Publication | Open Access
First-line therapy of T-cell lymphoma: Allogeneic or autologous transplantation for consolidation—Final results of the AATT study.
12
Citations
0
References
2019
Year
Cell TherapyTransplantation MedicineImmunologyAutologous TransplantationImmunotherapyTranslational MedicineAatt StudyT-cell LymphomaOncologyPtcl AutosctHematologyClinical TrialsGraft SurvivalCell TransplantationRadiation OncologyHealth SciencesLymphoid NeoplasiaTransplantationAutoimmunityBlood TransplantationTransplant RejectionPeripheral T-cell LymphomaMedicineGraft Rejection
7503 Background: In patients (pts) with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) results of first-line therapy remain poor; guidelines recommend consolidation with autologous transplantation (autoSCT) in transplant-eligible pts. AATT (Autologous or Allogeneic Transplantation in T-cell lymphoma) sought to improve first-line therapy and compared alloSCT with autoSCT. Methods: This was a prospective randomized trial comparing autoSCT with alloSCT in younger pts (18-60 yrs) with newly diagnosed PTCL who had achieved CR, PR, or SD after 4 courses of CHOEP and 1 course of DHAP. Pts were to receive BEAM followed by autoSCT or myeloablative conditioning (fludarabine, busulfan, cyclophosphamide) followed by alloSCT from a matched related or unrelated donor. Primary endpoint was 3-year event-free survival (EFS). The study was stopped prematurely after a pre-planned interim analysis (JCO 33, 2015, suppl 8507a). Results: 103 pts randomized upfront to autoSCT (n=54) or alloSCT (n=49) formed the full analysis set. Median age was 50 years, 63% were male. 36 pts (35%) could not proceed to transplantation mostly due to early progression. Median observation time for EFS was 42 months. 3-year EFS and overall survival (OS) did not significantly differ between alloSCT and autoSCT (EFS: 43% (95% CI29-57%) vs. 38% (25-52%), p=0.58, OS: 57% (43-71%) vs. 70% (57-82%) (p=0.41). Comparing pts who actually received autoSCT (n=41) or alloSCT (n=26) EFS, PFS, and OS also showed no significant difference. No patient relapsed but eight pts (31%) died of treatment-related mortality (TRM) after alloSCT compared to 13 relapses (36%) but no TRM observed after autoSCT. Comparison of pts with aaIPI 2/3 vs. 0/1 showed significant differences for all endpoints. Conclusions: AlloSCT or autoSCT given to consolidate response in pts with PTCL showed no significant survival differences. While exerting a strong GvL-effect alloSCT resulted in substantial TRM. For younger pts with PTCL autoSCT remains the preferred consolidation, in particular, because pts. relapsing after autoSCT can be successfully salvaged with alloSCT. Clinical trial information: 2007-001052-39.