | - | - | - |
TPro | - | - | 0.366 | 0.0091 | - | - |
TBi I | - | - | 1.675 | 0.0042 | 2.273 | 0.0004 |
ALT | 0.969 | 0.0432 | - | - | - | - |
CY | - | - | - | - | 5.682 | 0.0447 |
goodness of fit AIC | 61.552 | 91.09 | 52.808 |
MAC . | Pre-transpant data . | Post-transplant data . | Differences data . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | OR . | P-Value . | OR . | P-Value . | OR . | P-Value . |
Age | - | - | 0.945 | 0.0090 | - | - |
Alb | 0.290 | 0.0125 | - | - | - | - |
Cr | 10.204 | 0.0307 | 1.786 | 0.0039 | 1.984 | 0.0139 |
TPro | - | - | 0 358 | 0.0019 | - | - |
TBi I | - | - | 1.385 | 0.0027 | 1.314 | 0.0037 |
Ara-C | - | - | 5.000 | 0.0139 | ||
goodness of fit AIC | 106.727 | 126.499 | 86.931 | |||
RIC | Pre-transpant data | Post-transplant data | Differences data | |||
OR | P-Value | OR | P-Value | OR | P-Value | |
Sex | - | - | 3.401 | 0.0446 | - | - |
HCTCI | 3.922 | 0.0050 | 2.000 | 0.0123 | - | - |
ImpScore | 2.000 | 0.0314 | - | - | - | - |
TPro | - | - | 0.366 | 0.0091 | - | - |
TBi I | - | - | 1.675 | 0.0042 | 2.273 | 0.0004 |
ALT | 0.969 | 0.0432 | - | - | - | - |
CY | - | - | - | - | 5.682 | 0.0447 |
goodness of fit AIC | 61.552 | 91.09 | 52.808 |
Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Author notes
Corresponding author