MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2555341938 · doi:10.1182/blood.v114.22.3226.3226

Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Harvests Performed Beyond the Initial Two Days of Apheresis May Not Contribute to Accelerate Granulocyte and Platelet Engraftment After Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.

2009· article· en· W2555341938 sur OpenAlexaff
Luciano Wannesson, Lisa Wang, John Kuruvilla, Tracy Nagy, R Saragosa, Norman Franke, Armand Keating, Michael Crump

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLeukapheresisMedicineApheresisCD34Stem cellEtoposideTransplantationHaematopoiesisCyclophosphamideGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorInternal medicineChemotherapyImmunologyUrologyPlateletBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3226 Poster Board III-163 Introduction Measurement of the number of CD34+ cells in the leukapheresis product is universally used as a surrogate measure of the capacity of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) to reconstitute hematopoiesis. Early studies demonstrated that engraftment times are shorter and predictable if at least 5 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg are administered following high-dose chemotherapy. However, satisfactory neutrophil and platelet recovery occurs after infusions of >2.0 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg. Previous analyses demonstrated the presence of different subsets of CD34+ cells in the peripheral blood at different times during mobilization, with pluripotent subsets arising and decreasing earlier after mobilization and more committed subsets peaking later [Stewart et al, Exp Hematol 1995; 23: 1619-27]. We hypothesized that for equivalent CD34+ cell dose, there could be a difference in engraftment kinetics according to the number of days of apheresis required to obtain an adequate PBSC graft. Patients and Methods Data from 270 consecutive autografts performed between July 1999 and April 2006 for non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma (58% and 25%, respectively), breast cancer (8%), germ-cell tumors (2%) and acute myeloid leukemia (7%) were analyzed. Mobilization was performed using cyclophosphamide +/- etoposide + G-CSF 10μg/kg; patients received G-CSF after PBSC infusion from day 10 until neutrophil recovery >1500/μL. Patients were stratified in 3 groups according to the SC dose administered as follows: Low-dose (L) <2 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg, Intermediate-dose (I) 2 to 5 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg and High-dose (H) >5 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg and in 2 categories according to the number of days of apheresis performed (≤2 and 3+). The data analysis was divided in 3 steps. Step 1: we made a comparison of engraftment results for group L vs. I and I vs. H. Step 2: to explore potential engraftment differences within each cell dose stratum according to the number of days of apheresis required, that is, I(≤2) vs. I(3+) and H(≤2) vs. H(3+). Step 3: to test the influence of performing additional harvests beyond day 2 on engraftment kinetics we compared group I(≤2) vs. group H(3+), i.e. those who obtained the optimal number of CD34+ cells through additional collections during the same mobilization. Differences between groups were estimated by the Mann-Whitney test and by Cox regression model. Results The step 1 analysis confirmed that engraftment was faster for the H group (N=138, median 11 days for ANC>500/μl and N=132, median 11 days for unsupported platelet count >20000/μl) than for the I group (N=118, median 11 days and N=98, 12 days for neutrophils and platelets, respectively) and the L group (N=14, median 12 days and N=12, median 15 days for neutrophils and platelets, respectively). Two-sided p-values favored I in L vs. I (p=0.0185 for neutrophils and p=0.0013 for platelets) and favored H in I vs. H (p=0.0002 for neutrophils and p=0.019 for platelets). The step 2 analysis did not show any statistical difference in engraftment times within groups L, I and H, according to the number of apheresis (≤2 vs. 3+), but there was a trend for faster platelet engraftment for patients in the ≤2 group (p=0.08). There was no difference between the ≤2 and 3+ subgroups in terms of age and number of chemotherapy lines received before transplant; although, in the ≤2 group there were more patients with breast cancer (10.3% vs. 4.8%) and Hodgkin lymphoma (32.2% vs. 16.1%) and fewer pts with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (66.1% vs. 48%) compared to the 3+ group (p<0.001). Step 3 analysis showed no difference for neutrophil recovery between subgroups I≤2 and H3+ (N=28, median 11 days for I≤2 and N=20, median 10 days for H3+, p=0.08) and platelet engraftment (median 11 days for I≤2 and 12 days for H3+, p=0.54). Even dough, patients in the I≤2 cohort received significantly less CD34+ cells/kg (median 4.46, range 2.10-4.99) compared to those in the H3+ group (median 6.33, range 5.10-8.99, p<0.001) and were similar in terms of age and number of lines of prior therapy. Conclusions Provided more than 2 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg are obtained in two days of leukapheresis, optimal engraftment times can be achieved even if the threshold of 5 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg is not reached. Our results suggest that the addition of harvest days beyond 2 days to obtain ≥5 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg may not contribute to improved short-term engraftment kinetics. 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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
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: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,017

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,273
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · 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
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→