MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405039742 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-204123

Monocytes Matter: Impact of Monocyte Recovery on Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Outcomes with Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide As Graft Versus Host Disease Prophylaxis

2024· article· en· W4405039742 sur OpenAlexaff
Nihar Desai, Tommy Alfaro Moya, Arjun Law, Wilson Lam, Igor Novitzky‐Basso, Ivan Pašić, Fotios V. Michelis, Armin Gerbitz, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, Rajat Kumar, Jonas Mattsson, Auro Viswabandya

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGraft-versus-host diseaseTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationMedicineStem cellCyclophosphamideImmunologyHematopoietic cellMonocyteHaematopoiesisInternal medicineBiologyChemotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Monocytopenia has been associated with inferior survival following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) for graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has been associated with delayed neutrophil and platelet engraftment but its effect on monocyte recovery has not been documented (2). Previous research has identified monocyte recovery as a predictor of overall survival, but not in the context of PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis. In this study, we aim to evaluate if monocyte recovery predicts favorable outcomes in patients receiving PTCy and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) GVHD prophylaxis. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing allo-HCT between January 2019 and October 2023 from matched unrelated donors (MUD) using a combination of ATG and PTCy for GVHD prophylaxis. Categorical variables were presented as numbers and percentages, and continuous variables were summarized using median and range. Overall survival (OS) and GVHD-free/relapse-free survival (GRFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and differences were assessed using the log-rank test. The absolute monocyte count (AMC) at D+28, D+100, and D+180 were recorded from the complete blood cell count. The primary endpoint was to assess the impact of AMC on overall survival. For the outcome analyses, we defined a cutoff AMC value of <0.3 x 109/L. Multivariable Cox regression analysis (MVA) assessed risk factors for OS and GRFS. Fine-gray regression was used for non-relapse mortality (NRM), cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), and GVHD. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant, and analyses were conducted using EZR (version 1.62). Results: A total of 295 patients were included in this study. The median age was 58 years (18 - 74), 162 (54.9%) were male. Acute myeloid leukemia was the most common indication (51.8%). Most (66.4%) received reduced-intensity conditioning. The GVHD prophylaxis was uniform across the cohort and included a combination of ATG and PTCy with a calcineurin inhibitor. Peripheral blood stem cell grafts were used in all patients. The median CD34+ cell dose was 7.36 x 106/kg (1.7 - 13.2). Sixty-three (21.3%) received cryopreserved grafts. The HCT-CI score was ≥3 in 85 (28.8%) patients. The disease risk index (DRI) was high - very high in 46 (15.6%). At the time of analysis, 66 (22.3%) patients have relapsed, and 84 (28.5%) have died. The median follow-up of survivors was 18.1 months (1 - 57.3). Engraftment occurred in 289 (97.9%) patients. The median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were 18 (17 - 19) and 23.5 days (21- 25), respectively. The OS, GRFS, and the cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years was 68.1% (95% CI: 61.5 - 73.9), 47.1% (95% CI: 40.4 - 53.4), and 22.5% (95% CI: 17.3 - 28.1) respectively. At 1 year, the NRM was 14.5 % (95% CI: 10.5 - 19). The D+100 cumulative incidence of grade II-IV, and grade III-IV aGVHD were 24.4% (95% CI: 19.6 - 29.6), and 6.8% (95% CI: 4.2 - 10.3) respectively. Patients with AMC >0.3 x 109/L at D+100 had a significantly higher 2-year OS [80.7% (73.2- 86.2) vs 55.9% (36.6 - 71.5), p=0.002], and GRFS [58.1% (50 -65) vs 28.9% (15 - 45) p=0.001]. The NRM at 1 year for patients with AMC >0.3 x 109/L was 3.6 % (1.5 - 7.3) and 16.3% (12.9 - 41.9) for those with AMC <0.3 x 109/L (p<0.001). Infections were the most common cause of NRM, followed by GVHD. The cumulative incidence of relapse, and acute and chronic GVHD was not significantly different between the groups. On univariate analysis, high-very high DRI, higher HCT-CI score, acute GVHD grade III-IV, and day +100 AMC >0.3 x 109/L were associated with OS. On MVA, day +100 AMC >0.3 x 109/L was predictive of improved OS, HR 0.37 (0.19 - 0.69), p=0.002. High-very high DRI was associated with inferior OS, HR 2.45 (1.2 - 4.9), p=0.01. The use of cryopreserved grafts, aGVHD, and D+100 AMC were significant for NRM on UVA. On the MVA, D+100 AMC >0.3 x 109/L was associated with improved NRM, HR 0.11 (0.4 - 2.9), p<0.001. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that monocyte recovery by day 100 post-allo-HCT is a significant predictor of OS and NRM in patients receiving PTCY and ATG for GVHD prophylaxis. These findings underscore the importance of monocyte recovery as a marker for favorable post-transplant outcomes and highlight the continued importance of monitoring monocyte recovery post-allo-HCT in patients receiving PTCy.

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)0,002
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 enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
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 GPT0,258
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · 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

Citations1
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationTravaux en français237 207