Lille Scoring System Rather Than DIPSS Is a Better Predictive of Overall Mortality After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) for Primary Myelofibrosis Using Reduced Intensity Conditioning: A Report From the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 432 The Dynamic International prognostic scoring system (DIPSS) is increasingly being used as a prognostic tool for determining the risk of mortality for primary myelofibrosis (PMF), and has largely replaced Lille scoring system. However, it is unclear whether this scale can predict mortality after reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT, a procedure that is increasingly being utilized, as demonstrated by data from the CIBMTR. Using the CIBMTR database, the impact of patient, disease and transplant related factors on outcomes of 222 patients, who underwent HCT for PMF using RIC was analyzed. Median follow-up of survivors was 50 months (range, 3–165). Median age at HCT was 55 years, and 56 (25%) were >60 years. Donors were matched related donor (MRD), well-matched unrelated (MUD), and partially/mismatched unrelated (MMUD) in 85 (38%), 94 (42%), and 43 (19%), respectively. Conditioning regimens were: Fludarabine (Flu) and Melphalan (Mel), 62 (28%); Flu and Busulphan (Bu), 81 (36%), Flu and total body irradiation (TBI), 49 (22%); and others 30 (14%). Disease-risk status at HCT according to Lille scoring system was: low 48 (22%), intermediate (Int) 105 (47%), and high 69 (31%); and according to DIPSS was: low 25 (11%), int-1 110 (50%), int-2 81 (36%), and high, 4 (2%). The cumulative incidences of acute graft versus host disease (GvHD) at 100 days and chronic GvHD at 5-years were 48% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 41–54) and 50% (95% CI 43–57), respectively. The cumulative incidence of relapse/progression and non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 5-years was 28% (95% CI 22–34) and 38% (95% CI 31–44), respectively. The corresponding disease-free and overall survival was 34% (95% CI 28–40), and 37% (95% CI 31–44), respectively. In multivariate analysis, high-risk disease defined by Lille scoring system was associated with two-fold higher mortality compared to low-risk disease (Table). Higher risk disease status as defined by DIPSS was not associated with a significant increase in mortality when compared to lower-risk disease (Table). MUD and MMUD use were associated with higher mortality risk compared to MRD with relative risk (RR) of 1.59 (95% CI 1.00–2.52) and 2.6 (95% CI 1.56–4.35), respectively. A comparison of conditioning regimens demonstrated a trend towards reduced mortality with FluMel when compared to FluBu (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33–0.92; overall p=0.11), or other regimens (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26–0.99; overall p=0.11). In conclusion, the current study highlights that the DIPSS was limited in predicting the mortality after RIC transplantation for PMF, while the Lille scoring system remained predictive of mortality in high risk patients. These findings underscore the need for transplant-specific scoring system. Compared to other conditioning regimens FluMel appears to be associated with a trend towards better survival, which needs to be confirmed in prospective randomized trials. Table. Multivariate Analysis (MVA) for overall mortality* Model 1. MVA of Lille scoring system Variable Relative Risk (RR) 95% CI Overall p-value Lille-risk score low-risk (n = 48) 1 0.02 Intermediate-risk (n = 105) 1.47 0.84-2.58 High risk (n = 69) 2.22 1.23-4.00 Conditioning regimen Flu TBI 1 0.11 Flu Mel 0.67 0.38-1.19 Flu Bu 1.20 0.73-1.97 Others 1.30 0.68-2.48 Donor type HLA-identical sibling/other related 1 0.001 Well-matched URD 1.60 1.01-2.53 Partially matched/mismatched URD 2.61 1.57-4.36 Contrast Flu Mel vs. Flu Bu 0.56 0.33-0.93 0.03 Flu Mel vs. Others 0.51 0.27-0.99 0.05 Flu Bu vs. Others 0.92 0.52-1.66 0.79 Intermediate vs. High 0.66 0.43-1.01 0.06 Well-matched URD vs. Partially matched/mismatched URD 0.61 0.38-0.98 0.04 Model 2. MVA of DIPSS DIPSS Low/Int-1 (n = 135) 1 0.10 Int-2/high (n = 85) 1.39 0.94-2.043 * Adjusted for age, sex, Karnofsky performance score, platelet count, spleen status, conditioning regimen, donor type, GVHD prophylaxis and year of transplant. 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 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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».