MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389248139 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-188108

The Impact of Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide (PTCy) with or without MMF in the Prevention of <i>De Novo</i> and <i>Progressive / Relapsing</i> Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease after HLA-Matched Donor Transplant

2023· article· en· W4389248139 sur OpenAlexaff
Rima M. Saliba, Curtis Marcoux, Amin M. Alousi, Gabriela Rondón, Julianne Chen, May Daher, Richard E. Champlin, Katayoun Rezvani, Elizabeth J. Shpall, Rohtesh S. Mehta

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineGraft-versus-host diseaseInternal medicineCumulative incidenceGastroenterologyIncidence (geometry)CyclophosphamideTransplantationImmunologyChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: We previously showed that PTCy/Tac ± MMF is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) as compared to Tac/MTX after HLA-matched sibling (MSD) but not after HLA-matched unrelated (MUD) donor stem cell transplant (SCT). Notably, ATG was used with Tac/MTX in MUD but not in MSD. [ Transplant Cell Ther. 2022;28(10):695] We aimed to further elucidate the epidemiology of cGvHD with the use of PTCy/Tac by comparing the impact of Tac/MTX vs PTCy/Tac ± MMF on de novo and progressive/relapsing cGvHD. Methods: Recipients of a MSD (Tac/MTX no ATG, or PTCy-based) or MUD (Tac/MTX with ATG, or PTCy-based) peripheral blood SCT between 2015-21 at our institution were eligible. To evaluate the impact of prophylaxis on the incidence of de novo and progressive/relapsing cGvHD, we performed two separate landmark analyses starting 3 months (mo) post-SCT among patients who had not and those who had been diagnosed with acute GvHD (aGvHD) within 3 mo post-SCT, respectively. Patients who died or experienced relapse of malignancy (n=135) or were diagnosed with cGvHD within 3 mo post-SCT (n=13) were excluded from the landmark analyses. There was no difference in the rate of early death/relapse or cGvHD by prophylaxis. Results: 1040 patients met the eligibility criteria. Median follow-up in survivors was 28 mo (IQRT: 18, 50). The cumulative incidence (CumInc) of cGvHD in the Tac/MTX, PTCy/Tac without MMF, and PTC/Tac with MMF groups was 39% (34-45, reference), 20% (14-29, p<0.001) and 20% (13-30, p=0.003) respectively in MSD; and 23% (18-30, reference), 17% (12-26; p=0.2), and 19% (14-26; p=0.6) respectively in MUD. Consistent with our previous findings, within the PTCy/Tac group, MMF was not associated with the overall rate of cGvHD in MSD (HR=1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.1, p=0.6) or MUD (HR=1.3, 95% CI 0.7-2.2, p=0.4). However, in the current study, stratified analyses performed to evaluate the impact of prophylaxis on the risk of de novo vs progressive/relapsing cGvHD revealed a potential role for MMF in the development of de novo cGvHD. Subsequent results are presented separately for the de novo and progressive/relapsing cGvHD risk cohorts (Table). The de novo cGvHD risk cohort included patients (N=442) who had not been diagnosed with aGvHD within 3 mo post-SCT. AML / MDS (60%) and CML / MPD (16%) were the most common diagnoses. 124 cases of cGvHD were diagnosed 3 -36 mo post-SCT with a CumInc of32% (27-37). In multivariate analysis (MVA), compared to Tac/MTX, the use of PTCy/Tac without MMF (HR=0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6, p<0.001) was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of cGvHD. Such reduction was not observed (Figure) with PTCy/Tac with MMF (HR vs Tac/MTX=1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.5, p=0.9). Additional independent predictors were myeloablative conditioning (HR=1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9, p=0.001) and MSD (HR=1.5, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, p=0.003). Notably, progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in PTCy/Tac/MMF (univariate HR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.4, p=0.4) vs PTCy/Tac. The progressive/relapsing cGvHD risk cohort included patients (N=450) who had been diagnosed with grade 1 (27%), 2 (59%) or 3-4 (14%) aGvHD within 3 mo post-SCT. AML / MDS (64%) and CML / MPD (14%) were the most common diagnoses. 109 cases of cGvHD were diagnosed 3 -36 mo post-SCT with a CumInc of 28% (24-33). In MVA analysis, the impact of prophylaxis differed by donor type. As compared with Tac/MTX, PTCy/Tac ± MMF was associated with significantly lower rate of progressive/relapsing cGVHD in MSD (HR=0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.4, p<0.001) but not in MUD (HR=0.6, 95% CI 0.4-1.1, p=0.09). This may be related to the use of ATG with Tac/MTX in MUD which was not used in MSD. HCT-CI ≥3 was the only other significant predictor of cGvHD (HR=0.6, 0.4-0.9, p=0.03). PFS was similar in PTCy/Tac ± MMF vs Tac/MTX in MSD (univariate HR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.3, p=0.3) or MUD (univariate HR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.2, p=0.3). Conclusions: PTCy/Tac ± MMF prophylaxis slows the development of progressive/relapsing cGvHD in MSD vs (Tac/MTX no ATG), but not in MUD (vs Tac/MTX with ATG). The addition of MMF to PTCy/Tac (vs PTCy/Tac) has no significant impact on the risk of progressive/relapsing cGVHD in MSD or MUD; but is associated with a higher risk of de novo cGvHD in MSD and MUD. Our data suggest that multi-center studies are warranted to determine whether MMF should be excluded from cGvHD prevention regimens in the HLA-matched donor setting with PTCy- based GvHD prophylaxis.

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)0,001
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: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
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)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,277
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · 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 revueBlood→Même sujetHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→Travaux en français237 207→