MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389243927 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-190446

British Columbia Experience in Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation for Myelofibrosis with or without Pre-Transplant Ruxolitinib

2023· article· en· W4389243927 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Shanee Chung, Ashley McEwan, Yasser Abou Mourad, Donna L. Forrest, Kevin A. Hay, Florian Kuchenbauer, Stephen H. Nantel, Thomas J. Nevill, Judith Anula Rodrigo, Claudie Roy, David Sanford, Kevin Song, Ryan J. Stubbins, Cynthia L. Toze, Jennifer White, Sujaatha Narayanan

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineTransplantationMyelofibrosisInternal medicineCohortRuxolitinibLog-rank testRetrospective cohort studySurvival analysisPediatricsSurgeryBone marrow

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (AlloHSCT) remains the only potentially curative treatment for myelofibrosis (MF). It confronts many challenges stemming from the older age of the typical patients and their age-related comorbidities, as well as disease-specific factors such as splenomegaly and hostile marrow microenvironment, which raise concerns for delayed engraftment and graft failure. Methods We performed a retrospective review of the 58 adult patients who received AlloHSCT for MF in British Columbia, Canada, in the 20-year period between January 2001 and December 2020. Data pertaining to patient demographics, disease characteristics, treatment/transplant details and clinical outcomes were gathered from the available paper and electronic records. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was defined as the time between the day of the transplant and the day of disease relapse or death from any cause. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time between the day of the transplant and death from any cause. Patients who did not have an event during follow up were censored at the time of the last known follow up. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier survival estimator and log-rank test, using Stata version 16.1 (Texas, USA). Results The median age of the cohort was 56 years (range 26-68), with 36% being 60 years old or older. The male to female ratio was 1.6:1. The median Karnofsky Performance Status index was 80 (range 70-100) and the median age-adjusted HCT-specific Comorbidity Index was 2 (range 0-5). The pre-transplant DIPPS plus risk category was: high in 13 patients (22%); intermediate-2 in 29 (50%); intermediate-1 in 15 (26%); and low in 1 (2%). 19/58 (33%) had a peripheral blast percentage greater than 2%. 51/58 (88%) had grade 3 fibrosis seen on the pre-AlloHSCT bone marrow biopsy. 27/57 (47%) patients were transfusion-dependent for pRBC and/or platelets. 28/54 (52%) evaluable patients had a normal karyotype and 6/54 (11%) a complex karyotype. Sixteen patients (28%) had a myeloid gene panel performed by PCR; the most commonly seen variants were ASXL1 (10 patients) and TET2 (5 patients). The median number of variants seen in a single patient was 3 (range 0-5). 42/58 (72%) patients received myeloablative conditioning before AlloHSCT. The donor type was: a volunteer unrelated donor in 54%; a matched sibling in 42%; and an alternative source (double cord or haploidentical donor) in 4%. Peripheral blood stem cells were used in 93% of the AlloHSCT. 24/58 (41%) patients received ruxolitinib pre-AlloHSCT (starting in June 2012) for a median duration of 10 months (range 1-44); 17/24 (71%) of the recipients had a clinical response to ruxolitinib but 3 had lost the response before their AlloHSCT. One patient had stopped ruxolitinib due to cytopenia. During a median follow up period of 41.7 months (range 0.5-260.7), 24/58 (41%) experienced acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and 33/49 (67%) evaluable patients developed chronic GVHD. Graft failure was seen in 2 patients - one primary and the other secondary. MF relapse was seen in 13/58 (22%) after a median time of 1.1 years post-AlloHSCT (IQR 0.7-2.4). The transplant-related mortality (TRM) was 25% at 1 year and 28% at 3 years post-AlloHSCT. The most common causes of death were infection (7 patients), disease relapse (6 patients), and multiorgan failure (5 patients). Transfusion independence was achieved in 45/58 (78%) patients by day +100 and in 40/44 (90%) by 1-year post-AlloHSCT. 17/48 (35%) evaluable patients had persistent grade 3 fibrosis on their day+100 bone marrow biopsy. The estimated 1-year, 5-year and 10-year RFS rates were 66% (95% CI 52-76), 55% (95% CI 41-67) and 47% (95% CI 42-61) respectively. The estimated 1-year, 5-year and 10-year OS rates were 72% (95% CI 59-82), 63% (95% CI 49-74) and 54% (95% CI 37-68) respectively. There were no differences in RFS (p=0.40) and OS (p=0.23) between those who received ruxolitinib pre-transplant vs. those who did not. Conclusion In our cohort, approximately half the AlloHSCT recipients achieved long-term survival, many in remission (10-year OS 54%; 10-year RFS 47%). TRM was seen in 25% within the first year after AlloHSCT, with patients most commonly succumbing to infections. The graft failure rate was low at 3%. An increasing number of patients received pre-AlloHSCT ruxolitinib in the recent years but we were unable to demonstrate improved transplant outcomes with its use in this single centre cohort.

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)0,001
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 enseignants0,304
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,611

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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 Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
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

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→