MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389221881 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-173727

UM171 Expanded Cord Blood Transplantation Outcomes Compare Favorably to All Different Stem Cell Sources: An EBMT Registry Case-Control Analysis

2023· article· en· W4389221881 sur OpenAlexaff
Sandra Cohen, Myriam Labopin, Nadia M. Bambace, Imran Ahmad, Maude Dumont-Lagacé, Fabio Ciceri, Donal P. McLornan, Hélène Labussière‐Wallet, Nicolaus Kröger, Régis Peffault de Latour, Yves Chalandon, Édouard Forcade, Thomas Cluzeau, Pavel Jindra, Alexander Kulagin, Jean Roy, Frédéric Barabé, Pierre Caudrelier, Ibrahim Yakoub‐Agha, Mohamad Mohty

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMesenchymal stem cell research
Établissements canadiensUniversité LavalHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationCord bloodStem cellInternal medicineGraft-versus-host diseaseOncologyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Cord blood (CB) transplantation (CBT) has several advantages compared with other graft sources, such as permissive human leucocyte antigen (HLA) mismatches, and low risk of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and relapse. However, CBT has fallen into disfavor because of its high risk of non-relapse mortality (NRM) and prolonged hospitalization due to its low cell dose. Furthermore, the need for the rare large cord bloods (CBs) leads to selection of poorly HLA-matched CBs, known to further increase NRM. UM171 is a small molecule that expands hematopoietic stem cells. A phase I-II study of a single UM171-expanded, myeloablative and reduced intensity CBT for patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies who lacked a donor, demonstrated prompt neutrophil engraftment, the ability to use smaller, better HLA-matched CBs, and a low NRM of 5% (Cohen S et al. Lancet Haematol 2020). The aim of the current analysis was to compare outcomes after a UM171 CBT to real-world cohorts of 6 other stem cell sources identified in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) registry. Methods: This is a retrospective study comparing 22 adults who received a single UM171-expanded CBT in the phase I-II study between 2016-2018, to 6 cohorts of patients allografted from different stem cell sources and reported to the EBMT registry. Control patients were eligible if they had received a myeloablative or reduced intensity allogeneic transplant for a hematologic malignancy in Europe during 2010-2021, were between the ages of 18-65 years, and had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score ≥70. The different donor control cohorts were: 1) CB, single or double units, with a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for GVHD prophylaxis, 2) 10/10 HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD) peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) with a CNI and MMF or methotrexate (MTX), 3) 10/10 MUD bone marrow (BM) with a CNI and MMF or MTX, 4) 9/10 HLA-MUD BM or PBSC (9/10 UD), 5) T cell replete haploidentical donor (haplo) BM or PBSC, and 6) matched sibling donor (MSD) BM or PBSC. Exclusion criteria included in vitro manipulated grafts and CBT recipients who received anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. Patients were directly matched for disease and status at transplant and propensity score matching was used for prior allograft, age, KPS, and conditioning regimen. Endpoints included engraftment, GVHD, NRM, relapse, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and GVHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS). The EBMT attempted to identify 3 controls for each patient. If no control was identified for a UM171 patient, the latter was excluded from the analysis. Results: Between 17 and 21 UM171 CB patients were compared to 36 to 62 controls depending on the donor group as 1-3 controls could not be identified for each patient (Table 1). Median follow-up for the UM171 group was 36 months and generally longer for the controls. Neutrophil engraftment with UM171 CB was similar to all donor groups except slower for CB and MUD BM. Platelet engraftment was consistently slower for UM171 CB except when compared to conventional CB. The incidence of severe acute GVHD was similar across all donor groups. As there was no severe chronic GVHD in the UM171 group, the latter was associated with less extensive/severe chronic GVHD compared to MUD (PBSC and BM) and MSD. There was a trend towards lower NRM for UM171 CB compared to haplo and 9/10 UD but it did not reach statistical significance. PFS, OS and GRFS were all better with UM171 CB compared to haplo. Finally, GRFS was improved with UM171 CB when compared to MUD PBSC (Figue 1), 9/10 UD, and MSD. Conclusions: This registry matched case-control analysis demonstrated real-word evidence suggesting UM171-expanded CBT recipients have improved outcomes compared to other donor types. More specifically and due to the absence of severe chronic GVHD with UM171 CB, GRFS was better with UM171 CB when compared to other graft sources except for CB and MUD BM. Also, OS and PFS were superior with UM171 CB compared to haplo donors. Limitations of this study included the small number of UM171 patients, the inability to identify controls for each case, and certain missing data for the controls. UM171 expansion of CB appeared to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining benefits of CB while removing its disadvantages. Thus, prospective randomized studies are warranted to confirm these results.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
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 seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
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 Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,327
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · 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
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMesenchymal stem cell researchTravaux en français237 207