Late Onset Eosinophilia (beyond Day 100), Rather Than Early Onset Eosinophilia, Has a Significant Prognostic Impact on Transplant Outcomes after Allogeneic Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation (PBSCT).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The significance of eosinophilia after allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is presently unknown. The eosinophil activation pathway involves Th2 cytokines and thus eosinophilia after PBSCT may reflect Th2 pathway activation. Previous data suggest that blood eosinophilia precedes or coincides with the development of acute or chronic graft-verus-host disease (aGVHD or cGVHD). In a recent report, Aisa et al reported that patients with peripheral eosinophilia within 100 days post-SCT had a superior overall survival (OS) and transplant-related mortality (TRM) along with a lower incidence of cGVHD compared to those who did not (Transplant Int 2007). Methods: A retrospective analysis of 237 recipients who received allogeneic PBSC from related donors at PMH was performed (myeloablative:reduced intensity conditioning 162:75). The present study evaluated the impact of early (before day 100: EEo) or late onset (beyond day 100: LEo) eosinophilia (≥0.5x109/L in peripheral blood) on transplant outcomes after allogeneic PBSCT. The patient population included 237 recipients of allogeneic PBSC from related donors (male:female 137:100, median age 51 years-old). Results: Biphasic pattern of eosinophilia with 2 peaks before day 100 and beyond day 100 was observed after PBSCT. The cumulative incidence of early onset eosinophilia was 43% at day 100. EEo was not associated with the development of grade 3–4 aGVHD (p=0.1), but there was a trend in the development of grade 2–4 aGVHD (p=0.053). In univariate analyses, the group with EEo showed favorable OS (p=0.002), TRM (p=0.05) and a lower relapse incidence (p=0.05) compared to those without EEo but did not have improved GVHD-specific survival (GSS). EEo did not predict the grade of aGVHD or response to steroid therapy for aGVHD. EEo was significantly associated with the development of late onset eosinophilia (p=0.000004 by chi-square test, p=0.00007 by McNemar test). The cumulative incidence of LEo was 62% at 2 years with median onset of 1 year after SCT. There was an association with the onset of cutaneous (p=0.001), oral (p=0.04), ocular (p=0.02) or pulmonary cGVHD (p=0.03). In univariate analyses, with median follow-up durations of 773 days (patients with LEo) and 679 days (patients without LEo), significant differences were observed in favor of those with LEo in terms of 3 year OS (86% vs 41%, p=0.00000000005), TRM at 3 years (10% vs 37%, p=0.000003), 3 year relapse rate (11% vs 31%, p=0.00003) and 3-year GSS (90% vs 64%, p=0.00001). In multivariate analyses, the LEo, rather than EEo, was identified as a significant favorable prognostic factor for OS (p=0.000006, hazard ratio [HR] 0.21), TRM (p=0.0006, HR 0.24), relapse incidence (p=0.003, HR 0.28) and GSS (p=0.001, HR 0.26). Conclusion: The late onset eosinophilia (beyond day 100), not EEo, seemed to have an important prognostic implication for outcome after allogeneic PBSCT. Further studies are warranted to validate its prognostic impact on SCT outcomes. Figure 1. Comparisonof overall survival (A) and GVHD-specific survival (B) between patients with and without late onset eosinophilia after allogeneic PBSCT Figure 1. Comparisonof overall survival (A) and GVHD-specific survival (B) between patients with and without late onset eosinophilia after allogeneic PBSCT
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 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».