Incidence and severity of crucial late effects after allogeneic HSCT for ă malignancy under the age of 3 years: TBI is what really matters

D. Bresters, A. Lawitschka, C. Cugno, U. Poetschger, A. Dalissier, G. Michel, K. Vettenranta, M. Sundin, A. Al-Seraihy, M. Faraci, P. Sedlacek, A. B. Versluys, A. Jenkins, P. Lutz, B. Gibson, A. Leiper, M. A. Diaz, P. J. Shaw, R. Skinner, T. A. O'Brien, N. Salooja, P. Bader and C. Peters
Additional contact information
P. Sedlacek: BUT - Brno University of Technology [Brno]
A. Jenkins: Institute of education - QMUL - Queen Mary University of London

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Younger children are considered to be more vulnerable to late effects ă (LE), which prompted us to study LE in patients after haematopoietic ă stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for a haematological malignancy before ă the age of 3. In this multicentre EBMT study, cumulative incidence (CI) ă and severity of endocrine LE, central nervous system complications and ă secondary malignancies at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years of follow-up were ă assessed. Risk factors (RF) like gender, diagnosis, age at and year of ă HSCT, TBI-or chemo-conditioning and GVHD were analysed. CI of any LE was ă 0.30, 0.52, 0.66 and 0.72 at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after HSCT, ă respectively. In 25% of the patients, LE were severe at a median ă follow-up of 10.4 years. In multivariate analysis, only TBI was a RF for ă having any LE and for thyroid dysfunction and growth disturbance. Female ă gender was a RF for delayed pubertal development. Some more insight ă could be gained by descriptive analysis regarding the role of TBI and ă GVHD on the severity of LE. Although only five selected LE have been ă studied and median follow-up is relatively short, the incidence and ă severity of these LE are considerable but not different from what has ă been found in older children and TBI is the main RF.

Keywords: Quality; of; Life (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016-11
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Bone Marrow Transplantation, 2016, 51 (11), pp.1482-1489. ⟨10.1038/bmt.2016.139⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01482662

DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2016.139

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().