Search

IntroductionPre-emptive therapy for cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation has been used in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). It is unclear if this strategy has poorer clinical outcomes in CMV-endemic areas and if more aggressive prophylaxis is required.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the patterns and survival after CMV reactivation in patients undergoing pre-emptive therapy following allo-HSCT and assessed high-risk patients who could benefit from aggressive CMV prophylaxis in endemic areas.ResultsOf the 292 patients who underwent allo-HSCT, 70.5% (donor+ or recipient+) were CMV seropositive. CMV reactivation occurred in 139 patients (47.6%), with a median of 31.5 days from day 0 of allo-HSCT. The overall survival of patients with CMV reactivation who received pre-emptive therapy did not differ from those without reactivation. Of the 139 patients with CMV reactivation, 78 (56.1%) underwent ≥2 rounds of pre-emptive therapy. In multivariate analysis, the risk of CMV reactivation was higher in patients with multiple myeloma, with CMV seropositivity of the recipient and donor, administered with a higher dose of anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), and with acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) ≥ grade 2.ConclusionAlthough half of the patients with allo-HSCT were administered with pre-emptive therapy for CMV, CMV reactivation did not affect their survival, indicating the advantages of pre-emptive therapy, even in CMV-endemic areas. The cost-effectiveness of more aggressive CMV prophylaxis should be re-evaluated in patients at a high risk for CMV reactivation.

Surveillance computed tomography (CT) is usual practice for patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aNHL) in complete remission (CR). However, evidence to support this strategy is lacking. We retrospectively analyzed our institutional lymphoma registry, including patients with lymphoma consecutively enrolled from June 1995 to October 2016. Of 1,385 patients with aNHL, 664 achieved CR and were followed up with or without surveillance CT. Surveillance CT was performed for 609 patients every 3 or 6 months for the first 2 years, then every 6 or 12 months thereafter. Relapse was detected in 171 patients, of whom 152 underwent surveillance CT during follow-up. Of these 152 patients, asymptomatic relapse was detected in 67 (44%) using surveillance CT, and symptomatic relapse outside the surveillance interval was detected in the remaining 85 (56%). Detection of asymptomatic relapse using surveillance CT did not improve the overall or post-relapse survival in patients with relapsed aNHL. Surveillance CT interval (3 or 6 months) did not affect survival. No subgroups were identified that favored the use of surveillance CT to detect relapse. The results of this study suggest that routine surveillance CT in patients with aNHL to detect asymptomatic relapse might have a limited role in improving survival. CT is recommended when a relapse is clinically suspected.