MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2525921399 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.3879.3879

Clinical Characteristics, Risk Factors and Outcomes of CMV Disease after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

2014· article· en· W2525921399 sur OpenAlexaff
Feras Alfraih, Naheed Alam, Anna Lambie, Vikas Gupta, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, John Kuruvilla, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Matthew D. Seftel, Jieun Uhm, David Loach, Hans A. Messner

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Établissements canadiensLeukemia & Lymphoma Society of CanadaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineViremiaTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationCytomegalovirusInternal medicineImmunologyGastroenterologyBetaherpesvirinaeDiseaseViral diseaseHerpesviridaeVirus

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Cytomegalovirus disease (CMV-D) is a major complication following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). CMV monitoring and preemptive therapy has been effective in decreasing CMV disease rates but this disease remains a challenge for many patients, especially with the increasing trend of using alternative donors, T-cell depletion (TCD) and more immunosuppressive regimen. In this study, we attempted to evaluate clinical characteristics; risk factors for progression from CMV viremia (CMV-V) to disease and the impact on transplant outcomes. Methods: A total of 548 patients were evaluated after receiving HSCT between 2005 and 2012 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre for occurrence of CMV infection (viremia or disease). CMV-V was diagnosed in peripheral blood samples obtained on two occasions either by PCR (³ 200 IU/ml) or antigenemia testing (³2 positive cells/100000). CMV disease (CMV-D) was defined by pathological evidence of virus in the involved organ. A total of 246 were included in the analysis. Patients were stratified into two groups, CMV-V only group versus CMV-D with or without preceding viremia. The CMV-D group median age was 50 years (range 17-71) and 17 (34%) were female. Matched related donors were used for twenty-two patients (54%). Twenty-four patients (59%) were transplanted for a myeloid and 15 (37%) for a lymphoid malignancy. Twenty patients (49%) were CMV sero-positive recipient and negative donor (R+D-) while 20 (49%) were recipient and donor CMV sero-positive (R+D+) and 1 (2%) was CMV sero-negative recipient and sero-positive donor (R-D+). Graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis included CSA/MMF (n=19, 46%) and CSA/MTX (n=22, 54%). Conditioning regimen with myeloablative preparative regimens were administered to 29 patients (71%), 12 patients (29%) were treated with reduced intensity regimen (RIC). Thirty-seven patients (90%) received peripheral blood stem cells as a stem cell source. In vivo TCD with alemtuzumab was used in 15 (37%). Results: With a median follow-up of 40 months among survivors (range 12-88), CMV-D occurred in 17% (n=41). The median time of onset of CMV-D was 11 months (range 1-88). CMV-D was preceded by viremia in 89% (n=36) versus 11% (n=5) without previous viremia. >3 CMV-V events occurred prior to disease in 39% (n=14) versus 1-2 events in 61%(n=22) of patients. CMV-D affected the lung in 76% (n=31), colon in 15% (n=6), retina in 2% (n=1), liver in 2% (n=1) and 5% of the patients had multi-organ involvements (n=2). Multiple CMV-D (> 2) occurred in 17% (n=7) of the patients. The involved organs differ only in 25% (n=2) of the patients. The transplant outcomes showed higher incidence of acute and chronic GVHD in CMV-D group (Table 1) and NRM (p=0.03; Fig 1B) in CMV-D group but no confirmed differences in OS or relapse. Table 1. Transplant outcomes according to the occurrence of CMV infection following allogeneic HSCT Table 1. Transplant outcomes according to the occurrence of CMV infection following allogeneic HSCT A multivariate analysis for the risk of progression from viremia to disease demonstrated chronic GVHD (p< 0.03, HR 2.09) together with the use of total body irradiation (TBI) of 1200 cGY (P=0.01, HR 2.77) as an independent risk factors. Neither CMV sero-status nor the numbers of previous CMV-V events were confirmed as independent factors. For survival analyses, CMV-D was not confirmed as independent risk factor for NRM, OS or relapse. A correlation between the time of diagnosis with CMV-D and NRM using the ROC analysis showed day 120 as significant cutoff with AUC=0.722 (sensitivity=0.522, specificity=0.800). The NRM & OS in early CMV-D (i.e. within 120 days from HSCT) was 80% and 7% versus 42% (P=0.004) and 54% (P=0,003) in late CMV-D group (>120 days; Fig 1A), respectively. There were no differences in relapse rate between both groups. The cumulative incidence of grades 1-4 acute GVHD, grades 2-4, grades 3-4 at day 120 and overall chronic GVHD at 2 years in early CMV-D was 93%, 87%, 73% and 27% versus 85%, 58%, 7% and 92% in late CMV-D group, suggesting very higher incidence of severe acute GVHD in early CMV-D versus higher incidence of chronic GVHD in late CMV-D. Conclusion: 1) Chronic GVHD and TBI 1200cGY are independent risk factors for progression from CMV-V to disease. 2) CMV-D may occur without proceeding viremia 3) Early CMV-D within the first 120 days from allogeneic HSCT is associated with very higher mortality rate which probably affected in part by the occurrence of severe acute GVHD. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,308
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research→Travaux en français237 207→