MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405037693 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-204140

Haploidentical and Mismatched Unrelated Donor Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Patients with Myelofibrosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4405037693 sur OpenAlexaff
Nihar Desai, Arjun Law, Igor Novitzky‐Basso, Ivan Pašić, Wilson Lam, Fotios V. Michelis, Armin Gerbitz, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, Rajat Kumar, Jonas Mattsson, Auro Viswabandya

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHematopoietic cellMyelofibrosisMedicineRetrospective cohort studyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationCohortGraft-versus-host diseaseInternal medicineOncologyImmunologyHaematopoiesisStem cellBiologyBone marrowGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) using Haploidentical (HID) and mismatched unrelated donors (MMUD) are viable options for hematological malignancies but data in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) are limited. This study examines the outcomes of MF patients receiving MMUD or HID transplants. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with MF undergoing first allo-HCT from MMUD or HID donors between January 2015 and January 2023. Disease, treatment, and transplant characteristics were collected. Outcomes included Overall Survival (OS), Non-relapse Mortality (NRM), graft versus host disease (GVHD), relapse, GVHD-free/relapse-free survival (GRFS), engraftment kinetics, and graft failure. OS and GRFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cumulative incidences of relapse (CIR), NRM, and acute and chronic GVHD were analyzed using competing risk models. Cox regression was used for OS & GRFS, and Fine-Gray regression for NRM, CIR, and graft failure. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant and analyses were performed using EZR (version 1.62). Results: Thirty-four patients with MF received MMUD or HID allo-HCT. The majority (n=21, 61.8%) had primary MF and were in the chronic phase (n=31, 91.2%). The median age at allo-HCT was 60 years (27 - 73), and 20 (59%) were female. The DIPSS+ score (n=30) was intermediate 2 - high in 28 (93.3%) patients. Twenty-one patients (61.8%) received JAK inhibitors before allo-HCT, the median interval from diagnosis to allo-HCT was 15.8 months (5 - 21). The median spleen size at allo-HCT was 19 cm (13 - 35), and 13 (38.2%) had a size >22 cm. Four (12%) had a splenectomy before transplant. Most (70.6%) received reduced-intensity conditioning. Twenty-six (76%) received total body irradiation [median, 200cGy (200-400)]. All patients received peripheral blood stem cells with a median CD34+ cell dose of 8.3 x106/kg (3.4 - 11.7). Eleven (32.3%) received cryopreserved grafts. Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy), and cyclosporine was used as GVHD prophylaxis in 27 patients (79%). Twenty-six (76.4%) patients engrafted. The median time for neutrophil and platelet engraftment was 20 days (14-29) and 29 days (12-152), respectively. The D+100 cumulative incidence of platelet count >50 x109/L was 85.4% (52.5 - 97). The cumulative incidence of primary graft failure (PGF) at D+100 was 23.5% (10.9 - 38.8) and secondary graft failure at D+365 was 6.3% (1.1-18.6).Patients receiving cryopreserved grafts had a D+100 cumulative incidence of PGF of 63.6% (26.6-85.7) vs 4.3% (3.1-18.7) for fresh grafts (p<0.001). On MVA, the use of cryopreserved grafts was associated with an increased risk of PGF [HR 22.8 (3.3 - 91) p<0.001]. At D+100, the cumulative incidence of all grades aGVHD was 29.4% (15 - 45%), and 6.6% (1.1 - 19.3) for grade III-IV aGVHD. Chronic GVHD (cGVHD) at 24 months was 42.6% (23-61) for all grades and 28.3% (13.8-44.8) for moderate-severe cGVHD. Ten (29.4%) patients relapsed, with a median time to relapse of 20.9 months (2 - 67.2). The CIR at 12 and 24 months was 6.3% (1.1-18.5) and 21.6% (8-38), respectively. The 12 and 24-month NRM rates were 24.2% (11.2-39.9) and 31% (16-48), respectively. Infections were the most common cause of NRM (n=5), followed by aGVDH (n=3), and graft failure (n=2). The cumulative incidence of EBV reactivation at 100 days was 39.1% (22-55), and only one patient developed post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder. CMV reactivation at D+100 was noted in 21.2% (9.1-36.5). None had CMV-related end-organ damage. The 12 & 24 months OS was 72.5% (53.7-84.7) and 62% (42-76), respectively, with a median OS of 42 months (13-NR). GRFS at 12 months was 28.7% (14.1-45.1), significantly higher in patients receiving ATG + PTCy prophylaxis (37% vs NR; p<0.001). There were no significant differences in OS, CIR, NRM, aGVHD, cGVHD, EBV reactivation, or CMV reactivation between HID/MMUD and MSD/MUD cohorts (n=144). On MVA, HID/MMUD, and cryopreserved grafts were associated with a significantly higher incidence of PGF. Conclusion: HID and MMUD grafts demonstrate comparable OS, NRM, GVHD, and relapse rates to MSD/MUD grafts. However, significantly higher rates of PGF, particularly with cryopreserved stem cells, highlight the need for careful consideration of graft type. Prospective studies comparing different donor options are warranted.

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: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
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
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,219
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · 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

Citations2
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMyeloproliferative Neoplasms: Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207