MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2555926193 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.3083.3083

Are Outcomes After Myeloablative Conditioning Regimen in Double Cord Blood Transplantation (UCBT) Better Than Single UCBT for Adults with Acute Leukemia in Remission?.

2012· article· en· W2555926193 sur OpenAlexaff
Annalisa Ruggeri, Henrique Bittencourt, Guillermo Sanz, Alessandro Rambaldi, Ibrahim Yakoub‐Agha, Josep‐María Ribera, William Arcese, Lionel Mannone, Jorge Sierra, Carlos Solano, Samir Nabhan, Luciana Tucunduva, Fernanda Volt, Chantal Kenzey, Éliane Gluckman, Myriam Labopin, Vanderson Rocha

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineThioTEPAInternal medicineTransplantationRegimenHematopoietic stem cell transplantationGastroenterologySurgeryChemotherapyCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3083 Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is indicated for patients (pts) with acute leukemia (AL) with poor-risk cytogenetics or refractoriness to chemotherapy. For adults requiring HSCT urgently, such as pts in first complete remission (CR1), a single (s) or double unit (d) UCBT is a valid stem cells source. In the sUCBT setting, type of conditioning regimen seems to be associated with better outcome (Sanz BMT 2012). With the aim to compare single vs double UCBT after myeloablative conditioning regimen (MAC) in a homogeneous series of pts, we analyzed 239 adults (>18years) with AL in CR1. Pts were transplanted with sUCBT (n=156) or dUCBT (n=83) from 2005–2011 in EBMT centers for ALL (n=101) and AML (n=138). Type of MAC was statistically associated with outcomes therefore pts were analyzed in 3 different groups: Group 1: pts receiving sUCBT with TBI-based+Cy (+Flu) (n=68) (performed in 42 transplant centers (TC)), Group 2: pts receiving sUCBT with Bu+Flu+Thiotepa (n=88) (performed in 23 TC) and Group 3: pts receiving dUCBT with Cy+TBI+Flu (n=83) (performed in 47 TC). No statistical differences were found among the 3 groups for pts and disease characteristics (diagnosis, risk, gender, weight, CMV status, year of UCBT and time from diagnosis to UCBT) however pts in group2 were older than in group1 and 3 (median age 38 vs 33 vs 31 years) (p=0.03). Cytogenetic at diagnosis was available for 176 pts, 39% of pts were classified in the intermediate risk and 56% in unfavorable risk group. Forty-two pts had t(9;22) and 26 FLT3/ITD mutation. No differences on cytogenetic were found among the 3 groups. Thirty one percent of CB units were identical to recipient or had 1 HLA disparity (antigen level typing for HLA-A and B and allelic level for DRB1) while 69% had 2–3 HLA disparities. There was no difference on HLA disparities among the 3 groups. Median infused TNC was 2.9×107/kg for group1, 3×107/kg for group2, and 3.7×107/kg for group3 (p=0.01) and median CD34 was 1.2×105/kg, 1.6×105/kg and 1.5×105/kg, respectively (p=0.32). ATG was part of conditioning regimen in 73% of pts. The use of ATG was different in the 3 groups (70%, 90% and 40% for group1, 2 and 3, respectively p<0.001). GVHD prophylaxis consisted either of CSA±MMF or CSA±steroids in 46% and 22% of pts, respectively. All groups had the same median follow-up time: 24 (range 3–74) months. For group1, group2 and group3, the cumulative incidence (CI) of 60 days neutrophil recovery was 82%, 89% and 87% (p=0.15), with median time of 27, 21 and 24 days, respectively (p<0.001). Chimerism analysis performed at day 100 showed full donor chimerism in 87% of pts (data available for 80% of pts who engrafted). No differences in chimerism status were found between the 3 groups (p=0.47). At day 100, CI of acute GVHD (grade II-IV) was 30% vs 20% vs 45% for group1, group2 and group3, respectively (p=0.001). Pts receiving a dUCBT who developed aGvHD (n=38), experienced mainly grade II aGvHD with skin involvement (grade II (n=25), grade III (n=10), grade IV (n=3)). CI of chronic GvHD at 1 year was 29%, with no differences in the incidence among the groups. At 1 year, CI of TRM was 44% for group1, 33% for group2 and 36% for group3 (p=0.46). In multivariate analysis, two factors were associated with higher TRM: diagnosis of ALL (p=0.048) and age>35 years (p=0.049). One-Hundred-six pts died and the causes of death were infection (n=38), GvHD (n=18), other transplant-related events (n=31) or relapse (n=18). CI of 2y relapse was 25% for group1, 18% for group2 and 16% for group3 (p=0.22). No factors were found to be associated with increase relapse incidence in multivariate analysis. The 2y probability of leukemia-free-survival (LFS) was 31% for group1 (sUCBT-TBI based), 48% for group2 (sUCBT-BuFluTT), and 47% for group3 (dUCBT) (p=0.03). No center effect was found for LFS. In multivariate analysis, use of sUCBT using TBI based MAC (HR=0.9, p=0.003), diagnosis of ALL (HR=0.69, p=0.04) and age>35years (HR=1.4, p=0.04) were independently associated with decreased LFS. In this retrospective based registry analysis, in the myeloablative setting for adults with AL in CR1, outcomes (TRM, RI and LFS) after dUCBT were not statistically different from sUCBT using iv-BuFluTT. However, compared to sUCBT using TBI-based MAC, dUCBT was associated with lower RI and better LFS rates. In the MAC setting, the combination of conditioning regimens and type of graft (single vs. double) may have different impact UCBT outcomes. 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)0,002
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 enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,290
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · 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
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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