MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3095539888 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-137221

Comparison of Outcomes after Haploidentical Relative and HLA Matched Unrelated Donor Transplantation with Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide Containing Gvhd Prophylaxis Regimens

2020· article· en· W3095539888 sur OpenAlexaff
Mahasweta Gooptu, Andrew St. Martin, Rizwan Romee, Mukta Arora, Monzr M. Al Malki, Joseph H. Antin, Christopher Bredeson, Claudio G. Brunstein, Saurabh Chhabra, Ephraim J. Fuchs, Nilanjan Ghosh, Michael R. Grunwald, Yoshihiro Inamoto, Christopher G. Kanakry, Natasha Kekre, Joseph P. McGuirk, Ian McNiece, Rohtesh S. Mehta, Marco Last Mielcarek, Filipo Milano, Dipenkumar Modi, Ran Reshef, Mark A. Schroeder, Robert J. Soiffer, Scott R. Solomon, Edmund K. Waller, Mary Eapen

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensOttawa Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineTransplantationGraft-versus-host diseaseCyclophosphamideContext (archaeology)Cumulative incidenceCalcineurinGastroenterologyFludarabineSurgeryImmunologyChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy) in HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (Haplo-HCT) results in acceptable engraftment and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Results of BMT CTN 1203 that compared matched unrelated donor (MUD) HCT with PT-Cy containing to calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) containing GVHD prophylaxis following reduced intensity conditioning, showed better 1-year GVHD free relapse free survival with PT-Cy. The relative value of a MUD versus a Haplo donor in the context of PT-Cy is not known. In this study we compared outcomes after Haplo- and MUD HCT with PT-Cy containing GVHD prophylaxis. Methods: Eligible patients were aged >18 years and received haplo-HCT or MUD HCT for AML, ALL and MDS in the US from 2011-2018. Patients received myeloablative (n=1001) or reduced intensity (n=1398) regimens and were analyzed separately. All recipients of haplo-HCT and reduced intensity conditioning MUD HCT received PT-Cy + CNI + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for GVHD prophylaxis. Among recipients of myeloablative conditioning MUD HCT, 55% received PT-Cy + CNI + MMF and 45%, PT-Cy + CNI. Cox regression models were built to compare outcomes between donor types. As PT-Cy containing GVHD prophylaxis for myeloablative conditioning MUD HCT is recent; therefore, outcomes were censored at 1-year. A p-value ≤0.01 was considered significant. Results: Myeloablative conditioning regimen: Age at transplant, sex, performance score, co-morbidity and CMV serostatus did not differ between recipients of haplo- and MUD HCT. Haplo-HCT recipients were less likely to be Caucasian (69% vs. 91%). They were also more likely to have AML (55% vs. 47) and less likely to have MDS (13% vs. 31%). Disease risk index did not differ between treatment groups. The predominant conditioning regimen for haplo-HCT was total body irradiation (TBI) + fludarabine (44%) for Haplo-HCT and for MUD HCT, fludarabine + busulfan ± thiotepa (59%). Engraftment rates did not differ between groups. Results of multivariate analyses are shown in Table 1. Compared to Haplo-HCT, grade II-IV acute GVHD risk was higher after MUD-HCT with PT-Cy + CNI GVHD prophylaxis. There were no differences in grade III-IV acute or chronic GVHD risk between treatment groups. Non-relapse mortality, relapse, disease-free and overall survival did not differ between treatment groups. Reduced intensity conditioning regimen: Age at transplant, sex, performance score, co-morbidity and CMV serostatus did not differ between recipients of haplo- and MUD HCT. Haplo-HCT recipients were less likely to be Caucasian (72% vs. 95%). Haplo-HCT recipients were less likely to have MDS (19% vs. 24%). Disease risk index did not differ between treatment groups. The predominant conditioning regimen was TBI 200 cGy + fludarabine + cyclophosphamide (88%) for Haplo-HCT and for MUD HCT, TBI 200 cGy + fludarabine + cyclophosphamide (37%) and fludarabine + melphalan (33%). Engraftment rates did not differ between groups. Results of multivariate analyses are shown in Table 2. Compared to Haplo-HCT acute and chronic GVHD risks did not differ between treatment groups. However, non-relapse mortality was lower after MUD-HCT which led to higher disease-free and overall survival. Conclusion: In patients who received myeloablative conditioning and PT-Cy + CNI + MMF GVHD prophylaxis, haploidentical related and matched unrelated donors are comparable. However, in patients who received less intense conditioning regimens, disease free and overall survival was higher after MUD HCT compared to Haplo-HCT. Disclosures Arora: Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding. Al Malki:Neximmune: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmacuticals, Inc: Consultancy; Rigel Pharma: Consultancy. Brunstein:Magenta: Research Funding; Gamida: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; AlloVir: Other: Advisory board. Grunwald:Merck: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Premier: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Premier: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Premier: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kekre:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. McGuirk:Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Allo Vir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceutical: Research Funding. Mehta:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding. Modi:MorphoSys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reshef:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Immatics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Monsanto: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schroeder:Partners Therapeutics: Other; Gilead Sciences Inc: Other; Pfizer: Other; Genentech Inc: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Other: served on advisory boards and received honoraria or consultant fees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Other; FlatIron Inc: Other; Dova Pharmaceuticals: Other; Astellas: Other; Janssen: Research Funding; Genzyme Sanofi: Other: served on advisory boards and received honoraria or consultant fees, Research Funding; PBD Incorporated: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Other: served on advisory boards and received honoraria or consultant fees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Cellect Inc: Research Funding. Soiffer:alexion: Consultancy; Rheos Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; VOR Biopharma: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Be the Match/ National Marrow Donor Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kiadis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy; Mana Therapeutics: Consultancy; Cugene: Consultancy; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Waller:Verastem Oncology, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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)0,001
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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,251 · 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

Citations1
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→Travaux en français237 207→