MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310160018 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-163594

Clinical Outcomes in Fresh Versus Cryopreserved Hematopoietic Stem Cell Products in British Columbia: A Retrospective Study

2022· article· en· W4310160018 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Bo Wan, Lorenzo Lindo, Giovanna Cameron, Yasser Abou Mourad, Shanee Chung, Donna L. Forrest, Florian Kuchenbauer, Stephen H. Nantel, Sujaatha Narayanan, Thomas J. Nevill, Maryse Power, Judith Anula Rodrigo, David Sanford, Kevin Song, Ryan J. Stubbins, Heather J. Sutherland, Cynthia L. Toze, Jennifer White, Claudie Roy, Kevin A. Hay

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensBC Cancer AgencyTerry Fox Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationSurgeryOncology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) is a mainstay of treatment for hematologic malignancies such as acute leukemias and aggressive lymphomas. Conventionally, fresh donor hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) are used, but the COVID-19 pandemic forced many centres to switch to cryopreservation of HPC for alloHSCT. We aimed to compare the outcomes in alloHSCT patients who received cryo-HPC with a recent historical cohort of patients who received fresh-HPC at our centre. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted on all adult patients who received a bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood alloHSCT in British Columbia between June 2017 and Jan 2022; cryo-HPCs were the predominant product used as of March 2020. CIBMTR criteria were used to define engraftment. Patients who died before 30 days post-alloHSCT were excluded from primary graft failure (GF) and GVHD analysis; those who died before 100 days post-alloHSCT or had primary GF were excluded from secondary GF and chronic GVHD analysis. Patients who were alive on the date of last follow-up (January 31, 2022) were censored. Statistical significance was calculated using the Chi square test for categorical variables and T-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for OS. Results A total of 271 alloHSCT procedures were included in the analysis, of which 134 received fresh-HPC and 137 cryo-HPC. The median age at the time of transplant was 54 years [IQR 46-64] in the fresh-HPC vs 59 [IQR 39-61] in the cryo-HPC group (p=0.02). Male recipients comprised 60% of both groups (p=1). There was no significant difference in primary diagnosis (p=0.17); AML was the most frequent indication (46% fresh-HPC vs 35% cryo-HPC), followed by ALL/LBL (20% vs 23%). Most patients were in CR1 (63% vs 53%, p=0.01). The median CD34+ cell count infused was 7x106/kg in the fresh and 6x106/kg in the cryo-HPC group (p=0.08). For the cryo-HPC, the median time from cell collection to cryopreservation was 33 hours [IQR 23, 55], with a median cell viability of 96% [IQR 95, 98]. Matched unrelated donor was the most common donor type, which comprised 75% alloHSCTs in the fresh-HPC and 54% in the cryo-HPC group (p<0.01). Bone marrow source was used for 8% and 5% of alloHSCTs in the fresh-HPC and cryo-HPC groups, respectively (p=0.10). Myeloablative condition was used in 78% fresh-HPC vs 72% cryo-HPC (p=0.31) and busulfan/fludarabine was the most common regimen (47% vs 58%, p=0.01). Most patients received GVHD prophylaxis with cyclosporine and methotrexate ± Thymoglobulin (96% in fresh HPC, 79% in cryo-HPC, p<0.01) The median follow-up was 16 months in fresh [IQR 10, 25] vs 10 months in the cryo-HPC group [IQR 5, 15] (p<0.01). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either group, and the 10-month OS was similar in both groups (79% fresh-HPC vs 78% cryo-HPC, p=0.74). There was no difference in OS between the groups in the patients with a diagnosis of acute leukemia (p=0.57). Relapse rates were similar (27% fresh-HPC vs 23% cryo-HPC, p=0.60) with a median time to relapse of 5 months [IQR 3, 12] vs 3 months [IQR 3, 7] respectively (p=0.07). 10-month non-relapse mortality was 16% in fresh-HPC vs 13% in the cryo-HPC group (Fig 1b, p=0.47). There were no significant differences in causes of death; disease relapse was the most common cause of death (51% fresh-HPC, 56% cryo-HPC). Median neutrophil engraftment was faster in patients receiving fresh-HPC at 18 days [IQR 15, 22] vs 20 [IQR 17, 23] with cryo-HPC (p<0.01). Median platelet engraftment was also faster for fresh-HPC with 19 days [IQR 16, 23] compared with 22 [IQR 18, 29] with cryo-HPC (p<0.01). There was 1 case of primary GF in the fresh-HPC compared to 5 in the cryo-HPC groups (p=0.07), and 4 cases of secondary GF when using fresh-HPC compared to 3 with cryo-HPC (p=0.46). The incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was 30% in fresh HPC and 23% in cryo-HPC (p=0.06). The preliminary incidence of chronic GVHD was 43% in fresh HPC vs 33% in cryo-HPC (p=0.01). Conclusion Cryo-HPC may have prolonged time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment compared to fresh-HPC as well as increased incidence of primary graft failure. There were no significant differences in OS, relapse or acute GVHD among patients receiving fresh vs cryo-HPC in our cohort. Chronic GVHD was more common with fresh-HPC, likely due to longer follow-up times. These findings are consistent with those reported in literature. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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 enseignants0,600
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,806

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
Bibliométrie0,0020,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · 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
Publié2022
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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