MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2573736064 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.3955.3955

Multiple CMV Reactivations Are Associated with Lower Risk of Relapse Following Reduced Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

2014· article· en· W2573736064 sur OpenAlexaff
Feras Alfraih, Naheed Alam, Vikas Gupta, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, John Kuruvilla, Jeffrey H. Lipton, David Loach, Matthew D. Seftel, Jieun Uhm, Anna Lambie, 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-clésMedicineTransplantationInternal medicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationGastroenterologyGraft-versus-host diseaseViremiaStem cellBetaherpesvirinaeImmunologySurgeryHerpesviridaeViral diseaseVirus

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction : Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major infectious complication following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). In this study, we attempted to evaluate the impact of multiple versus single CMV viremia (CMV-V) events on transplantÕs outcomes especially with respect to relapse, non-relapse mortality (NRM) and overall survival (OS). Methods : A total of 548 patients were evaluated for the occurrence of CMV-V after receiving HSCT between 2005 and 2012 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. 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). A total of 246 patients developed CMV-V and were included in the analysis. Patients were stratified into two groups, multiple CMV-V (³ 2) versus single CMV-V. Median age for all patients is 52 (range 17-71) and 125 (51%) were female. Matched related donors were used for one hundred twenty-five patients (57%). One hundred fifty-six patients (64%) were transplanted for myeloid and 70 (29%) for lymphoid malignancies. Ninety-seven patients (30%) were CMV sero-positive with a negative donor (R+D-) while 138 (51%) were recipient and donor CMV sero-positive (R+D+). Graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis included CSA/MMF (n=131, 53%) and CSA/MTX (n=115, 47%). Myeloablative conditioning regimens were administered to 143 patients (58%), 103 patients (42%) were treated with a reduced intensity regimen (RIC). Two hundred-fifteen patients (89%) received peripheral blood stem cells as a stem cell source. In- vivo T-cell depletion (TCD) with alemtuzumab was used in 103 (53%). Results: With a median follow-up duration of 27 months among survivors (range 6-92), overall CMV-V occurred in 64% (n=246). Multiple CMV-V occurred in 61% (n=151) versus 39% (n=95) in single CMV-V. 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 was 78%, 61%, 27% and 60% in the multiple CMV-V group versus 54%, 43%, 18% and 39% in single CMV-V group, suggesting higher incidence of acute & chronic GVHD in multiple CMV-V group versus single-CMV-V. The OS, NRM and relapse rate at 2 years were 47%, 41% and 14% in the multiple CMV-V versus 41%, 36% and 24% (p=0.06) in single CMV-V group, suggesting no differences on transplant outcomes between both groups. Sub-analyses based on preparative regimen administered showed, in RIC patients there were significant differences on relapse and NRM between multiple CMV-V versus single CMV-V (table 1) while in myeloablative set, these differences were not seen. The higher incidences of acute and chronic GVHD in patients with multiple CMV-V versus single-CMV-V events were similar on both RIC and myeloablative sets. Table 1. Transplant outcomes according to the occurrence of CMV infection following RIC allogeneic HSCT Overall Multiple CMV-V Single CMV-V (n=103, 100%) (n=57, 55%) (n=46, 45%) p-value Acute GVHD Grades 1-4 64 (62%) 39 (68%) 25 (54%) 0.158 Grades 2-4 46 (45%) 31 (54%) 15 (33%) 0.030 Grades 3-4 14 (14%) 11 (19%) 3 (7%) 0.083 CGVHD, overall 52 (50%) 34 (60%) 18 (39%) 0.048 Transplant outcomes Death 55 (53%) 30 (53%) 25 (54%) 1.000 Non-relapse mortality 33 (32%) 23 (40%) 10 (22%) 0.057 Relapse 23 (22%) 7 (12%) 16 (35%) 0.009 A multivariate analysis in patients conditioned with RIC for transplant outcomes, confirmed multiple CMV-V as an independent protective factor for relapse (p=0.03, Hazard ratio [HR] 0.32) together with chronic GVHD (p< 0.01, HR 0.27) and myeloid disease (p=0.02, HR 2.46). For NRM, multiple CMV-V was not confirmed as an independent risk factor, but acute GVHD grade 3-4 (p< 0.01, HR 5.33) and chronic GVHD (p <0.01, HR 0.34) were found to be significant factors. For OS, chronic GVHD (p<0.01, HR 0.27), grade 3-4 (<0.01, HR 3.52) and age (P<0.01, HR 1.06) were independent prognostic factors. Conclusion: 1) Multiple CMV-V after RIC allogeneic HSCT is associated with significantly lower risk of relapse mortality, which might be affected in part by the occurrence of severe acute and chronic GVHD, and by other unknown independent mechanisms related to CMV infections. 2) CMV sero-status was not an independent risk factor for transplant outcomes in patients with CMV-V. 3) Further studies in larger populations are warranted to confirm and further explore a possible anti-tumor effect of cytomegalovirus infections especially in patients prepared with RIC. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. 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 enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,009

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
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
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)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,234 · 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→