Analysis of the efficacy of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in high-risk neuroblastoma

1Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the efficacy of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for high-risk neuroblastoma in China. Methods: The data of 90 high-risk neuroblastoma patients treated with the CCCG-NB 2015 regimen were reviewed. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis were analyzed and compared. In addition, the prognoses of tandem autologous stem cell transplantation and single autologous stem cell transplantation groups were compared. Results: The results of survival analysis showed that autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation based on this pretreatment regimen significantly improved the prognosis of children in the high-risk group. The 3-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates for the transplantation group and the nontransplantation group were 65.5% vs. 41.3% (p=0.023) and 77.1% vs. 57.9% (p=0.03), respectively. There was no difference in the distribution of baseline clinical case characteristics between the single transplantation group and the tandem transplantation group (p>0.05), and there was no significant difference in EFS and OS between the two groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: Based on this pretreatment programme, autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation is safe and tolerable and significantly improves the prognosis of children in the high-risk group. The value of tandem autologous stem cell transplantation is worthy of further discussion, which should consider various aspects such as the transplantation medication regimen and the patient's state.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yan, J., Jie, L., Jiaxing, Y., Yanna, C., Zhanglin, L., Zhongyuan, L., … Qiang, Z. (2022). Analysis of the efficacy of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in high-risk neuroblastoma. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 19(11), 1715–1723. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.76305

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free