Favorable Outcomes with Low Dose Anti Thymocyte Globulin Based Graft Versus Host Disease Prophylaxis after Mismatched Unrelated Donor Allogenic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION Anti thymocyte globulin (ATG) based Graft versus Host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis is widely used for unrelated donor allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) although the optimal dose remains unclear. Recently, registry based and single centre retrospective analyses have suggested superior outcomes with the PTCy based GVHD prophylaxis regimens when compared to ATG based regimens in mismatched unrelated donor (MMUD) allogeneic HCT, however, these studies all used doses of ATG ≥ 5mg/kg. Outcomes following MMUD allogeneic HCT with lower dose ATG based GVHD prophylaxis regimens have not been extensively studied. Thus, we analysed outcomes of HLA 9/10 MMUD allogeneic HCTs using two low dose ATG based regimens as GVHD prophylaxis at our centre. All adult patients undergoing standard of care allogenic hematopoietic cell transplant at The Ottawa Hospital from January 1 st 2015- December 31, 2022 were included. Data regarding demographics, HLA mismatched allele, conditioning regimen, dose of ATG, time to engraftment, and rates of acute and chronic GVHD was collected. The primary outcome evaluated was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes were GVHD-free relapse-free survival (GRFS), cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) and non-relapse mortality (NRM). Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan Meier analysis. Predictors of survival were identified using Cox-proportional hazards regression model. 77 patients (Males 62.3% (n=48); Median age - 50 years) underwent allogeneic HCT from MMUD. Most common indication for transplant was MDS/AML in 66.2% (n=51) followed by ALL in 11.3% (n=9) patients. Most frequently mismatched locus was HLA A in 37.7% (n= 29) followed by HLA B in 14.3% (n=11). Myeloablative conditioning regimen was received by 76.6% (n=59) while reduced intensity regimens were used in 23.4% (n=18) patients. Rabbit ATG was part of the GVHD prophylaxis regimen in all patients with majority (81%; n=63) receiving 2.5mg/kg and remaining 18.2% (n=14) receiving 4.5mg/kg of the drug. Grade II-IV acute GVHD occurred in 24.7% (n=19) while chronic GVHD occurred in 32.5% (n= 25) patients. After a median follow up of 21 months, relapse occurred in 28.6% (n=22) patients. Two year OS (Fig 1), and GRFS of the whole cohort were 60.6% and 45.3% respectively. 2-year incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) were 16.9% and 18.2% respectively. Dose of ATG (2.5 mg/kg vs 4.5 mg/kg) was not a predictor of outcomes in either univariate and multivariate analyses. Age more than 50 years, primary diagnosis of lymphoma, reduced intensity conditioning and mismatch in loci other than HLA C were significant predictors of poor OS after univariate analysis. Only primary diagnosis of lymphoma (Hazard Ratio (HR) - 7.76; p=0.045) and mismatch in loci other than HLA C (HR - 9.53; p=0.03) were significant predictors of poor OS after multivariate analysis. When compared to published single centre and registry-based studies using ATG doses ≥ 5 mg/kg, GVHD prophylaxis using ATG doses ≤4.5 mg/kg seems to provide improved outcomes in patients undergoing allogeneic HCT from mismatched unrelated donors (Table 1). Our findings suggest that further studies are needed directly comparing lower dose ATG based regimens to PTCy based regimens to determine the ideal GVHD prophylaxis regimen for patients undergoing allogeneic HCT from HLA mismatched unrelated donors.
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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,002 | 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 ».