289: Impact of Longitudinal Long Term Transplant Clinic (LTTC) on Survival after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant (SCT)

M. Jagasia,C. Clifton,L. A. Vaughan,W. Chinratanalab,H. Chen,S. Dixon,C. Hunt,A. Kassim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2007.12.299

2008-01-01

Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Abstract:Introduction: Allogeneic SCT patients (pts.) are followed intensively for 100 days after SCT at the transplant center (TC). The ideal model of follow-up after day 100 is not well studied. Pts. are often transitioned back to their primary hematologist at the TC (or in community). We hypothesized that a longitudinal LTTC supervised by transplant physicians and mid-level providers and care coordinated with consultants in other disciplines would improve outcome. Methods: We established LTTC in 1/2006. All pts. after allogeneic SCT (>day 100) were transitioned to LTTC (group[G] 1: transition day <120). Some pts. were transitioned after day 120 or were referred by their primary hematologist to LTTC (G2). G3 was a historical group of pts. with survival of at least 150 days after SCT (care provided by primary hematologist). Overall survival (OS) was measured from transition to LTTC for G1 and 2 and from day 150 for G3. Results: G 1, 2 and 3 had 43, 31 and 114 pts., respectively. Groups were comparable for age at SCT, donor status, and disease risk (CIBMTR definition). More pts. in G3 (74%) had ablative SCT compared to G1 (51%) and G2 (65%) (P = 0.019). Median follow-up time was different (G1: 349 days, G2: 966 days, G3: 765 days, P < 0.0001). Median OS was 1905 days (95% CI 1143–2664). The OS for the 3 groups were different (P = 0.001). 1-yr. OS for G 1, 2 and 3 were 80%, 88%, and 59%. There were 4, 2, and 55 deaths in the 3 groups (non-relapse mortality: 0%, 50%, and 37%). In univariate analyses (G1 + 2 vs.3), donor type (P = 0.045), risk status (P = 0.0012) and group status based on LTTC (time dependent variable) (P = 0.0478) were significant predictors of OS. Using Cox-regression analyses (adjusted for transplant age, donor type, transplant type), risk status (low vs. high risk) (HR 2.82, P = 0.0005) and LTTC status (HR 1.97, P = 0.047) were significant predictors of OS. Using Cox-regression analyses (G1 vs. 3) risk status (low vs. high risk) (HR 2.74, P = 0.0012) and LTTC status (HR 3.27, P = 0.0251) were significant predictors of OS. Conclusion: Although limited by retrospective nature, short follow up in G1 and comparision to a historical control, our study shows that pts. followed in the LTTC clinic with coordinated care from consultants had a better OS compared with pts. who were followed prior to LTTC being established. The impact of LTTC clinic on other long-term transplant problems (viz. diabetes, dyslipidemias, osteoporosis, sexual dysfunction) will be studied.