Risk Factors for Primary and Secondary Graft Failure in Allogenic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Single Center Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a potentially curative therapy for high risk hematological diseases and sustained engraftment of the donor stem cells is essential for transplant success. Graft failure (GF) is a rare, but serious complication post allo-HCT. In the presented study we aimed to assess the incidence, risk factors in a single-center population and as well the impact on transplant outcome. Methods: Between 01 January 2015 and 31 December 2018, 557 patients underwent allo-HCT at our center. Data was collected retrospectively and updated in June 2019. Cases were included regardless of the underlying diagnosis, disease status prior to transplant, preparative regimen, or stem cell source. Primary graft failure was defined as failure to achieve an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of >500/ µL by 28 days after bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood stem cell (PB) transplantation. In contrast, secondary graft failure was defined as cytopenias after initial engraftment (ANC <500/µL), with (a) donor chimerism of less than 5% or (b) falling donor chimerism with intervention such as second transplant or donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) or (c) patient death due to cytopenias, and fall in donor chimerism, even if chimerism was >5%. Exclusion criteria for diagnosis of GF were (a) disease relapse (b) graft versus host disease or (c) other causes of cytopenias such as, viral infections, or drug induced. Outcomes examined included overall survival (OS), cumulative incidence of GF, non-relapse mortality (NRM) and cause of death. Results: Baseline characteristics are summarized in (Table 1). GF was seen in 43 (7.7%) patients. Of these 43 patients, 9 (21%) had primary GF, and 34 (79%) had secondary GF. The cumulative incidence of GF overall (primary and secondary) is 1.6% (0.8- 3.0%) at day 100 and 6.5% (4.5-8.8%) at day 800. The median survival of patients following primary GF was 41 days versus 144 days in secondary GF. At one hundred days OS in primary GF was 22% and in secondary GF was 64%. The 1y and 2y OS for secondary GF was 33% and 28% respectively (Figure 1-A). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the (a) diagnosis/transplant indication (MDS, myelofibrosis, lymphoma or non-malignant diseases) and (b) donor type (HLA-mismatched unrelated or haploidentical) were the only factors significantly associated with increased GF (Table 2). We determined the effect of more than one of these risk factors on the occurrence of graft failure as seen in (Figure 1-B). In the absence of any of the risk factors, the incidence of GF was 3.6%. If one risk factor was present, the incidence of GF was 9.9%, and if 2 risk factors were present, the incidence of GF was 24.5%. In primary GF, 5 patients underwent second allo-HCT. In secondary GF, 15 patients (44%) underwent a second allo-HCT and another 8 patients received donor lymphocyte infusion. All the patients with primary GF died because of graft failure and its associated complications. In secondary GF, 22 patients (51%) died, 30% of causes related to infections. Conclusions: Our study showed an increased risk for graft failure following the use of mismatched unrelated or haploidentical donors for diseases such as lymphoma, myelofibrosis, myelodysplastic syndrome and non-malignant diseases. As well, we found that a presence of two risk factors puts patients at clinically significant increased risk of graft failure. More intense conditioning therapy should be considered for patients with one but in particular two risk factors. Disclosures Michelis: CSL Behring: Other: Financial Support.
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) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 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 ».