Treosulfan-Thiotepa-Fludarabine–Based Conditioning Regimen for Allogeneic Transplantation in Patients with Thalassemia Major: A Single-Center Experience from North India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the definite treatment for patients with thalassemia major. A busulfan (Bu) and cyclophosphamide (Cy)-based regimen has been the standard myeloablative chemotherapy, but it is associated with higher treatment-related toxicity, particularly in patients classified as high risk by the Pesaro criteria. Treosulfan-based conditioning regimens have been found to be equally effective and less toxic. Consequently, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of treosulfan/thiotepa/fludarabine (treo/thio/flu)-based conditioning regimens for allogeneic HSCT in patients with thalassemia major between February 2010 and September 2012. We compared those results retrospectively with results in patients who underwent previous HSCT with a Bu/Cy/antithymocyte globulin (ATG)-based conditioning regimen. A treo/thio/flu-based conditioning regimen was used in 28 consecutive patients with thalassemia major. The median patient age was 9.7 years (range, 2-18 years), and the mean CD34(+) stem cell dose was 6.18 × 10(6)/kg. Neutrophil and platelet engraftment occurred at a median of 15 days (range, 12-23 days) and 21 days (range, 14-34 days), respectively. Three patients developed veno-occlusive disease, 4 patients developed acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and 2 patients had chronic GVHD. Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was 21.4%. Two patients experienced secondary graft rejection. We compared these results with results in patients who underwent previous HSCT using a Bu/Cy/ATG-based conditioning regimen. Twelve patients were treated with this protocol, at a median age of 7.2 years (range, 2-11 years). One patient had moderate veno-occlusive disease, 2 patients developed acute GVHD, 2 patients had chronic GVHD, and 2 patients experienced graft rejection. There was no TRM in this group. We found no significant differences between the 2 groups (treo/thio/flu vs Bu/Cy/ATG) in terms of the incidence of acute GVHD, chronic GVHD, TRM, and graft failure, although a trend toward higher TRM was seen with the treo/thio/flu regimen.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".