The Influence of Age on Outcomes in Patients Who Receive Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Most randomized trials that evaluate the use of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) exclude older patients due to the expectation of more complications and higher mortality. There is little prospective randomized data assessing the benefit of ASCT in older patient groups. Despite this, ASCT is frequently being offered to older patients with myeloma and NHL. The aim of this project is to compare outcomes of patients younger and older than 60 years of age who have received an ASCT. Methods: Review of a prospective database of all patients who have undergone ASCT at the St. John’s Health Sciences Centre since 2001. Outcome data collected included hematopoietic recovery and transfusion requirements, occurrence of NCI grade 3 or 4 toxicity (hematologic toxicity excluded), and transplant-related mortality. Mild (grade1–2) toxicity was not compared. The rate of febrile neutropenia was studied separately from other NCI toxicities. Results: Between November 2001 and June 2006 stem cell mobilisation was attempted in 125 patients and was successful in 113 (90%). Mobilisation failed in 5/45 (11%) of older patients and 7/80 patients under 60 (9%) (p=0.70). Transplant has not been performed in 17 patients (8 patients have cells stored for future use, 9 patients progressed or developed severe new health issues). 96 patients underwent ASCT. Four patients had a second ASCT during this period, but only data from the first transplant was included in this study. There were 33 patients age ≥ 60 and 63 patients < 60 years. Baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1. Though there was no difference in the median stem cell dose received, when patients were grouped according to the dose received (<2.5, 2.5–5.0, 5.0–10, and > 10 × 106/kg) we see that older patient were more likely to receive a lower stem cell dose (p = 0.033). Despite this, hematopoietic recovery was similar between the two groups. There was no significant difference between time to neutrophil recovery, platelet recovery, transfusion requirements, GCSF administration, and duration of hospitalization (table 2). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 75% of patients < 60 versus 81% of those ≥ 60 (p=ns). Grade 3 or 4 toxicity was experienced by 68% and 67% respectively. There was one death due to transplant related complications in the younger age group, and none in the older group. Conclusion: This study showed no difference in recovery, toxicity, or transplant-related mortality between younger and older patients after ASCT. Table 1: Baseline Characteristics < 60 years ≥ 60 years Number of patients 63 33 Male 41 18 Female 22 15 Median Age (Range) 49.6 (21–59) 64.6 (60–73) Diagnosis Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma 28 15 Multiple Myelom 24 17 Hodgkins Disease 9 1 Other 2 0 Conditioning Regimen BEAM 30 13 Melphalan 27 18 Other 6 2 Stem Cell Dose Median CD34 dose* (average, range) 5.7 (7.8, 2.7–50.9) 5.3 (5.7, 2.1–18.4) # receiving < 2.5* 0 4 2.5 – 5.0* 20 12 5.0 – 10.0* 36 14 > 10.0* 7 3 Table 2: Hematologic Recovery < 60 ≥ 60 P-Value Median days to ANC > 0.5 ×109 (range) 10 (8–12) 10 (9–12) .21 Median days to Platelets > 20 (range) 11 (7–54) 11 (8–67) .13 Median RBC Transfusions (ave, range) 0 (1.5, 0–12) 1 (1.9, 0–7) .49 Median platelet transfusions (ave, range) 1 (1.9, 0–26) 2 (1.7, 0–7) .77 Median Days of G-CSF 6 7 .25 Ave # Days in hospital from day 0 – 60 13.2 (0–60) 13.8 (0–35) .79
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».