Outcomes with allogeneic stem cell transplant using cryopreserved versus fresh hematopoietic progenitor cell products
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) is a mainstay of treatment for hematologic malignancies such as acute leukemias and aggressive lymphomas. Historically, fresh hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) products have been preferred to cryopreserved products (cryo-HPC) due to concerns of loss of stem cell viability and number with the cryopreservation procedure. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyze the outcomes of patients who received cryo-HPCs during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare this against historical cohorts that received fresh HPC. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all adult patients who received a peripheral blood alloHSCT in British Columbia, Canada between June 2017 and November 2021. Baseline characteristics, Kaplan-Meier (KM) overall survival (OS), engraftment, and incidences of acute and chronic graft versus host disease were compared between patients who received cryo-HPCs and fresh HPCs. Univariable analysis followed by multivariable analysis was performed using a backward stepwise selection procedure to generate predictors of OS, cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and primary and secondary graft failure. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-three patients were included in the analysis, with cryo-HPC representing 40%. Median viability was higher in the fresh-HPC group at 99.2% (IQR 98.3-99.5) versus cryo-HPCs at 97.0% (96.0, 98.6) (P < 0.01). The 12-month actuarial survivals were 77% in the fresh HPC and 75% in the cryo-HPC groups (P = 0.21). There were no differences between cryo-HPCs and fresh HPCs on univariable analysis of OS, CIR, or NRM. There was a shorter median time to platelet engraftment in patients receiving fresh HPC at 17 days (IQR 16, 20) versus cryo-HPC at 21 days (IQR 18, 29), P < 0.001. There was a shorter median time to neutrophil engraftment in the fresh HPC group at 17 days (IQR 14, 20) versus 20 days (17, 23), P < 0.001. Cryo-HPC accounted for 5 out of 6 cases of primary graft failure (P = 0.04), and 3 out of five cases of secondary graft failure (P = 0.39). There were no significant differences in acute GVHD between the fresh HPC and cryo-HPC groups (P = 0.34). The incidence of moderate or severe chronic GVHD was 32% in the fresh-HPC group and 17% in the cryo-HPC group (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, cryopreservation did not emerge as an independent predictor of OS, CIR, NRM, primary GF or secondary GF. However, viability <90% on arrival at our center was a significant predictor of OS (HR 5.3, 2.3-12.3, P < 0.01), primary graft failure (OR 36.3, 5.4-210.2, P < 0.01), and secondary graft failure (OR 18.4, 1.7-121.1, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received cryo-HPCs had similar OS and relapse rates to those who received fresh-HPCs but typically took 2-3 days longer to achieve engraftment of platelets or neutrophils and were associated increased primary graft failure. However, after accounting for multiple variables, cryopreservation was no longer a significant predictor of survival or engraftment while viability <90% emerged as an important predictor of OS, primary graft failure, and secondary graft failure. If confirmed, this suggests that viability on arrival at the infusion center may be a good quality control indicator used to identify HPC products that may warrant recollection if the risk of graft failure is sufficiently increased.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 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) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».