MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405092869 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-199206

Expanding the Donor Pool, the Number of Antigen Mismatches Has No Impact in the Outcomes of Haploidentical Stem Cell Transplantation with Peripheral Blood Stem Cells and Dual T Cell Depletion

2024· article· en· W4405092869 sur OpenAlexaff
Tommy Alfaro, Nihar Desai, Carol Chen, María Queralt Salas, Igor Novitzky‐Basso, Wilson Lam, Ivan Pašić, Arjun Law, Fotios V. Michelis, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Armin Gerbitz, Rajat Kumar, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, Jonas Mattsson, Auro Viswabandya

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésStem cellPeripheral Blood Stem CellsTransplantationImmunologyAntigenPeripheral bloodBiologyMedicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationCell biologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: The use of Haploidentical donors has expanded the donor pool, specially for ethnic minorities. We intend to assess the impact of antigen mismatches (mm) in a cohort of patients receiving peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) and GVHD prophylaxis with ATG and PTCY in combination. Methods: We analyzed the outcomes of 185 patients who underwent haploidentical stem cell transplant between August 2016 and November 2023 at Princess Margaret Hospital. The GVHD prophylaxis regimen comprised rabbit-ATG, PTCy, and CsA. T-cell replete peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) grafts were infused on day 0. Results: We created two groups with 5-6/10 antigen mismatches (n=154) and 7-9/10 antigen mismatches (n=31). The median age of recipients was 57 years for those having 5-6 mismatches and 53 years for those with 7-9 mismatches, p=0.45. Males constituted 58.4% in the 5-6 mismatch group and 61.3% in the 7-9 mismatch group (p=0.84). Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was the most common indication for transplant in both groups. Conditioning intensity was similarly distributed among the groups, for GVHD prophylaxis, 76.4% received a total ATG dose of 4.5 mg/kg, and 23.5% received 2 mg/kg in both groups combined with PTCY 50 mg/kg on D+3, +4. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus, the proportion of cryopreserved grafts, and median CD34+ cell dose was also similar across groups. The median follow-up time was 15 months, ranging from 5.6 to 38.4 months. At two years, OS was 57.2% (95% CI 48.7-64.8) for the 5-6 mm group and 55.2% (95% CI 35.4-71.2) for the 7-9 mm group (p=0.676), with median survival times of 48.26 months and 57.62 months, respectively, p=0.676. The cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) at two years was 19.6% (95% CI 13.5-26.6) and 24% (95% CI 10.3-40.9) for the respective groups, p=0.37. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 1 year for the 5-6 mm group and the 7-9 mm group was 25.7% (95% CI 19-32.8) versus 23.2% (95% CI 10-39.5) respectively, p=0.571. At 100 days, rates of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) for all grades were 37.1% (95% CI 29.4-44.7) for the 5-6 mm group and 41.9% (95% CI 24.3-58.6) for the 7-9 mm group, p=0.72. For acute GVHD grades III-IV, the rates at 100 days were 10.1% (95% CI 5.8-15.8) for the 5-6 mm group and 10.5% (95% CI 2.5-25.2) for the 7-9 mm group, p=0.49. Chronic GVHD all grades at one year was 21.9% (95% CI 15.7-28.9) for the 5-6 mm group and 18% (95% CI 6-34.5) for the 7-9 mm group, with two-year rates of 22.8% (95% CI 16.4-29.9) and 27% (95% CI 11.4-45.3), respectively, p=0.93. Chronic GVHD moderate-severe at one year was 16.1% (95% CI 10.6-22.6) for the 5-6 mm group and 7.7% (95% CI 1.2-22.2) for the 7-9 mm group, with two-year rates of 16.1% (95% CI 10.6-22.6) and 22.3% (95% CI 7.6-41.6), respectively, p=0.858. At two years, the graft versus host disease/relapse free survival (GRFS) rate for the 5-6 mm group was 53% (95% CI 44.5-60.8), while for the 7-9 mm group, it was 47% (95% CI 27.7-64.1), p=0.70. ANC engraftment rates at 30 and 60 days were 96% (95% CI 91.1-0.983) for the 5-6 mm group and 93.5% (95% CI 72.3-98.6) for the 7-9 mm group, p=0.49. Platelet engraftment at 30 days was 58.6% (50.2-66) for the 5-6 mm group and 61.3% (41.4-76.2) for the 7-9 mm group (p=0.59), with 60-day rates of 85.6% (95% CI 78.6-90.5) and 78% (95% CI 57.4-89.4), respectively, p=0.59. Primary graft failure rates at 30 days were 2.6% (95% CI 0.9-6.1) for the 5-6 mm group and 3.2% (95% CI 0.2-14.4) for the 7-9 mm group (p=0.07), and at 60 days, they were 4.6% (95% CI 2-8.7) versus 12.9% (95% CI 4-27.3), p=0.07. Median days to develop BSI were 15 (range 13-48) for the 5-6 mm group and 38 (range 13-NA) for the 7-9 mm group, p=0.64. The incidence of clinically significant CMV infection (≥500 copies) at 100 days was 13% (95% CI 8.2-18.8) for the 5-6 mm group and 22.6% (95% CI 9.8-38.6) for the 7-9 mm group, p=0.16. Clinically significant EBV infection (≥30000 copies) at 100 days was 25.3% (95% CI 18.7-32.4) for the 5-6 mm group and 16.1% (95% CI 5.7-31.2) for the 7-9 mm group, p=0.20. Conclusion: The combination of PTCY and ATG for GVHD prophylaxis effectively neutralizes the impact of antigen mismatches in PBSC haploidentical transplants, with favorable outcomes regardless of mismatch extent. This approach highlights the safety and viability of utilizing alternative donors, significantly broadening the donor pool and enhancing transplant accessibility.

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 enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
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

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation→Travaux en français237 207→