Fludarabine and 2-Gy TBI is Superior to 2 Gy TBI as Conditioning for HLA-Matched Related Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Phase III Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risks and benefits of adding fludarabine to a 2-Gy total body irradiation (TBI) nonmyeloablative regimen are unknown. For this reason, we conducted a prospective randomized trial comparing 2-Gy TBI alone, or in combination with 90 mg/m(2) fludarabine (FLU/TBI), before transplantation of peripheral blood stem cells from HLA-matched related donors. Eighty-five patients with hematological malignancies were randomized to be conditioned with TBI alone (n = 44) or FLU/TBI (n = 41). All patients had initial engraftment. Two graft rejections were observed, both in the TBI group. Infection rates, nonrelapse mortality, and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) were similar between groups. Three-year overall survival was lower in the TBI group (54% versus 65%; hazard ratio [HR], .57; P = .09), with higher incidences of relapse/progression (55% versus 40%; HR, .55; P = .06), relapse-related mortality (37% versus 28%; HR, .53; P = .09), and a lower progression-free survival (36% versus 53%; HR, .56; P = .05). Median donor T cell chimerism levels were significantly lower in the TBI group at days 28 (61% versus 90%; P < .0001) and 84 (68% versus 92%; P < .0001), as was NK cell chimerism on day 28 (75% versus 96%; P = .0005). In conclusion, this randomized trial demonstrates the importance of fludarabine in augmenting the graft-versus-tumor effect by ensuring prompt and durable high-level donor engraftment early after transplantation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".